baseball

[I]s the sacrifice of 58,000 Americans worth a bad Yankee team?

The answer is obviously yes.

This is a question that could tear apart the nation... Red Sox Nation, that is. 

More here.  I really don't think this is anything more than a coincidence, and I certainly don't agree with the blogger's estimation of Lyndon Johnson. 

Still, if one wanted to develop a completely unsubstantiated hypothesis, however, one could posit that the explanation for this correlation is that under a GOP president, the mercurial owner of the Yankees faced fewer contraints to royally f**k up interfere in the management of the team, resulting in some spectacular flame-outs on the diamond. 

It's not true, of course, but it's a more entertaining urban myth than Obama's citizenship status or Bush's role in the 9/11 attacks. 

 

 

Major League Baseball starts in earnest today.  As longtime readers of this blog are aware, I am a diehard Red Sox fan.  They are playing in what everyone acknowledges to be the toughest division in baseball, with three teams -- the Sox, Rays and Yankees -- fully capable of winning a World Series this year. 

What will be odd, this time around, is that during this offseason the Red Sox did something really, really astonishing -- they followed a lot of the unsolicited recommendations I made 3 1/2 months ago (just to be clear, I'm arguing coincidence and not causation here). 

Still, this raises an existential question as a fan -- what happens if your team does almost exactly what you recommend they do, but they don't win?  Who can you blame then? 

[Um, what if they do win?--ed.  I'm a Red Sox fan.  Times have changed, but I can still go to the dark place.] 

Both the Hardball Times and Baseball Prospectus like these movies, so I'm hardly alone here.  When comparing the Red Sox to the Yankees and Rays, what strikes me about the Sox is the (on paper) relative strength of their bullpen, bench, and farm system.  Over a 162 game season, that has to count for something. 

Of course, no matter what Moneyball says, you don't play games on paper.  Play ball!!

The World Baseball Classic has been under way since Saturday, and this year's version of the event has been even more exciting than the 2006 inaugural tournament.  Already, the U.S. barely edged Canada, 6-5 in a game that came down to the last pitch.  As I'm typing this, Australia, having upset Mexico earlier in the week, is giving Cuba a run for its money (the Aussies are winning 4-2 in the 6th.  UPDATE:  the Cubans come back to eke out a 5-4 victory).  If Cuba loses, I would hate to see Fidel Castro's blog post about it (hat tip:  SI's Tom Verducci)

This is all prelude, however, to the biggest shocker of all -- in San Juan, Puerto Rico, the Netherlands eliminated the Dominican Republic, beating them 2-1 in 11 innings.  This was the second victory by the Dutch over the D.R. in a week. 

For those traditional Foreign Policy reading, World Cup-loving kind of readers, let me try to explain the magnitude of this upset in terms that you would understand.  Imagine that the South Korean soccer team just beat Brazil in a match played in Uruguay.  No, check that -- imagine that the Koreans beat the Brazilians twice in two matches.  That's what we're talking about here. 

The implications for the globalization of baseball are pretty good, as Verducci points out: 

Major League Baseball can work all of its machinations to pump up interest in the tournament, such as marketing and broadcasting. But there is nothing more powerful to sell the tournament than the unscripted magnificence of the game itself, never more so than when what we regard as the meek overtake the mighty.

 

It kills me to write this post, but I'm about to defend the New York Yankees.  I do it only to make a point about the American economy and free competition, so bear with me.  In the Philadelphia Inquirer, Phil Sheridan writes the following about the Yankee signing of Mark Teixeira: 

The New York Yankees represent the very worst of America. Overstatement? Consider the times. Cornerstone industries are faltering, taxpayers are being asked to bail out mismanaged financial institutions and their overpaid CEOs, and decent, hard-working men and women are being laid off or worrying that they could be next. Now consider the eight-year, $180 million contract the Yankees reportedly handed first baseman Mark Teixeira Tuesday. Stack it on top of the $161 million deal signed by pitcher CC Sabathia and the (relatively) modest $82.5 million promised to A.J. Burnett and you have the most egregious display of financial irresponsibility in the history of sports. The Yanks' insane overspending would be bad for baseball in the best of times. These are not the best of times.... What's wrong here is obvious. It's also not really new. Unlike the NFL, NBA and NHL, baseball has no salary cap. Those leagues do not have caps for the sheer, unbridled joy of finding loopholes and exceptions. They have them as part of an effort to maintain some kind of competitive balance among teams from different-size markets in disparate parts of the country.

Sheridan's response is pretty typical of non-Yankee fans -- which is disturbing, because it's so wrong on so many levels.  First, it would be awesome if American corporations acted more like the Yankees.  One cause of the deepening recession is that firms are afraid to do anything other than hold cash in hand at the moment.  The smart ones should invest in expansion -- capital is ridiculously cheap right now and they'll be well-poised once the economy takes off again.  If enough firms acted that way, the economy actually would take off again.  In signing these players, the Yankees have made long-term investments while keeping their expenditures constant relative to last year's payroll.  Given their move to a new stadium, their revenues should increase.  They have made these moves in order to improve their chances of competing.  That's how corporations should behave.   As for Sheridan's point about competitive balance -- well, let's go to Joe Posnanski, who has some useful data on this point:

it always gives me great comfort to see the following facts: -- Over the past 10 years, eight different teams have won the World Series. In all, 15 teams made the World Series -- half of the teams in baseball. -- Over the past 20 years, 14 different teams have won the World Series. In all 22 teams made the World Series. Now, we're at more than two-thirds who have reached the Series. -- Over the last 30 years, 20 different teams have won the World Series, and only four -- Cubs, Mariners, Rangers and the Expos/Nationals -- have failed to get there... I'm not saying that the Yankees will not win in 2009 -- that's an awfully good team now, absolutely the best that money can buy. But just remember that key fact: 20 teams have won a World Series in the last 30 years. And by comparison: -- Only 14 teams have won the Super Bowl over the last 30 years. -- Only 14 different men have won Wimbledon over the last 30 years. -- Only 13 teams have won the Stanley Cup over the last 30 years. -- Only nine teams have won an NBA title over the last 30 years.

It is telling that the team sports with salary caps actually have more dynasties than baseball.  In baseball, more money can make the Yankees better, but it can't guarantee them anything.  As a Red Sox fan, I'm perfectly happy to have the rest of America hate the Yankees along with me.  Holding them up as the symbol of what's wrong with the country, however,  is pretty ludicrous.  UPDATE:  Thanks to YFSF, I see that Dan Szymborski has made a similar argument over at Baseball Think Factory: 

The Yankees do spend more money than other teams in MLB, but the differences would be less drastic if the payrolls of many teams had been rising up to the waves of new cash that have entered baseball in recent years. Going by the NFL formula, very generous considering the MLBPA is far more powerful an entity than any other union in sports, the payroll floor for 2009 would almost certainly be in the $100 million range. 58% of league revenue, as the players in NFL get, would be, in baseball, an average team payroll of a hair under $120 million. It's pretty clear that while the Yankees are outspending everyone comfortably, the rest of baseball has just as much to do with the payroll disparity as the Yankees do. Now, what about the Yankee mindset? The Steinbrenners aren't anywhere near as rich or as liquid as some other owners in baseball such as Carl Pohlad of the Twins. The difference is that the Steinbrenners have always invested in their team, always striven to put the best product possible out on the field. The Yankees have certainly made some terrible trades, especially when King George was hands-on the most, but they were done with the motive of making the team better. Yes, the Yankees got a huge, undeserved payday from the locals for their stadium, like most teams in baseball did, but it's a mitigating factor that they're actually plowing those funds back into the on-field product. And the team never threatened to not compete until they got their sweet check. Perhaps a small difference, but I see it as a good bit more ethical than Kevin McClatchy demanding taxpayer moneys to help the Pirates compete and then turn around and use all the money to fund his failing media empire. 

Baseball Prospectus has been running an off-season series entitled "GM for a Day" in which their staff suggests offseason plans for myriad teams (here's what they did with the Yankees).  In the wake of the Yankees acquisition of C.C. Sabathia, A.J. Burnett, and M.C. Teixeira, much of Red Sox Nation is panicking, while others are contemplating Plan B's.  So, I'm gonna take a stab at what the Red Sox can do in the remaining bits of the offseason in order to best compete for the World Series.  Here are my proposed moves:

1. Don't panic.  The Yankees have made some great signings, no doubt.  As I pointed out here, however, their track record on this front has not been all that promising over the past decade.  Meanwhile, both Toronto and Tampa Bay should regress from the previous season.  Things are still pretty promising for the Red Sox.  The last time the Red Sox toyed with but rejected a swap of Mike Lowell for a high-profile first baseman, they won a World Series the next year.  In 2009, the parent club should expect useful contributions from prospects like Daniel Bard, Michael Bowden, and Lars Anderson.  BP's Joe Sheehan is correct when he points out, "The Yankees have been active by necessity; the Red Sox have been quiet by choice."  As Bill Burt concurs in the Berkshire Eagle-Tribune, "That's the beauty of the position the Red Sox are in. They did not need Mark Teixeira. He was a luxury, an expensive one."
2. Sign Kevin Youkilis and Jon Lester to long-term contracts.  Two-time World Series winners tend not to get much sympathy from the rest of the world, but signing Youkilis and Lester (along with Dustin Pedroia's recent contract) serves several baseball and PR purposes.  It locks up Boston's best three players from last year ; it highlights the fact that Boston's strength is its home-grown talent (in contrast to the Yankees); and it keeps together a core that has clearly thrived in the hothouse that is Boston sports. 
3. Sign Rocco Baldelli to a three year, $18 million contract; sign David Eckstein to a two-year, $8 million contract.  The Red Sox' biggest flaw last year was a weak bench.  There was no decent pinch-hitter in the group, in particular on the right-hand side.  Sean Casey was a great guy, but he couldn't field and I'm pretty sure that a 59-year old Bill Buckner could have beaten him in a foot race.  So if the Sox are going to overpay, overpay for bench strength.  Baldelli is a local New Englander, he can play all three outfield positions, and he is apparently less sick that previously thought.  Give him what he likely craves, which is a long-term deal.  He's great insurance for the inevitable J.D. Drew injury or Jacoby Ellsbury slump.  Eckstein is past his prime, but he can play both second base and shortstop, and is a pretty decent situational hitter when the need arises.  No one will offer him a two-year deal, so this guarantees we get him. 
4. Trade Clay Buchholz and Manny Delcarmen to the Texas Rangers for Jarrod Saltalamacchia and Hank Blalock; resign Jason Varitek once he realizes the non-existent market for his services.  The biggest weakness in the Red Sox lineup last year was at catcher, so deal with that.  There are debates about whether Saltalamacchia will be able to stay at catcher, but the great thing about getting him is that it doesn't matter.  He can catch for the next few years, by which point one could sign Joe Mauer (or promote Dusty Brown) and move him to DH or first base.  Varitek can be Saltalamacchia's caddy/advisor.  Blalock provides a corner bench player with some pop.  Trades and player development have made both Buchholz and Delcarmen expendable while still valuable, and Lord knows the Rangers need pitching. 
5. Convert Justin Masterson into a three-inning closer.  Here's an area where the Red Sox can make in innovation, or retrovation; bring back the three-inning closer.  Masterson would be perfect in this role, and helps to give the bullpen a guaranteed rest day.  Let him pitch once every three or games, and you get 120+ innings out of him, while easing the pressure of the rest of the 'pen.
6. Trade Julio Lugo and David Pauley to the Oakland Athletics for a bag of balls Jerry Blevins.  Lugo will be a distraction if he's around Boston, and if anyone recognizes Lugo's positive qualities, it's Billy Beane.  If the Sox offer to eat half his contract, then Beane will give up a decent lefty reliever in exchange for an inexpensive two years of a shortstop with an above-average OPS at his position.  The Red Sox would get a backstop to Hideki Okajima and end the Javier Lopez experiment.     
7. Sign John Smoltz to a one-year contract.  My wheeling/dealing leaves the Red Sox a little thin in the fifth starter/swingman/11th reliever category.  Smoltz has started and closed in their career, so he can fit the bill if Bowden or Masterson or Ramon Ramirez falls short somehow. 

So, the 2009 Red Sox would look like this: Lineup: 

• CF  Jacoby Ellsbury
• 2B  Dustin Pedroia
• DH  David Ortiz
• 1B  Kevin Youkilis
• 3B  Mike Lowell
• RF  J.D. Drew
• LF  Jason Bay
• C  Jarrod Saltalamacchia
• SS  Jed Lowrie

Bench: 

• OF Baldelli
• OF/INF Bailey
• INF Blalock
• INF Eckstein
• C  Varitek

Rotation: 

• Beckett
• Lester
• Matsuzaka
• Wakefield
• Bowden/Smoltz

Bullpen:

• Papelbon
• Okajima
• Ramirez
• Masterson
• Blevins
• Smoltz/Bard

 I'm pretty comfortable with that. 

Over at mlb.com, Mike Bauman writes a really dumb paragraph about how the Red Sox need to counter the Yankees' recent shopping spree with a whopper of a contract for Mark Teixiera: 

The Red Sox, having finally gained the upper hand in the rivalry with the Yankees by the virtue of two World Series championships in the last five seasons, cannot sit idly by and watch the Yanks make dramatic, if incredibly expensive, improvements. And that is what the acquisitions of Sabathia and Burnett were. The Yankees have not won a World Series since 2000, primarily because their starting pitching wasn't of championship caliber. On paper, at least, that shortcoming has now been directly addressed. 

Hey, that's right!  Because when another team makes a free agent signing, the only possible response is to trade away promising young players or spend lots of money on free agents!  Because since 2000, the Yankees' acquisition of expensive starting pitchers -- Jeff Weaver, Kevin Brown, Jose Contreras, Mike Mussina, Randy Johnson, Carl Pavano, Jaret Wright, and Kei Igawa -- has worked like a charm for them!  [Is this fair to Mussina?--ed.  No, he was actually worth the money -- but he's the only one on this list who qualifies.]  At a minimum, the thirtysomething pitchers will fit right in with the thirtysomething lineup.  Going after Teixeira might be an intrinsically good idea -- but doing it just because the Yankees have blown a lot of dough is pretty stupid.    The Red Sox look to be in decent shape next year.  Their top four starters are all back.  Theo Epstein has addressed the bullpen with some trades this offseason.  Bauman is correct to say that the Red Sox need an improved offense, but one could argue that better health is they key here.  The Red Sox lost a lot of big run producers because of injuries last year -- it's reasonable to expect bounce-back seasons from Mike Lowell and David Ortiz in particular.  The pipeline of minor league talent, from Lars Anderson to Michael Bowden to Daniel Bard -- looks pretty promising.  All Theo Epstein needs to do is not listen to Mike Bauman and the Red Sox should be fine. 

Both the Boston Globe's Dan Shaughnessy and the New York Times' Jack Curry devote their columns today to Red Sox manager Terry Francona.  They have similar themes -- Sox fans underappreciate Francona, but not true baseball insiders.  Shaughnessy first: 

Francona is never going to get the Red Auerbach or Bill Belichick treatment around here. In the eyes of some old-school Red Sox watchers, he's not even on a par with Dick Williams. But when do we start looking at what is happening with the Red Sox and assigning some credit to the man in the corner office? Just because Francona doesn't intimidate people or try to portray himself as a genius, is that any reason to diminish what the man has done?

And now Curry: 

Although Francona has more World Series rings as a manager than Lou Piniella,  Bobby Cox or Jim Leyland, he is not routinely mentioned as one of baseball’s elite managers.... Stop fans on any street that is not in New England and ask them to pick baseball’s best managers. Not many would select Francona. When Francona was presented with this theory, he said, “My dad would.”

OK, enough -- do Shaughnessy and Curry have some secret bar where they meet a few guys named Sully once a month so they can write this kind of "fan-on-the-street" crap with a clear conscience?  As a Red Sox fan who talks to other Sox fans, I have rarely, if ever, heard an unkind word directed at Francona during his tenure as manager here.  In fact, most Sox fans think Francona excels at the three biggest challenges a Red Sox manager faces:  a) keeping the players on the same page; b) handling the media; c) never panicking during the season. If anything, it's the national media -- I'm looking at you, BBWAA -- that underrates Francona.  Consider that he's never won Manager of the Year.  In the miracle year of 2004, he finished fifth in the voting, receiving zero first-place ballots.  In 2005, he managed to get a team without a true #1 or #2 starter and no established closer into the postseason and finished sixth in the voting, receiving zero first-place ballots.  Last year, despite helming the team with the best record, he finished fourth in the voting and received zero first-place ballots.   Oh, and he's not going to win it this year, either -- Joe Maddon will.  Why is this?  The MOY tends to go to the guy who's team exceeeds expectations -- and since Francona's been around, the Red Sox have been expected to go in the post-season.  GM Theo Epstein (deservedly) gets a lot of credit that might otherwise go to Francona.  It's a regular season vote as well, so Francona's post-season success doesn't count.  And Francona really is pretty self-effacing -- if it's an act, then it's a very convincing one.  So, to use a poker metaphor, Francona usually holds better cards than the other guys.  His skill at playing those cards, however, is underrated.  If the Red Sox win the World Series again this year, however, my bet is that Francona's reputation goes sky-high.  By some metrics, the Red Sox are still the best team in the league, but they've had to deal with a lot of injuries plus the whole Manny brouhaha.  Unlike last year, they're not expected to win this year.  Joe Torre is no longer in New York City.  If he can exceed expectations again, then maybe the national baseball media elite will catch up to what Red Sox fans have known for quite some time -- Terry Francona is a damn fine manager. 

This baseball season, I've been trying to figure out if the 2008 Red Sox were going to be like the 2007 team (which would have been awesome), the 2005 team (good but the pitching wasn't quite there) or the 2006 team (superficially good but one step away from falling off a cliff).  After the big Manny Ramirez trade, however, I can now add 2004 to the possible list of teams -- scuffling team goes on a big-time tear after trading away a talented malcontent.  I love this tidbit from Nick Cafardo:  "Ramirez was asleep when the trade went down [at 4 PM!!--DD] and didn't know about it for a couple hours later."  Seth Mnookin has a good Soxfan rundown of the pros and cons of the trade.  I'll add four points:

1. If ESPN's Steve Phillips thinks the trade was a loser for the Red Sox but Baseball Prospectus' Joe Sheehan and Christina Kahrl think it's a winner, then I'll sleep well tonight. 
2. In his tick-tock on the trade, Gordon Edes wrote:  "Management had taken an informal poll of the club's veteran leaders; what it was hearing was that [Red Sox Manager] Francona was in danger of losing the clubhouse if Ramírez was allowed to continue in the same vein, begging off from playing because of injuries teammates privately questioned, obsessing on his contract, playing hard when the mood suited him."  You know what?  Francona has been so underestimated as a manager of modern-day baseball, I'm actually willing to say that I'd trade not winning the World Series this year if it meant Francona was hale and hearty enough to manage the next five years.  As Edes' story suggests, I think trading Manny did just that. 
3. At lot of fans think the ownership of the team were "enablers" of Manny.  I think the Red Sox's calculation for years has been that while they wished Manny had given them max effort all the time, 90% effort from a transcendent player was better than 100% from most other players.  Ramirez is still a great player, but statheads will tell you that he's no longer transcendent.  I'll miss the 2003-2005 Manny, and the Manny from the 2007 playoffs -- but it was time for him to leave. 
4. The Red Sox have not had good luck with deadline deals for Canadian ballplayers -- I hope that Jason Bay can break that jinx.