8 comments "Derek Jeter is Worth $12 Million to the Yankees Because He's Derek Jeter" Says the Lemming Media

I have no issue with the Yankees re-signing Derek Jeter to a one year contract for $12 million. It's their money and they can do with it what they want. I don't think it was a very smart move though. I like how the Yankees gave $12 million to Derek Jeter, after an injury-prone year where it isn't out of the question to wonder if he will ever be able to play something close to a full season again, and the media has ZERO problem with this. None. It's not that they think Jeter will bounce back, it's that he is Derek Jeter, so OF COURSE he deserves this much money. This is the same media that froths at the mouth about how Robinson Cano isn't worth what he will get on the free agent market, seem to be well-aware the Yankees seem to now have a budget, and are also aware the Yankees have an old team and that was part of their issues this past season. Giving Jeter $12 million (actually $12.8 million...not exactly sure how that number became the cap figure) is not a problem and he deserves it because of his past performance...which is always the best way to compensate a player for the upcoming year, not on current or future performance, but on past performance.

First, Bob Nightengale pats the Yankees on the back. 

The New York Yankees, desperate to slash their massive payroll below their self-imposed salary cap for 2014, plan to play hardball with everyone this winter.

Well, everyone except Derek Jeter.

And really, if the Yankees aren't going to play hardball with anyone then it should be the 39 year-old shortstop who played in 17 games and got 73 plate appearances the season before. That's the guy they should just give as much money to as possible.

And yes, I realize Jeter is worth more to the Yankees than any other team and the Yankees weren't going to not re-sign him, but now one questions the Yankees for being able to exercise his club option at $9.5 million and actually giving him a raise instead? No one thinks this wasn't the best move by the Yankees, even if it is only $2.5 million?

The Yankees will privately tell you they have no idea whether he can be an everyday shortstop any longer.

Brilliant move then. Completely defensible in every manner and there is no need to even question it for one second.

They have no clue to whether he can still be a productive hitter.

They should have given him $15 million then.

He missed 145 games.

And he hit .190.

So what do the Yankees do?

They give him a raise, of course.

I'm not saying lowball the guy, but he isn't playing much longer in the majors and $9.5 million is still really good compensation for Jeter coming off a season where he played 17 games. Jeter signed the contract that said the team had a club option at $9.5 million, so why waste $2.5 million and give him a raise? Shouldn't this be a question some writer asks rather than just saying, "Derr..............he's Derek Jeter, so of course he deserves more money."

The Yankees had Jeter over the barrel this time. They could have merely exercised their club option at $9.5 million, and told him take it, or leave it.

Jeter, who knows he'll never play anywhere else, would have had no choice but to accept it.

He would have had a choice, but Jeter would have been kind of a dick if he demanded a trade because the Yankees exercised a clause in the contract he signed. 39 years of age coming off a season where he played 17 games doesn't give Jeter the most leverage to demand a trade.

Yet, after missing the playoffs for only the second time in 17 seasons this past year, with the harsh possibility that they will have an early vacation again after the 2014 season, it's no time to create bad will.

Call it the anti A-Rod sentiment.

So of course, it's A-Rod's fault that Jeter got a $2.5 million raise from his club option of $9.5 million. Of course it is A-Rod's fault. At this point, everything is A-Rod's fault. Global warming, the Holocaust, the conflict in the Middle East, the existence of Miley Cyrus, and anything else that can be thought of. All A-Rod's fault. Jeter isn't overpaid nor will he underperform his contract, but if he does, then it is A-Rod's fault the Yankees signed Jeter to that contract because A-Rod is such an asshole.

Yet, even if this $2.5 million bump costs the Yankees a middle reliever next season, it'll be worth every penny of goodwill.

Goodwill doesn't win games. If goodwill won games then the Blue Jays would be World Series champs because their spending spree a winter ago got them a lot of goodwill from their fans. It doesn't matter if the $2.5 million costs the Yankees a middle reliever because that can be blamed on A-Rod.

They couldn't afford another acrimonious salary negotiation with Jeter, 39, not after the open hostilities during the last talks in 2010, when he came off a 10-year, $189 million contract. They signed Jeter to a three-year, $51 million contract with a 2014 option.

Only in the case of Derek Jeter could an acrimonious salary negotiation not only leave zero stink on the player, but the next time the player's contract runs out, the media will say the team actually couldn't afford another tough negotiation with that player. Only for Jeter could the media believe the club actually owes him something after not immediately giving in to his contract demands three years ago.

They decided that even if this is going to be Jeter's final season, and tougher decisions need to be made to get below the luxury tax, let it be a peaceful one.

And if Jeter wasn't happy with the club option for $9.5 million on the contract he chose to sign, then why would the Yankees be at fault for this? Wouldn't this be a reflection on Jeter and how he is (hypothetically) demanding too much money coming off the season he had in 2013? Of course not. The Yankees need to appease Jeter because they wouldn't want him to throw a fit about "only" getting $9.5 million coming off a season where he played 17 games.

The man, after all, will become the most tenured player in franchise history the moment he steps onto the field in 2014. The 13-time All-Star has helped the Yankees win five World Series titles, and needless to say, make tens of millions of dollars.

Very true, but the biggest mistake a professional team can make is pay a player in the future for his past performance. It leads to dumb financial mistakes nearly every time.

In hindsight, Jeter should have shut himself down at the end of 2012 with his badly sprained ankle, but refused to stop playing, until it broke during the American League Championship Series against the Tigers.

That's Jeter.

Ah yes, that's Jeter. A-Rod was the epitome of selfish for working hard to re-join the Yankees, but that's just Jeter to play through an injury.

He had missed only 82 games in his career during his first 18 seasons, but his body finally gave out.

What a hero. This is, of course, why Jeter should be paid more than the value of his club option. It's not like he's been well-compensated during his career or anything. He's only made $253 million over his career. Healthcare costs to pay for that broken body is expensive.

This won't be Mariano Rivera retiring at the top of his game with a celebrated farewell tour.

This will be one of the greatest Yankees in history, retiring after the 2014 season, knowing that the time has come to put away the spikes for good.

I have a feeling this same thing will be written after this year. I have a feeling 2014 isn't Jeter's last year, but apparently Bob Nightengale is feeling nostalgic and thinks 2014 is Jeter's last season.

The Yankees realize this, and this $12 million contract is a farewell gift, thanking him for these past 19 beautiful seasons.

And really, when your best hitter is a free agent and the team desperately needs to acquire talent to get younger and less injury-prone players, why not make it rain by giving a 39 year old shortstop $2.5 million more than you are required to give him? It's not like the Yankees have other holes on their team to fill or anything.

It was the right move, and a classy gesture.

No need to question it at all.

Just don't expect him to play like a $12 million shortstop.

And of course because it is Derek Jeter, if he doesn't have to live up to his contract then one will care. Watch out though if the Yankees give Edwin Santana a one year deal for $12 million. If he has a 4.65 ERA and pitches 32 games, winning 14 of them then Bob Nightengale will be glad to say what a disappointment Santana is.

Now, the since-fired Danny Knobler will also marvel at what a great idea it was to give Jeter $2.5 million than the value of his clue option. I don't think Knobler was fired for writing this column, but he may have deserved to be fired for not even suggesting possibly this wasn't the best move by the Yankees.

The Yankees just signed him for $12 million.

Why?

Because he's Derek Jeter.

"Because he's Person X" is always great reasoning to overpay a player. What could go wrong? The Angels signed Albert Pujols for $200 million-plus. Why? He's Albert Pujols!

The new deal will actually give them a slightly higher Jeter salary for luxury-tax calculations, not a lower one.

And yet, there's no need to question this deal apparently.

So why do it, when the Yankees could have simply let Jeter exercise his $9.5 million player option for 2014?

Because he's Derek Jeter.

Repeating the same reason over and over doesn't make it more correct nor means something should happen due to the reason being repeated. Only Danny Knobler and a six-year old don't understand this.

Jeter and agent Casey Close worked out the new deal with Yankee owner Hal Steinbrenner. And if Steinbrenner's goal was to avoid any of the acrimony that went along with Jeter's last negotiation with the Yankees, well, then maybe it was $2.5 million (the difference between the $9.5 million option and the new $12 million contract) well spent.

I get it, I really do. Jeter is a great player and a "true" Yankee (whatever that means). He's part of the "Core Four" and will be in the Hall of Fame. Still, being afraid of Jeter and any demands he might make isn't a reason to give him $2.5 million more than his club option is worth. He signed the contract that included a club option for $9.5 million. Imagine if the Yankees exercised a club option for Curtis Granderson and then gave him $2.5 million more than the club option because they were afraid of acrimonious negotiations. I can't imagine the media would just be okay with this without questioning why Granderson was going to demand more money. I also can't imagine the New York media wouldn't be willing to criticize Granderson for demanding more money in an offseason where the Yankees had a quite few holes on the roster to fill.

If Jeter was such a team player wouldn't he just be happy with $9.5 million so the Yankees could spend the other money to make the team as a whole better? After all, we've heard for 20 years what a team player Jeter is, so why would he cause acrimonious negotiations in this situation and why would the media not call out Jeter a little bit for squeezing a few more dollars out of the Yankees? If Jeter was going to throw a fit about only making $9.5 million (and that's the implication both Nightengale and Knobler have given), doesn't that make him a little bit selfish?

Even if Jeter can't play at a $12 million level (or any level) next year.

Which apparently is just perfectly fine. It's fine Jeter is overpaid, just don't call him overpaid because he's Derek Jeter.

Jeter maintained late in the season that he should be better after a full winter of recovery and work, but he maintained last winter that he would be able to play at his usual high level.

But why spend time questioning whether Jeter is worth $2.5 million more than his club option when that time can be spent sucking him off for the thousandth time? 

Medical people unconnected to his case have been skeptical that he can, and especially that he can play shortstop at an acceptable level on a daily basis. It can't help that Jeter will turn 40 next June 26.

No Danny, that probably doesn't help.

As the Yankees go through the rest of their winter, they'll certainly need to make sure they have a backup plan at short, in case Jeter can't make it or simply proves to be too immobile or too compromised by the ankle to handle playing shortstop.

So basically, re-signing Jeter to a $12 million deal rather than exercising his $2.5 club option was just dumb all around. This $2.5 million could have been used to help sign a free agent shortstop like Skip Schumaker, Omar Infante, or Nick Punto (he got $3 million from the A's). These aren't great options, but this money could have put to good use somewhere else. The Yankees are already looking to Infante as a backup plan for Robinson Cano. So the Yankees basically blew the money they could have used on a backup in order to make sure Derek Jeter didn't start an acrimonious negotiation over his contract...not that Jeter would EVER be acrimonious and do anything to hurt the Yankees team of course.

But as long as Jeter wanted to come back, the Yankees had very little choice but to say yes. He had that player option in his contract ... and he's Derek Jeter.

They absolutely should have exercised the option. I simply don't get why they gave him a raise. I'm sure someone has a good answer for me.

The Yankees could have held fast at the $9.5 million and risked a public relations problem, or they could work out a deal for a higher number they could accept.

They settled on $12 million.

It must be great to be Derek Jeter. You can come off a season where you only played 17 games, see your team exercise a team option in a contract you signed three years ago, have the team increase the value of the club option because they are afraid you won't like the monetary amount of the team option, and then the media doesn't blink an eye or in any way call you greedy or not a team player.

It seems like a lot, if you think of Jeter as a soon-to-be-40 shortstop with questionable health.

It doesn't seem like a lot. It is a lot.

It doesn't seem like much if you just think of him as Derek Jeter, the most popular player on a team where so many other stars are fading or departing.

But Jeter is one of those players on the Yankees team who is fading. He played in 17 games last year with an injury that, given his age, there is no guarantee he will recover from. Jeter could very well be fading, and yet, Danny Knobler acts like those injuries to Mark Texeira, Alex Rodriguez, and Curtis Granderson didn't happen to Jeter at all. He wasn't injured last year, he just tried too hard to come back.

I think it is hilarious there isn't one peep from media members like Bob Nightengale and Danny Knobler about Jeter getting $12 million per year, even though they admit it probably isn't money well-spent. But alas, Jeter deserves it because he is Derek Jeter and because the Yankees don't want him mad at them.

2 comments This is How a Trade Rumor Starts and Starts to Become More Than a Rumor

I'm always interested in how sportswriters who are considered "insiders" come up with the rumors they will float and how this rumor will get picked up by the national and local media and start to become more than just a rumor. I'm always interested to know if the original rumor came from actual sources an insider has or simply is informed speculation based on information that insider has which leads him to the conclusion the rumor could be true. It's sort of a more macro version of ESPN's self-perpetuating cycle, where an ESPN analyst makes a statement, another ESPN analyst comments on the statement and then the story gets picked up nationally, followed by ESPN reporting on the national commentary based upon the original statement. ESPN starts the news, reports on the news they start and then reports on the reaction of others to the news they started.

In this situation, Danny Knobler reports the Tigers may trade Max Scherzer this offseason because he is due to be a free agent after the 2014 season. I have read the article multiple times and can't figure out if there are actual sources from the Tigers organization who have information Scherzer could be traded or this is pure speculation from someone affiliated with the Tigers. Either way, Knobler reports it and then it takes off regionally and nationally and becomes a real trade rumor...whether based in fact or not. I'm not saying Knobler is lying or his report is false, but this is a great example of how a sportswriter considered an insider can get information that could very well be speculative and ends up being passed off as having more truth than it really does. Here's what Knobler wrote:

The Rays will almost certainly trade David Price. But there's also a very real chance that the Tigers trade Max Scherzer, according to sources.

Knobler has sources, there's no doubt about that. It's his job. As a reader I don't expect him to reveal his sources, but the fact I don't know who is sources are also makes me wonder if these sources can be trusted. Is the source Scott Boras (Scherzer's agent)? Is the source Rick Porcello's agent (Hendricks Sports), in order to help force the hand of the Tigers in determining if they will trade Porcello this offseason? Is the source a Tigers organizational member who favors keeping Porcello over Scherzer and wants the idea of Scherzer being traded out there? Without knowing the source, it's impossible to know the truth there is a "very real chance" Scherzer gets traded. This becomes important once this rumor gets picked regionally and nationally.

Scherzer hasn't won a Cy Young yet, but he's the heavy favorite to win the award in the American League this year after going 21-3 with a 2.90 ERA, leading the league in WHIP (0.97) and finishing second to Yu Darvish in strikeouts.

So why would the Tigers trade him?

Exactly. Why would the Tigers trade Max Scherzer because he is due a new contract in one season? It's not like the Tigers have been shy about spending money on players they believe is worth the money. They are probably not going to re-sign Jhonny Peralta so his money comes off the books and Victor Martinez only has one more year left on his deal. So there will be money to spend if they want to spend it on Scherzer after the 2014 season.

Because Scherzer is one year away from free agency and is a Scott Boras client who is very unlikely to sign a long-term deal this close to being able to test the market. The Tigers may make an attempt to sign him after this season, but they realize that it's unlikely he would accept a deal now.

This is the first reason I tend to distrust the accuracy of this report. When have the Tigers been shy about working with Scott Boras? Boras is the agent of Prince Fielder, Jose Valverde and was the agent of Magglio Ordonez. In fact, it's been clear in the past the Tigers have no issue working with Scott Boras. I don't believe the fact Boras is Scherzer's agent would make the Tigers tuck their tail (see what I did there?) between their legs and decide to trade Scherzer.

With or without a new deal, Scherzer's 2014 salary figures to jump to somewhere around $20 million, a stiff price for a team that already has three players making more than $20 million a year (Miguel Cabrera, Prince Fielder and Justin Verlander), and three others who will make between $12 million and $16 million next year (Victor Martinez, Torii Hunter and Anibal Sanchez).

What Victor Martinez and Torii Hunter make next year is irrelevant when it comes to the 2014 payroll. Both players will be off the payroll when the 2014 season comes around, so the fact both players make between $12 and $16 million in 2013 is probably a reason the Tigers could keep Scherzer around. The Tigers front office knows they have over $20+ million coming off the books in 2014 and could give Scherzer the deal he is looking for. Again, I'm not saying Knobler's report is wrong, but there is evidence the Tigers wouldn't break up their pitching staff and trade Scherzer simply because his agent is Scott Boras and he may be expensive.

And while the Tigers have been one of baseball's biggest spenders in recent years, there's some uncertainty if they'll continue to spend as much in the years to come.

I'm sure there is a reason. It would be nice if the source telling us that the Tigers could trade Scherzer would also tell us why the Tigers may not be big spenders in years to come.

The Nationals have long had interest in Scherzer, and have enough young pitching to get a deal done. The Rangers, who could chase Price, are another team with plenty of prospects and a need for a top pitcher. The Cardinals seem to churn out quality pitchers, but could believe that as a Missouri native, Scherzer would be more inclined to stay with them if they traded for him.

Trading for and then signing Max Scherzer to an expensive long-term contract doesn't feel like something the St. Louis Cardinals would do. Why trade for an ace when they think they have developed a couple of cheaper aces in Wacha and Miller?

The Orioles could be another possibility.

Other teams, such as the Yankees, Angels and Blue Jays, hope to acquire top pitching this winter, but likely don't have enough to trade for a pitcher as valuable as Scherzer.

This is the speculation part of the trade rumor...not that the rumor couldn't very well be seen as pure speculation in itself. This is the second part of the trade rumor told to Danny Knobler by his sources. Now that it's been established the Tigers "may" trade Scherzer this offseason, it's speculated that the Nationals, Rangers, Cardinals or Orioles could be a landing spot for him. Undoubtedly some websites that covers these four teams picked up on the rumors and have commented on this trade rumor. Danny Knobler covered the Tigers around 20 years (according to my source, known as his CBS Sports biography page), so he probably knows more about the Tigers than the average national reporter. It also means Knobler knows more people within the organization who would use him to get a Scherzer trade rumor floated for some reason it's nearly impossible to understand.

Some baseball people familiar with the Tigers believe that the team's winter plans -- including a possible Scherzer trade -- could hinge on whether the Tigers win Thursday night's Game 5 in Oakland to advance to the AL Championship Series.

I'm really not trying to be snide here, but I'm not sure "baseball people familiar with the Tigers" could be a more vague term. It's situations like this the public has to trust the reporter providing this information. I think it's silly to base the long-term plans for Scherzer on a Game 5 where he wasn't even going to pitch, but maybe people who are familiar with the Tigers think the organization likes to make knee-jerk decisions like this.

Win or lose, though, a Scherzer trade seems a real possibility.

So there we go. It's a "real possibility" that Max Scherzer gets traded. This is how trade rumors start. A source, whose motivation remains as unknown as the source's name, tells Danny Knobler this could happen and Knobler does his job and reports accordingly. The evidence being provided (by Knobler, not the source) is that Max Scherzer is going to be much more expensive very soon, so the Tigers (who apparently are also cutting payroll in the future) won't want to try and afford Scherzer since the 2014 payroll is already high enough (which has nothing to do with Scherzer being a free agent after the 2014 season) and the Tigers won't want to stretch their wallet more.

I don't personally see how based on sources a Max Scherzer trade is a real possibility. Sure, the Tigers could trade him, but I don't think purely for the reasons given. Especially since Scherzer seems to be hitting his stride as a pitcher I would think the Tigers would like to keep him around. But hey, it's just one rumor, right? No big deal. Well, this is how a rumor starts and then it turns into something more than a rumor. It turns into a weird game of sports telephone where the rumor seems to gain more factual accuracy as it gets passed around.

CNNSI.com grabs the rumor and does a "Truth and Rumors" mention of the possibility of a Max Scherzer trade basically reciting exactly what Danny Knobler put in his original column on the possibility of a Max Scherzer trade.

Because Scherzer is one year away from free agency and is a Scott Boras client who is very unlikely to sign a long-term deal this close to being able to test the market. The Tigers may make an attempt to sign him after this season, but they realize that it's unlikely he would accept a deal now.

This is word-for-word what Knobler wrote about the topic. It's a CNNSI.com site for rumors so this rumor fits in perfectly. Still, the report has gone from one national sports website to another now.

Now the local and regional news outlets get a hold of this rumor. The "Detroit Free Press" writes the Tigers trading Max Scherzer is a real possibility, again quoting from the Knobler rumor. Then the article goes on to say,

(As a side note, whether trading Scherzer makes sense or not, it doesn't mean the Tigers will trade him. That's sort of my point in showing how this one trade rumor that may or may not have any truth to it suddenly becomes a national, local and regional headline. The headline of Knobler's article said the Tigers "may" trade Scherzer, while the actual article felt much more confident stating this assertion being true. A lot of things "may" happen and I guess if the Tigers got an offer they couldn't turn down then trading Scherzer is a real possibility.)

Scherzer, coming off a 21-3 season and a likely American League Cy Young award coming later this fall, will likely command a salary around $20 million by next year and the Tigers already have three players – Miguel Cabrera, Prince Fielder and Justin Verlander – making at least as much, Knobler writes.

Notice how the writer relies not only on Knobler's rumor for the story, but also uses Knobler's reasoning for why the rumor could be true. I understand why he does it, but it's also relying on the original report from an unnamed source being correct and buying Knobler's reasoning.

And if the Tigers do decide trading Scherzer may be a good idea this winter, teams interested could include the Washington Nationals, Texas Rangers, St. Louis Cardinals and the Baltimore Orioles, Knobler writes.

So now this writer is stating these teams "could" be interested in Scherzer based on Knobler's speculation of teams who have a need for starting pitching or have had interest in Scherzer in the past.

Keep in mind, as blasphemous as a Scherzer trade may seem, the Tigers would risk losing him for nothing following the 2014 season if they don’t trade him.

Furthermore, the Tigers faced a similar situation in 2009 with outfielder and fan favorite Curtis Granderson, in terms of cutting payroll, before ultimately trading him to the New York Yankees in a 3-team deal for Austin Jackson, Phil Coke and – of course – Scherzer.

This is true. The Tigers did trade Curtis Granderson rather than lose him without any compensation once he became a free agent. The difference I see is that Max Scherzer is a pitcher and the Tigers have shown through re-signing Sanchez and Verlander that they recognize the value of a quality pitching staff.

Now "The Detroit News" chimes in with an article saying "there is a very real chance" the Tigers will trade Max Scherzer. This writer is a little more speculative of Knobler's report.

Basing it on sources, but not naming them, Danny Knobler of CBSSports.com wrote a trade is possible “because Scherzer is one year away from free agency and is a Scott Boras client who is very unlikely to sign a long-term deal this close to being able to test the market.

“They realize that it’s unlikely he would accept a deal now.”

Speculation about Scherzer’s future with the Tigers has increased with his win total this year. But this is the first time a report has come out with the strong statement the chance is “very real” of the Tigers trading the starter favored to win the American League Cy Young Award.

Again, this article is very similar to what Knobler originally reported and it is reporting that Scherzer's future with the Tigers could be in doubt. So this is the second Detroit-area paper that has picked up on this story and made it into a rumor based on facts provided by a source. 

Then two Detroit-area papers (or online newspapers) picked up on the story and there were opinion columns written about the likely chance Scherzer would get traded. CBS Detroit gives their opinion first. 

It’s hard not to hate the trade rumors. We were just starting to like Max. Fans might feel a little cheated sending a probable Cy Young winner on the road after Justin Verlander’s struggles. The regular season would be twenty-one wins shy without Max.

Well not really. Presumably whoever the Tigers had in the rotation instead of Scherzer would have won more than zero games on the season. That would be one shitty fifth starter if the guy couldn't even win a single game during the season. Like Anthony Young-bad. 

After you finish breathing into the paper bag you keep next to the couch specifically for all things Tiger-related, let’s consider some context. Max Scherzer came to Detroit from the Curtis Granderson trade. Fans hated the move at the time. In hindsight, the Tigers got three players that contributed to deep playoff runs. Austin Jackson might be struggling right now, but he was great last year and parts of this year. Phil Coke…just focus on the playoffs last year and ignore everything else.

Max is at his peak value. Teams will send the farm for him.

Maybe teams will not send the farm for him. He is a pending free agent and the fact he is represented by Scott Boras may not mean as much to the Tigers (contrary to what Danny Knobler would have you believe), but it does narrow down the list of teams willing to trade for Scherzer. If teams don't feel they could re-sign Scherzer than that diminishes the package the Tigers could receive in return for Scherzer...assuming he will even be traded (see how far down the rabbit hole a single trade rumor can take us?). 

Expecting the Tigers to keep Max coming off his monster 2013 is delusional.

It's really not, considering the Tigers have $26 million coming off the books from Torii Hunter and Victor Martinez's contracts expiring. The Tigers could keep Scherzer at $20 million per year and still have money left over. Obviously this doesn't include any players who would get arbitration raises or other signings, but the Tigers could re-sign Scherzer and not raise payroll. 

Let’s just hope that Dombrowski can pull a rabbit out of his hat with this trade, a repeat of the Granderson trade. If he gives away Max Scherzer for a bag of rocks, we will never forgive him. 

Let's hope Dombrowski can pull a rabbit out of his hat "with this trade."

So we have gone from "The Tigers may trade Scherzer" to a columnist hoping the Tigers get a good return on "this trade" as if the Tigers have officially put Scherzer on the trade block and are for sure looking to get rid of him through trade prior to him becoming a free agent. 

Now "The Examiner" umm...examines if the Tigers are going to have to trade Scherzer. This article is a little more sneaky about citing Knobler's trade rumor without actually crediting him with the trade idea. The language the author uses is similar to the language Knobler in his trade rumor, yet Knobler never gets cited. It's very interesting and quite frankly bordering on copying and re-wording Knobler's work at times. 

The Tigers have a very large payroll that is about to expand significantly given the fact that 21 game winner, playoff hero, and likely American League Cy Young award winner Max Scherzer is not under contract past this year. He will enter his final year of arbitration once the off season begins and is under team control for 2014, however his agent Scott Boras does not want to sign a long term deal hoping to score big after the 2014 season in the free agent market. 

Knobler wrote: 

Scherzer hasn't won a Cy Young yet, but he's the heavy favorite to win the award in the American League this year after going 21-3 with a 2.90 ERA...Because Scherzer is one year away from free agency and is a Scott Boras client who is very unlikely to sign a long-term deal this close to being able to test the market.

Then the "Examiner" author wrote: 

He is due a hefty raise and some think he could even command 20 million a year in 2014. If that is true that would give the Tigers four guys making 20 million or more and there is no way the team can sustain that level of payroll. 

Knobler wrote: 

With or without a new deal, Scherzer's 2014 salary figures to jump to somewhere around $20 million, a stiff price for a team that already has three players making more than $20 million a year (Miguel Cabrera, Prince Fielder and Justin Verlander),

I guess the "some" refers to Danny Knobler. These two articles were posted on the same day by the way. Knobler's is time-stamped 1:03pm and there is no time-stamp for the "Examiner" article I could find. 

Based on the five year 80 million dollar fellow tigers starter Anibal Sanchez signed last off season it seems the 20 million mark is easily within Scherzer grasp.

The Tigers already have fellow starter Justin Verlander, third baseman Miguel Cabrera, and first baseman Prince Fielder due to make 66 million dollars. Add to that a few expensive albeit expiring after 2014 season deals (including Sanchez’s 15 million) and the Tigers already have 107 million dollars in payroll for 2014. There is virtually no way they could add another 20 million dollar deal to that.

Knobler wrote: 

and three others who will make between $12 million and $16 million next year (Victor Martinez, Torii Hunter and Anibal Sanchez).

And while the Tigers have been one of baseball's biggest spenders in recent years, there's some uncertainty if they'll continue to spend as much in the years to come.

Probably more of a re-word more than anything else here, but still interesting. 

The good news here is even without Scherzer the Detroit starting rotation looks pretty good. JV, Doug Fister, Sanchez, and Rick Porcello are all proven hurlers and Detroit could go to Drew Smyly to be the fifth starter and only left hander.

Of course course Porcello is a free agent after the 2015 season, but I guess amid the frenzy of the Scherzer trade no one cares about that. 

As sad as it will be to see Mad Max leave Detroit for Tigers fans, the hope has to be that the front office gets enough in return to guarantee future trips to the post season. 

Again, notice the language. Take this sentence out of the context of asking whether Scherzer would be traded or not and it sounds like Scherzer being traded is a done deal. All of this because of Danny Knobler's unnamed source. The author chooses to re-write Knobler's rumor and run with the idea Scherzer would be traded. 

Per usual, the Danny Knobler rumor ended up on MLB Rumors. No problem there, it is a rumor, but I liked the author's take on the trade rumor, mostly because it was similar to my take. 

My take on the situation: While it's certainly possible that the Tigers will entertain offers, I can't imagine them moving Scherzer without being completely blown away by an offer. The Tigers' free agent signings of Fielder, Sanchez and Martinez, as well as their record-setting extension for Verlander show a clear "win at all costs" strategy. Owner Mike Illitch has made no secret that he desperately wants a World Series Championship and will spend to make it happen. Perhaps a Scherzer trade would be more likely if the team emerges from the 2013 postseason with a World Series trophy. Even in that instance, however, worsening their chances at a repeat title in 2014 strikes me as a questionable move when they've already invested so much into fielding a winning roster next season.

Exactly. It's nice to see someone take the rumor for what it is rather than report it as if the rumor came from a substantiated source in the Tigers organization rather than from an anonymous source and people familiar with the organization. Again, not that I'm saying Knobler is wrong, but this trade rumor has so far been repeated without any real question at four separate sites to where Scherzer being traded almost seems like a thing that is going to happen. 

And of course, no trade rumor would be worth anything if Bleacher Report didn't chime in breaking down potential suitors for Max Scherzer. 

Danny Knobler of CBS Sports is reporting that there is a "very real chance" that Scherzer will be shopped this offseason, a year before he's eligible to become a free agent. As Knobler points out, Scherzer's agent Scott Boras prefers his clients reach free agency while only a year away as opposed to signing a long-term deal.

I think this shows how words like "very real chance" can be taken to be more persuasive and urgent when taken out of the context of the article. Again, the title of Knobler's article says the Tigers "may" trade Scherzer and it's based on the speculation of sources that Danny Knobler has. 

Here are four teams that could potentially put together a trade package for Scherzer.

I kid you not, the author then lists five teams that could put together a trade package for Scherzer. He states he will list four teams who could put together a trade package for Scherzer and then lists five teams. Counting is hard. The author treats Scherzer as a one-year rental for these teams when thinking of these hypothetical trades.

The teams the author lists are: 

Baltimore Orioles

Los Angeles Dodgers (because apparently they need more pitching)

The New York Yankees (of course they are on the list simply by default)

Pittsburgh Pirates (the author puts in a two person trade with Jason Grilli---yes, that 36 year old Grilli---part of the trade)

San Francisco Giants

These fou---five teams are the ones who the author sees making a bid for Scherzer now that Scherzer is going to be on the trade block. 

So this is how a trade rumor based on sources becomes something more than a rumor and turns into something that may actually happen, as opposed to an idea floated by a member of the Tigers organization (or maybe Knobler's source isn't in the Tigers organization) that may never actually happen once the decision-makers in the Tigers front office get together after the season is over. Knobler reports a source tells him there's a good chance Scherzer will get traded, CNNSI.com parrots this report, two Detroit newspapers report on the story, two opinion columns state this is a right fine idea to trade Scherzer, and then Bleacher Report puts together the perfect trade partners for the Tigers now that they are trading Scherzer. 

This is how a trade rumor being floated turns into something that sounds like it could actually happen. This is a long game of telephone being played based on information from an anonymous source.

9 comments Let's Talk A Little Bit About the Baseball Hall of Fame

I tried to ignore the Hall of Fame discussions that went on last week during the Hall of Fame voting. Mostly since I don't enjoy talking about the Baseball Hall of Fame and I feel every discussion just takes us all in circles to where everyone thinks they are right and support their position with really important sounding statistics. I couldn't ignore it after a while though. Hopefully today won't be too spastic for all of you, as I am going to be trying to cover all the articles about the Hall of Fame that I bookmarked and thought were interesting/horrible about the 2010 Hall of Fame voting. We all know only Andre Dawson got in and BotB favorite Bert Blyleven came 5 votes short. I think it is interesting to find out how these voters came to their conclusion of who should be included as a 2010 Hall of Fame inductee.

Let's start it off with Jayson Stark and him going over his ballot.

Dawson hasn't peeled away an ice pack to play a big league game since 1996. Blyleven hasn't broken off one of those legendary curveballs since 1992. So don't ask me why they're still being forced to sweat out these election days after all these years.

If I were the czar of Hall of Fame election rules, we'd be forced to make up our minds within the first five elections -- 10 at the most -- on whether men like this are Hall of Famers.

Apparently Jayson Stark wants a short time period to consider these players. I don't know if I can agree with this. Though 15 ballots does seem like a lot, it also gives the voters plenty of time to consider each candidate's credentials. It also doesn't really hurt anyone to keep a person on the ballot that many years in a row as long as the voters aren't just going to vote someone in the Hall of Fame just to do it (ummm...Jim Rice). It's not like guys who aren't elected their first couple of years on the ballot want OFF the Hall of Fame ballot because they get tired of waiting to see if they made the Hall of Fame.

As for me, I voted for both Dawson and Blyleven, plus all four prominent first-timers (Alomar, Barry Larkin, Edgar Martinez and Fred McGriff). And since I also vote for Tim Raines, Mark McGwire, Jack Morris and Dale Murphy every year, that means I filled up all 10 spots on my ballot for only the second time ever.

My take? Yes, yes, yes, yes, no, no, yes, no, no, no.

Dale Murphy is my idol but I don't think he should be in the Hall of Fame. I named my goldfish after him as a child so I do have a soft spot for him, and if you let Jim Rice in the Hall of Fame, then Dale Murphy has a decent case as well. I don't see their career numbers as being incredibly different from each other. My sportswriting friend Gregg Doyel agrees with me on this issue. (Doyel's comments are in bold italics with different font)

So this is the reality I'm left to contemplate: Dick Vitale is a member of the Basketball Hall of Fame, but Dale Murphy is eliminated from Cooperstown forever.

This entire column Gregg starts talking about Dale Murphy being in the Hall of Fame and comparing it to Dick Vitale being in the basketball Hall of Fame. Honestly, I just don't get the comparison, so I just ignored it and tried to pay attention to the substance of his column.

They're the ones who have treated Murphy with disdain since Day 1 -- he received just 19.3 percent of the votes in his 1999 debut on the ballot -- and dropped him to 11.5 percent last year. In other words, only 1 in 5 voters ever thought Murphy was good enough, and almost half of them have gone gutlessly into the night. Instead of fighting for Murphy, they're letting him fade away.

I know the entire purpose of the 15 year waiting period is for voters to re-evaluate players from year-to-year, but since 1999 what the hell has a good hitting and fielding player done AFTER the Steroid Era done to deserve less support? In light of all the steroid revelations, shouldn't his numbers look better at this point? I don't see how they don't. There is something wrong in not voting for Mark McGwire because of steroids and his connection to them, but in also not recognizing players who didn't use steroids and put up great numbers. You can't penalize the steroids users for tainting the game and then not acknowledge the statistics those who didn't use PEDs put up.

I really don't think Murphy should be in the Hall of Fame, but I am playing Devil's advocate here.

His vote tally steadily increased until he made it into Cooperstown last year, and I'm not here to tell you Jim Rice doesn't deserve it -- he does. I'm here to tell you Dale Murphy deserves it just as much.

This is what irritates me, players setting the floor for induction and then we compare other players to the original player who is the "floor." Now that Rice has entered the Hall of Fame, advocates for players who are similar to Rice are going to be wanting their guy in the Hall of Fame as well. I don't hate Jim Rice, he is just going to be my whipping boy when discussing Dale Murphy.

Stats can be manipulated any way you want -- Murphy had more home runs than Rice (398 to 382), Rice had a much higher batting average (.298 to .265) -- but Murphy was a more versatile player. He had more stolen bases (161 to 58) and more Gold Gloves (five to none). You can tell me Rice is better. Maybe he is. But better to the point where last year he received 76.4 percent of the votes, and Dale Murphy got 11.5 percent?

This is one of the things that irritates me the most about the Hall of Fame. It is a popularity contest to a certain extent and this actually lends credence to Stark's idea of limiting years a player can be on a ballot to 5 or 10 years. It cuts down on the time a player can hang out there and finally garner enough sympathy. Did Jim Rice really deserve 7 times as much Hall of Fame support as Dale Murphy?

Murphy also won two MVP trophies, and of the 20 ballot-eligible players who won that award more than once, 18 are in the Hall. The only ones left out are Murphy and Roger Maris, who also belongs in the Hall for a combination of results and historical oomph, but I'll let someone else fight that fight.

Because it is a stupid fight. One year Maris hit a lot of homeruns while batting in the same lineup as Mickey Mantle who was nearly as hot at the plate as Maris was in 1961. I don't think a player should be allowed in the Hall of Fame based solely on him breaking the home run record. I don't see how this can be an unpopular opinion. Unfortunately, historical oomph isn't too high on my list of good reasons to put Roger Maris in the Hall of Fame either. He isn't Jackie Robinson.

Maybe individual production looked down in the 1980s because expansion had yet to dilute the talent; there were only 12 National League teams in 1985, compared to 16 today. Or maybe -- and that last explanation was only a theory, whereas this one is a stone cold fact -- the offensive numbers from the 1980s are unfairly dismissed because of the steroid explosion of the 1990s and beyond.

I don't know if it is a "fact" that the 1980's offensive numbers are unfairly dismissed because of the steroid explosion of the 1990's, but it certainly could be true. A fact is something that can't be disputed and can be easily backed up with empirical evidence, while this statement of Doyel's can certainly be disputed.

Schmidt led the 1980s with 313 home runs, just five more than Murphy's 308 -- Johnny Bench led the 1970s with 292, by the way -- but Barry Bonds hit 361 in the 1990s and Alex Rodriguez hit 435 in the 2000s. And those guys cheated.

Home runs are not, and should not, be the sole criteria for voting a player into the Hall of Fame. On it's face this seems convincing, but I would need more information to advocate Murphy's induction into the Hall of Fame. Just looking at Murphy's statistics, I don't know if I could advocate his candidacy.

Murphy drove in 1,266 runs, an impressive number in the 1980s but devalued by today's baseball, where Murphy's RBI total is somewhere between that of Garret Anderson (1,353) and Bobby Abreu (1,187).

RBI's are a factor of a team having runners on base to be batted in. Since Murphy played for some terrible Braves teams, I think we could excuse him for not having as many runs driven in as Garret Anderson and Bobby Abreu, both of which played for some teams that had good hitters in the lineup that got on base and could be driven in.

I don't know if RBI's have been devalued as much since the 1980's as home runs have been. I see it more as a factor of having runners on base to be batted in than a product of steroid usage. Homeruns have been devalued because everyone and their brother was cracking homeruns in the late 90s's, but I haven't really thought for sure if RBI's got devalued over that period. It would make sense since more homeruns seems to also indicate there would be more RBI's, but I would need more proof of it.

But the dominant player from the 1980s -- a guy who hit for power and stole bases (he turned in a 30-30 season in 1983, when that actually meant something) and won five Gold Gloves at a premium position like center field -- is about to slip off the ballot for good.

This is the part where I say Gold Gloves don't really mean much either and then list the players who have multiple Gold Gloves but are actually poor fielders...if I had the energy to list the players in the Hall of Fame who were poor fielders. The point is that guys like Dale Murphy realistically should not be considered 7 times less seriously for the Hall of Fame (through votes accumulated) than Jim Rice. That's a problem I have with the process.

Back to Stark's Hall of Fame ballot:

Alomar was a guy who made plays no one else made, saw things no one else saw and did it all with a Human Highlight Video flair that leaped off the field at you.

Much like spit from Alomar's mouth onto John Hirschbeck? Is that how Alomar's plays leaped off at everyone?

He had a 10-year period (1992 to 2001) in which he LED THE MAJOR LEAGUES in hits.

OMG, ARE YOU SERIOUS???

And the three second basemen in history who can match his career numbers (2,724 hits/.300 average/.371 on-base pct./.443 slugging pct.) all started their careers before 1925.

So how anyone could look at Alomar's career and NOT vote for him is a bigger mystery to me than Stonehenge.

I 100% agree. So naturally Alomar didn't get in the Hall of Fame on his first ballot.

Start with his trophy collection: Larkin's nine Silver Sluggers are second only to A-Rod (10) among ALL INFIELDERS in history. He won three straight Gold Gloves -- while Ozzie Smith was still active.

Offensively, Larkin's .815 career OPS was an amazing 137 points higher than the average shortstop of his era. And, according to Lee Sinins' Complete Baseball Encyclopedia, he created a staggering 488 more runs than the average shortstop of his time -- the highest total of any National League shortstop whose career started after World War II.

I'm pretty sold. Barry Larkin didn't get in either. Jack Morris (I am sorry to his supporters, if Blyleven doesn't get in then Morris shouldn't either. They always pop up in the same conversation as each other. I would take Blyleven before Morris. This is just how I feel) got more Hall of Fame support than Barry Larkin did. 52.3% to 51.6%. I never really thought of Barry Larkin as a Hall of Famer until I actually took a peek at his numbers and read some of the arguments for him. I have to say I think I agree. Since I am a defense hating asshole, I think Barry Larkin should get in if Ozzie Smith gets in. What I mean is that Ozzie Smith was a good defense shortstop, but was also the epitome of "light hitting," so I think Larkin should be in the Hall of Fame if Smith is.

After that, McGriff's numbers looked almost exactly the same for the next decade as they'd looked before (.283/.393/.531 from 1988 to 1992, versus .290/.373/.506 from 1993 to 2002) -- as sure an indication he was clean as you'll get without a drug test. So was it HIS fault that a 35-homer, 104-RBI season was league-leader material in 1992, but made a guy Just Another Slugger in 2001? It shouldn't be. Should it?

For a Hall of Fame snob, I sure do want a lot of guys on the current Hall of Fame list to get into the Hall of Fame. I am pretty torn on McGriff, though I think he deserves it before Murphy and Edgar Martinez.

Edgar Martinez was the greatest designated hitter ever. Let's agree on that within the first two sentences of this discussion, OK?

Great, the guy who played Corky on "Life Goes On" is the most famous actor of all-time with Down Syndrome. It doesn't mean we should start getting a place for him in the Television Hall of Fame (if there is one).

No DH ever ripped off 13 relentlessly great seasons like the 13 Edgar had from 1991 to 2003. Don't even bother trying to find one.

No actor ripped off 4 seasons of great family television like Chris Burke did with his Corky character on the show. Don't even try to find a better actor with Down Syndrome.

But it isn't going to be easy for any DH to make it into the Hall of Fame, and it shouldn't be. A Hall of Fame DH had better be one massively dominating masher.

Absolutely not. A Hall of Fame DH had better be as good of a hitter as other players that are currently in the Hall of Fame. That's all I really ask. I stated my opinion here.

His "counting" stats -- 2,247 hits, 309 homers, 1,261 RBIs -- won't look like anything special to the voters who don't take the time to gaze beyond those columns on the stat sheet or don't take into account that this man wasn't allowed to play every day 'til age 27.

I would LOVE to gaze up from the stat sheet and take a better look at this man and ignore the statistics (which is what Hall of Fame should be based upon) and listen to hyperbolic evidence about how great Edgar Martinez was.

How about those 13 seasons in which this guy was one of the most feared hitters alive?

How about that statistic of "most feared hitter" that has no measurement and therefore no way of actually being used to compare hitters to each other? It's so wonderful to be a feared hitter, in fact that's pretty much how Jim Rice got inducted in the Hall of Fame. He got in on the old "fear factor" that may or may not exist, and even if it did exist really doesn't mean all that much since it is hyperbolic evidence of Martinez's greatness. So basically I am saying I don't buy it.

But if we talk total offensive package, how many men in the entire sport would you rank above Edgar in that time? Bonds and who else? That answer is nobody, friends. Nobody. Do the math. Ask the pitchers. Survey the scouts.

I am going to sit down immediately and write emails to all the pitchers that faced Edgar Martinez to see if they were scared of him and I will see if some of the crusty old scouts that Bill Plascke knows can give me some evidence based on how the ball sounded after being hit by Martinez's bat as to how great he was. Because I have the capability to do this. What a stupid challenge...

Measure it any way you want.

That's the thing, you can't measure how much a player is feared other than walks and how scared pitchers look in replays of old games. I am not denying Martinez was a great hitter, I just don't think he was a Hall of Fame hitter. Merely saying he was a feared hitter isn't going to convince me either.

Danny Knobler agrees that Edgar Martinez is not a Hall of Fame player. (His comments are in bold with different font)

By my count, 24 Hall of Famers spent at least one game as a DH, and 16 of them accumulated a full season's worth of games (130 or more) as a DH during their careers.

Paul Molitor played nearly half his games as, some would say, half a player.

I don't think the debate should be about whether Martinez was a Hall of Fame DH or not, because there are plenty of good players in the Hall of Fame who weren't good fielders but made it in the Hall of Fame on their hitting prowess. Simply because Martinez didn't field very often in his career doesn't mean we should necessarily hold that against him. His hitting numbers have to be up to Hall of Fame standards though. I think the DH argument is a sort of diversion the media has brought up in Martinez's Hall of Fame debate that is clouding the issue of whether he deserves it based on his hitting prowess or not.

I find it fairly relevant that Martinez didn't play in the field often. Defense is a part of the game too. I think we should take what fielding percentages that Martinez did accumulate while he was at third base, or possibly project him as a bad fielder, and see if we would elect him to the Hall of Fame at that point. The bottom line is that a bad fielding, great hitter is going to make the Hall of Fame, so Martinez may need to be set to that hitting standard more than the fielding standard.

Martinez had a career fielding percentage of .952, including a .946 percentage at third base. He wasn't exactly a spectacular fielder for various reasons.

We can elect a DH who was so dominating at the plate that we overlook the fact that he rarely did anything else.

Agreed. A DH has to be one of the greatest hitters of all-time to make the Hall of Fame. The Hall of Fame should be about what a player did well in relation to his job. If a closer closed games well, and didn't just accumulate saves, he should be in the Hall of Fame. If a player was an great hitter, but he was a fantastic fielder then perhaps he should make the Hall of Fame. It's a combination of job duties for a team and how well that duty was performed that should put a player in the Hall of Fame.

I don't rely totally on stats, but 309 home runs and 1,261 RBI (Martinez's career totals) aren't enough to make him stand out. He made seven All-Star teams, but that puts him in line with Don Mattingly, Dave Parker, Tim Raines and Alan Trammell, other outstanding players who have not gotten my vote.

His statistics are impressive but not eye popping and All-Star teams are ever so not relevant to this discussion, since they are essentially popularity contests. They should have little bearing on Hall of Fame candidacy in my mind. I don't think Edgar Martinez should be in the Hall of Fame, because his numbers fall short in my belief of the Hall of Fame standard. If he played third base his entire career, I would probably still believe this.

Then Knobler talks about how he voted for Jack Morris, but not Bert Blyleven, and really that irritates me a little bit and I need to move on so I don't get stuck on this. Now that I have discussed Edgar Martinez, again, let's get back to Stark's Hall of Fame ballot, where he talks about Andre Dawson:

And all you need to know about Dawson's massive impact was that he won one MVP award and finished second TWICE. He won a Rookie of the Year trophy and eight Gold Gloves.

A little note to baseball writers everywhere when discussing a player's candidacy for the Hall of Fame...don't include Gold Gloves because they are a semi-hoax of an award. I also want to mention the Rookie of the Year award is also shared by Dawson with guys like Todd Hollandsworth, Jerome Walton, Marty Cordova, Angel Berroa, Eric Hinske, and Bob Hamelin. That's not exactly great company, and there are more players who eventually faded away who won the Rookie of the Year award, so it doesn't seem like it is a path to Cooperstown.

So obviously, as attractive a candidate as Blyleven's 287 wins, 60 shutouts and dazzling strikeout-to-walk ratio (3,701 whiffs to only 1,322 walks) make him, some voters are still asking the questions I once asked.

Why the hell isn't he in the Hall of Fame?

Why did he make only two All-Star teams?

All-Star teams are popularity contest and pitchers for bad teams don't usually get a whole lot of consideration due to their record.

Why was he a top-three finisher in only two Cy Young elections?

Because the same people who vote for the Cy Young are overwhelming impressed with the statistic "wins" which is completely based on the strength of the team around a player.

How come he had a lower winning percentage (.534) than John Burkett or Charlie Leibrandt?

Because he didn't have control over how many runs his team put up. He can only pitch well, he can't hit the damn ball for his team. Is anyone sensing a trend in my answers to Stark's difficult questions?

Bert Blyleven played for bad baseball teams so that had an effect on his win-loss record. This isn't his fault.

And why, for that matter, was he getting only 14 percent of the vote, back when his career was much closer in the rearview mirror?

Because only now in the "statistical revolution" are people open minded and smart enough to base the Hall of Fame candidacy of a player on things like "wins" or any other statistic that is a team statistic and not an individual statistic.

Bet you didn't know that Juan Pierre has already been thrown out stealing more times in his career (155) than Raines (146) was, even though Raines stole nearly twice as many bases (808-459) as Pierre has swiped.

I bet you I could have easily guessed that. Juan Pierre sucks. The world needs to know this.

Mark McGwire

I vote for him because there's no other fair way to handle the players of his generation. I vote for him because we now know that hundreds and hundreds of players in his era took some kind of PED, and we'll never know exactly who did what, or why.

Unless those people actually admit to using steroids. I wonder what Jayson thinks about Mark McGwire now that he has admitted to using steroids off and on for nearly an entire decade? I don't know how I feel about it. Is it different from A-Rod or any other player's admission because McGwire went on and back off PEDs every once in a while, so it couldn't really have been a mistake he made once, but repeatedly? Or is it all the same thing? I don't really know, but I do know I don't like how Jayson Stark defends McGwire for the Hall of Fame.

And a man who was ALWAYS a feared slugger from day one -- a man who (lest we forget) slugged .618 in his rookie year.

What's with Jayson Stark being hung up on players who are "feared?" Also, the fact McGwire hit the ball well one year when he wasn't on PEDs is no reason to vote him in the Hall of Fame. I am torn on McGwire and have no idea how to handle his candidacy, but I do know being "feared" and how he slugged his rookie year isn't a great way to advocate for him when we should have been looking at his entire body of work.

Just so you know how to compute that, Adam Dunn, Adrian Gonzalez and Jason Bay are among the many folks who have never slugged .618 in ANY season.

So he did better his rookie year when compared to three players who aren't currently on pace to be in the Hall of Fame? Possibly comparing McGwire to actual Hall of Fame players would be a better comparison to justify his candidacy.

Jack Morris

But this is where I remind the lecturers that we're talking about a pitcher who threw a no-hitter, started three All-Star Games, was the winningest pitcher of his generation, made a major impact on three World Series teams and was more than just a man who put on the greatest Game 7 World Series show I've ever witnessed.

I will let someone else take down Jack Morris later, but let's just say...color me not impressed. A lot of pitchers have thrown a no-hitter, All-Star game appearances should not be relevant, and a hyperbolic personal ranking of a pitcher's Game 7 performance doesn't feel solid to me.

So I checked his box for the 10th straight year. I haven't been embarrassed to do that once.

Perhaps he should have been embarrassed to check the box 10 times then...or maybe Jayson doesn't embarrass easily.

Dale Murphy isn't ever going to have a plaque in Cooperstown. I know it. He knows it. But I keep waiting for the PED backlash to restore the luster to the forgotten stars of the '80s.

Those glittering credentials convinced 116 voters to vote for him a decade ago. So I have no sensible explanation for why there were only 62 people voting for him by last year. But I've checked his name for 11 straight years. No reason to stop now.

I will say it again...I can understand not voting for Dale Murphy into the Hall of Fame, but how does he get less votes now than he used to? Just logically I would think with the knowledge we have now about home run totals in the Steroid Era would make Murphy's statistics look even better. I am not necessarily against PED users being inducted into the Hall of Fame, but I don't know if 1980's hitters should be punished because their numbers don't match up well with Steroid Era sluggers' numbers.

I have to say Stark's "I have voted for this person every year and refuse to re-evaluate my decision" stance is very unconvincing overall.

-Bert Blyleven was probably not surprised, but still a little bit upset, about his not being inducted into the Hall of Fame. He wrote a column about it and expressed his dismay in his own recognizable fashion...by talking about himself when he faced Andre Dawson (the only inductee for 2010) and covertly calling the Hall of Fame writers idiots.

I’ve vented in the past about not making it. But getting so close (five votes short) and making such a big leap overall in percentage (from 62.7 percent to 74.2 percent), I have to look at is as a positive. ESPN’s Chris Berman gave me the nickname Bert “Be Home” Blyleven.

Because we all know that anything Chris Berman says is definitely a good omen.

By the way, I am already dreading the Home Run Derby this year during All-Star Weekend when called by Chris Berman. I can hear the "back, back, back" call in my nightmares.

I am very happy for Andre Dawson making it to Cooperstown,

"Congratulations Andre, and now everyone let me mention that I owned Dawson when I pitched against him."

I faced Dawson when I was with the Pirates, and while I did pretty well against him (.195 batting average in 41 at-bats), he did hit a couple home runs off me,

"Oh by the way, that player you just voted into the Hall of Fame...he couldn't hit very well off me. I guess that doesn't make me a Hall of Fame pitcher, but then how is he a Hall of Fame hitter?"

You know Bert is thinking this. I like how Bert writes about the Hall of Fame voting because we all know what he is really trying to type. Here's what Bert really means we he types the following sentences...

I’m very happy for Dawson, but I must admit that when they told me only one player got in to Cooperstown, I assumed it would be Roberto Alomar, a dominant second baseman with the glove and the bat. I thought he would be a lock, and all the experts were expecting him to go right in.

"The experts aren't idiots, the voters are idiots. Robert Alomar not be elected in this year on his first ballot is proof of that. Me not being elected into the Hall of Fame for the past 13 years is further proof these voters are moron. Please vote for me Hall of Fame morons."

I’m sure he’ll be in there next year as he logged only three fewer votes than I did in his first year of eligibility.

"I should have been voted into the Hall of Fame my first year of eligibility as well."

I also think Barry Larkin, who got just more than 50 percent, is a future Hall of Famer as probably the best shortstop of his era.

"Further proof these voters are idiots."

And next year, Rafael Palmeiro, Jeff Bagwell and Larry Walker will be among the new eligible players, and all are deserving.

"I support everyone who is suspected of or found to use PEDs to make the Hall of Fame. I support anyone who supports me being in the Hall of Fame."

It will be a year of anticipation, and hopefully the same voters who selected me will stick with me, and we can convince a few others to join.

"I will send 6 voters a free 'I love to fart" shirt, as well as an unspecified sum of money as long as he/she votes for me. Actually, 6 people just name something you need me to do and I will do it. Murder, robbery, and any other illicit crime I will do it...just put me in the Hall of Fame."

-Craig Calcaterra FJM-style rips apart Jon Heyman's excuse for a Hall of Fame ballot. For fear of repeating what he says, I will just hit some highlights. Read the entire thing though, I promise it is good.

To review, he had Robbie Alomar, Andrew Dawson, Barry Larkin, Dave Parker, Jack Morris and Don Mattingly. Many people took issue with this ballot, myself included. It's a pretty awful one all things considered. Parker? Morris? Mattingly?

I am pretty sure Heyman just pulled names out of a hat. He's the guy who voted for David Segui and Kevin Appier probably. Both of them got one vote...unbelievable. All things considered, I take issue with half of his ballot. Serious issue with half his ballot.

My three favorite parts of Calcaterra's takedown (Heyman in red and Calcaterra's in black):

1. My contention regarding Blyleven is that almost no one viewed him as a Hall of Famer during his playing career, and that is borne out by the 17 percent of the vote he received in his first year of eligibility in 1998, followed by 14 percent the next year.

Yet he is a fan of Morris, who got 22.9% of the vote in his first year and 19.6% of the vote in his second. And he spent a paragraph talking about how his mind is changing on Tim Raines, who got 24.3% in his first year of eligibility, but not Heyman's vote. And Don Mattingly, who was last seen hovering at around 16%, and also did not previously get Heyman's vote. And Dave Parker, who continues to get way less than 20% of the vote (and who has a drug history unmatched in the game, which Heyman says should disqualify McGwire).

2. After going on and on about how Blyleven never showed greatness as opposed to the ability to merely compile stats, Heyman says:

Some will say that Blyleven's career was equal to Hall of Famer Don Sutton's but I say it is just short of Sutton's. They both had big totals in other categories but Sutton wound up with 37 more victories, going over the magic 300 mark by 24.

Got that? Stat compilers suck, unless of course they compile long enough to reach some arbitrary number like 300.

This "compiler" argument is pretty much the crux of the argument against Blyleven, along with wins, which are stupid anyway. The anti-argument that can beat the "compiler" argument is exactly what Calcaterra wrote here.

3. Heyman would, and often does, point to winning percentage as a key factor, noting that while his supporters often cite the fact that Blyleven pitched for bad teams, his career winning percentage -- .534 -- wasn't that much better than the teams on which he pitched: .496. What he leaves out is that the difference between Morris' career winning percentage -- .577 -- and the teams on which he pitched -- .547 -- is actually less than Blyleven's. In other words, Blyleven outpitched his teams at a better clip than the supposedly dominant Morris did.

This is a very unfortunate statistic for Jon Heyman. It knocks his "winning percentage" argument against Bert out of the water. The bottom line is that I would have more respect for the anti-Blyleven crowd if they could provide a cogent argument that actually made sense. It hasn't happened yet. Every time they compare guys like Jack Morris or Don Sutton to Blyleven, it just shows the stupidity of the argument because it is based on team statistics like wins and arbitrary numbers like 300 wins that Blyleven never hit. I am open to hearing a reason that can't be fairly rebutted as to why Blyleven should not be in the Hall of Fame.

-Bill Conlin also seems to struggle with the Hall of Fame voting process. I hate to give you guys homework, but I am not going to comment on this. Just read this short takedown of Bill Conlin. This is my biggest problem with the Major League Baseball Hall of Fame voting process. It's so arbitrary and it's arbitrary because the voters make it arbitrary.

Bill Conlin has a self-imposed "I vote for 6 guys rule." That's idiocy. Pure and simple idiocy. What if there are 7 deserving players to be voted for? Why only put 6 players on the ballot when you can put 10 on the ballot? I love baseball and I love the Hall of Fame. I hate the debates, which are only going to get worse as the Steroid Era players start to trickle on the ballot, and I don't mind if someone disagrees with me on who should be a Hall of Fame player. Voting for the Hall of Fame is a serious task (in the realm of sports) and a person voting like he has always voted or refusing to accept new statistical data that should cause him to re-think his position is not acceptable.

The voters need to take this seriously and not make the process more difficult than it needs to be. If a player is deserving, vote for them, but don't vote for a player or not vote for a player because you don't have an open mind. These voters don't have to buy into the statistical revolution or why once thought ideas may not be completely correct, but they also can't dismiss it simply because they refuse to listen to new arguments.

0 comments Danny Knobler Tells Me How I Should Feel, Cursing Ensues

I am very tired of talking about this subject but I am going to do it anyway. Let's talk Mark Teixeira and the New York Yankees, but mostly let's talk about Danny Knobler pissing me off by assuming he knows everyone's feelings about the Yankees and the Tex signing.

Not hate.

Let's not hear any more talk about how the Yankees are affected by the bad economy, too.

I don't know of anyone in the past three weeks that has mentioned the Yankees are going to be affected by the bad economy. No one. After they signed A.J. Burnett and C.C. Sabathia to $250 in deals, I think anyone who ever thought they would be affected negatively re-thought that line of thinking.

The Yankees have $88 million coming off the books, are opening a new stadium, and are tired of being shown up by the Red Sox as the best team in the AL East. It all spelled out to a massive Yankees spending spree and that is what we have gotten. Despite what Buster Olney tries to convince everyone, these are the exact same ol' Yankees we have all come to love. They don't draft young players and let them develop in their system, they go out and spend massive amounts of money signing free agents and trying to make trades.

I have had some people question me on this issue with mentioning Jeter, Posada, Rivera, Cano, and Chamberlain as key contributors to the team, which is true. The problem is three of those players Rivera, Jeter, and Posada came through the system nearly 15 years ago. Cano and Chamberlain are possible great players but haven't proven themselves to be leaders in the same vein as the other three quite yet, so I am not counting them.

Don't let anyone fool us all, when the Yankees spend $450 million this year and $350 million last year signing free agents, they are the same old Yankees. They may focus on the farm system more but none of the key contributors to this team have come through the system in the past 3 years. Now that I have gotten that out of the way...

You don't have to like them. You do have to admire them.

I don't hate the Yankees and I definitely don't like them at all. I sure as hell am not going to admire them. I can admire the business set up they have which allows them to pay the free agent contracts to players because of a loyal fan base and their own television station that allows them unbelievable amounts of income. I do not admire the way they run their team though. Don't fucking tell me I have to admire the Yankees. They choose the best pitcher and the best hitter on the free agent market every year and make an offer to them, blowing everyone else out of the water if need be. Even the Red Sox. That is what has scared me about this offseason is they are blowing large market teams out of the water when it comes to free agency.

There is nothing to admire in this way to run a ball club. I don't like the Red Sox but I admire the way they run their team so much more, and that is actually what makes me dislike them more because they don't run out and buy all of their players. They have developed players through the farm system that are currently contributing to the team at a high level.

There is no damn reason to get your pulse racing and get excited about how great the Yankees are because I am not even sure they scout players. They just pick out the best players and try to sign them. That's it. Sure it works out for them sometimes, other times it does not. It's not like they are finding diamonds in the rough or players that only would fit in their lineup and signing them to medium free agent deals. They don't have to because they have a lot of money, hence I don't admire them for this. Their margin for error is so much larger than other teams, so they don't have to worry about signing the wrong players. Sure it may screw up the team for a bit and leave them short at a certain position but they can rebound because they run a great business. I admire the business not the team.

The Yankees set out to get both CC Sabathia and A.J. Burnett, and they made sure to offer enough money to get it done.

If only all the other teams had thought of doing this. What were they thinking? I know what they were thinking, they were thinking "we don't have $88 million to spend on free agents." You hear certain columnists saying, "but the payroll is not increasing so this is different," which is bad reasoning. Why did they have all that money available? Because they had previously signed free agents with huge expiring contracts, that's why. The only reason the payroll is not increasing is because there are not enough free agents out there in spots the Yankees need that would even add up to $88 million dollars, otherwise spending would increase.

Other teams tried to offer a lot of money to Sabathia, Burnett, and Tex, but the Yankees won because they are able to pay 110% of a player's worth and no other team can do that. Even the Red Sox.

I am not advocating a salary cap but baseball is in real trouble certain teams are going to price other teams out of the market in regard to free agents. What makes football so engaging for fans is every year certain teams could make the playoffs (except the Lions, who have and always will suck) and the reason for this is there a certain amount of parity when it comes to signing free agents and every team under the salary cap has a reasonable chance of acquiring talent. Again, I don't want a salary cap, but I believe there is a real danger baseball has certain teams pricing other teams out of the market for players.

But whatever you think about the relative merits of Ramirez and Teixeira, the Teixeira signing has to be seen in context of the Yankee-Red Sox rivalry.

Sure, in a way, but I get so tired of hearing ESPN say, "now that Teixeira has signed, what does this mean for the Red Sox?" The world is bigger than those two teams but somehow at Bristol, Connecticut they can't seem to realize that. I realize the Yankees took Tex from the Red Sox and that is a big win for them but my world is certainly bigger than two teams and their rivalry.

I don't want a salary cap in baseball, I think that is a bad idea, because if the Yankees want to spend $300 million on a player, then let them do it. Does it annoy me they can outbid anyone they want at any point? Sure it does, but mostly it annoys me when they outbid my favorite team for a player's services and then complimentary columns are written like they fucking painted a priceless painting or did something other than offer more money than another team. Even though a salary cap would seem fairer, I don't think baseball is a good sport for this because the team with the highest payroll does not always win and that has been proven. I will say that professional football is an interesting as it is because teams can not go out and just spend as much money as they want on a player. There are ramifications for doing this and this is part of what has made football so popular. I admire teams in football because they do have certain parameters they have to work around and still put a winning team on the field every year.

Regardless of a team winning the World Series with such a high payroll every year and whether that happens or not, I think it is scary that other teams serve as farm teams for the New York Yankees. I am not worried about the Yankees signing players away from the Twins, Marlins, and Royals, we have all come to expect that. What concerns me, and the context I see this in, is so far this offseason the Yankees have greatly outbid the Boston Red Sox, Atlanta Braves, Los Angeles Dodgers, and Anaheim Angels for three player's services. Those are not mid-market or small market teams. Those are the teams that are in large markets, have large fan bases, and should be in the running for these players based on this fact. That scares me a little.

No, money doesn't guarantee championships. The Yankees spent more money than anyone else last year, and they didn't win. They spent the most money the year before that, and they didn't win.

So the past three years the Yankees have spent the most money in the offseason and I am supposed to admire them for this? Can't you see this makes zero sense?

Was that the deciding factor? No, but it is a factor. Put it together with huge amounts of cash (always the biggest factor), and you have the Yankees acquiring basically whoever they want.

Again, it is only one offseason, and really the Yankees have to sign free agents because they have no players in their farm system that can help right now and they don't have the players in the system to trade for players, but this scares me a little bit. What happens when Hanley Ramirez becomes a free agent? Is he Jeter's replacement? What about Tim Lincecum, is he next to be in pin stripes in a few years?

When the Yankees get around to announcing the Teixeira signing, they'll no doubt remind us how much money they had coming off the books at the end of the 2008 season. Jason Giambi ($23.4 million) is gone, and so is Bobby Abreu ($16 million). Carl Pavano's four-year, $40 million contract finally expired.

Two overpaid players coming off the books that were signed by the Yankees and one overpaid player they traded for.

What they should never do is suggest that the economy affects them the same way that it does almost everyone else.

Seriously, no one is suggesting this at all. No one. Only you, and only you could be bringing this up and actually being serious about it.

The goal is to win, remember? A whole bunch of teams spend as much money as they can trying to achieve that goal.

What a misleading statement from this asshole! Other teams spend "as much money as they can," sure they do but the Yankees can spend more and therein lies the problem. I don't want a salary cap by any measure of the imagination but the perception and reality is that Milwaukee made the best offer they could to Sabathia and could not get him. They missed by 2 years and $61 million dollars. They can't offer more money in trying to achieve their goal of winning, that is their economic reality. No team in it's right mind is going to not spend as much money as it can to win ball games, but the ceiling for some clubs is higher than others. MLB teams can't become feeder teams to the New York Yankees. This may not happen but when they snap up every top free agent it certainly seems that way.

You don't have to like them. But you sure should admire them.

Admire them for what? Being able to spend more money than everyone else? That makes no sense. I admire teams that don't have the luxury to grab any player they want off the free agent market. You would not admire the United States if it used the fact it has one of the world's largest militaries to invade other countries and spread "freedom" to other lands, the U.S. does have the resources to do this so we should admire them right? Maybe an extreme example...I would admire the Yankees a lot more if they would show a little restraint in their pursuit of winning.

I said Mark Teixeira would be going to the Red Sox, I was wrong.