2007 Baseball Season is about to start--talk about anything you want

[pilferk]

they were underdogs in '04 cause the yanks won the division.

I'm not sure that's cause enough to call them "underdogs", personally.  I think we've gotten to the point (and had in 2004, too) where getting in is getting in, regardless of winning the division or the WC. It's a 2nd season.  They had a better season than all but 2 teams in MLB.  Certainly you can't point to them and say the didn't have a shot to win it, or that their odds were significantly lower than the other teams.  I know Red Sox Nation likes to buy into the whole "we were underdogs, we cowboyed up" storyline but really...they were good from the get go.  It's not like they did what Colorado did this year....even taking into account their flame out against Boston.  Now THEY were underdogs!

the yanks cut his playing time cause he wasn't the best player at any OF position.

True, but not the ENTIRE truth. Also, keep in mind, we're talking about a guy who played 141 games...not TOO deep of a cut in PT here.

He was hurt.  When he wasn't hurt, he played about 85% of the games...either in RF or at DH, in a pretty even split, which means, to me, they think he was at least as good as Matsui, with a better upside at the plate (arguably Matsui's funk at the plate helped make that decision).  He didn't play CF much because of the "stud" playing out there....which doesn't mean he doesn't have value anymore.  He didn't play RF much because, well...he can't.  At least not well....so I'll give you that one.

Damon wouldn't sniff $13M/yr if he was a FA right now, even in this weak market. Aaron Rowand will probably sign for about that much, so Damon would be a few million less. 

This year? No...lucky for him it's not his FA year.  A-rod wouldn't have gotten (or been looking for) princely sums of money (well, AS princely) at the end of last year, either.  Neither would Posada.   Neither would lots of other players who had great years this year.  So what? 

Player's values change based on immediate past performance in the free market.  A great year in a string of average will drive your price up.  A bad year in a string of good ones will drive it down.  Teams evaluate the risk when negotiating.

They don't change, so much, when looking at the value of an existing contract because you're "amortizing" their performance over the entire period.  So far, we've got 2 stellar years, and one decent year with a pretty stellar 2nd half....and a big asterick of injury affixed to the first half. Having a bad half while injured isn't likely to make the front office "nervous"....

Again, I would bet dollars to donuts the Yanks front office doesn't think they've overpaid, so far.  Giambi was overpaid.  Kevin Brown was overpayed. Carl Pavano has been overpaid.  Damon...not so much. And if they can pry loose a good pitcher or bullpen help from somebody in exchange for him, I don't think that'll change.  If he's an every day player (at some position) and hits .300 with 15 to 20 HR next year...I bet they'll think the same.

[sandman]

when i say underdogs, i'm talking vegas. as in, they were not the favorites to win that series vs. the Yankees.

you seem to be under the impression that Damon has been with the yanks for 3 seasons now. in the first post i thought it was a typing error. 

Damon IS overpaid. you agreed with that point by admitting that right now he isn't worth $13M a year. at that price you're hoping for a .300 hitter. he hasn't lived up to his contract. he's hitting below .280 in his two seasons with the team and has given them average defense. and i'm not talking about next season...who knows, maybe he will start earning his pay.

when a team signs a player at his peak, you are hoping that he maintains that level of play for a couple seasons before declining. damon has not done that.

to quote the Sports Guy, "the Red Sox cut the cord with Damon at exactly the right time."

[pilferk]

when i say underdogs, i'm talking vegas. as in, they were not the favorites to win that series vs. the Yankees.

Looking back at what I can find online, the Yanks were very, very, very slight favorites.   If you want to say they were underdogs in Vegas, fine.  I don't think that's an accurate picture in terms of being competitive (which is the vein you were using when comparing '04 and '07), or their chances of winning a WS.  Heck, they were long odds against cleveland to come back 3-1.  Does that mean theywere underdogs this year, too?

you seem to be under the impression that Damon has been with the yanks for 3 seasons now. in the first post i thought it was a typing error. 

You're right.  Must be the clairvoyance kicking in.  1 stellar year, one good year with a stellar 2nd half.  Still pretty good value, so far. 2 years left.

Damon IS overpaid. you agreed with that point by admitting that right now he isn't worth $13M a year. at that price you're hoping for a .300 hitter. he hasn't lived up to his contract. he's hitting below .280 in his two seasons with the team and has given them average defense. and i'm not talking about next season...who knows, maybe he will start earning his pay.

No, I agreed he wouldn't get that, after this past year, in free agency. Not after being injured and having a shaky 1st half.

 I did not agree that he's not worth it right now, under contract. I think he is.  I explained the difference between the two concepts.  We're talking about value for what the Yanks are paying, not what Damon could get on the open market, today.  Two different benchmarks, entirely.  We're talking about what he IS getting paid, not what he COULD BE getting paid.

We got a .289 hitter last year and for 1/2 this year (when he wasn't hurt), combined.  If you want to split hairs, we got a .288, 24 HR hitter last year (the added power offsets the slightly lower average) and a .296 hitter post AS break this year.  Sounds about right, yeah? Given what you said above.

The .245 guy we got in the 1st half....that guy had bum legs, a bum back, and was hurting just to walk onto the field every night. Players become less productive when they're injured...it happens.  But is Manny worth less, overall, because he didn't play the couple weeks due to injury?  Is Veritek worth less because he got hurt last year and, even when he came back, put up AWFUL numbers at the end of the year?  I mean, Veritek would have been KILLED in FA last year.  Does that mean he was "overpaid" at the end of last season? No, because when not injured, the guy has produced behind the plate.

Damon's defense was better than average (we talked stats earlier...you can go back and see them) but not absolutely freaking unbelievable lights out, which is what Melky was playing. On just about any other MLB team, he's your starting CF...even the Red Sox.  Look at Damon's numbers compared to the rest of the leagues...more than servicable, just not top 5 (and maybe top 3) in the league.

when a team signs a player at his peak, you are hoping that he maintains that level of play for a couple seasons before declining. damon has not done that.

to quote the Sports Guy, "the Red Sox cut the cord with Damon at exactly the right time."

Lets see:

2002 stats:  .286, 14 HR,  .356 OBP
2003 stats: .273, 12 HR, .345 OBP
2004 stats: .304, 20 HR, .407 OBP
2005 stats: 316, 10 HR, ..366 OBP

That's with Boston, and takes you up through his FA year.

2006 stats: .285, 24 HR (his career high), .359 OBP
2007 stats: .270, 12 HR, .351 OBP.

Now, the 2006 stats are well within his career average.  His 2007 stats look like a drop off until you look at this:

2007 Pre AS break (while he was hurt): .245, 5 HR, .339 OBP
2007 Post AS break (healthy): .296, 7 HR, .364 OBP

Essentially, exactly the player you said, above, you want for the price you're paying.  And VERY consistent with his career numbers.

I wouldn't be quoting the Sports Guy, FYI, if you want to make a serious argument to support your position.   Simmons is a great humorist.....beyond that, you can't really take anything he says seriously.

[sandman]

no, they were the favorites this year. it would have been an upset if they lost to cleveland. the red sox were the best team in baseball all year. obviously every team has their ups and downs.

every team in the league looks for a leadoff hitter with a strong OB. not serviceable OB. and when you pay near top dollar for a leadoff hitting CF, you want a strong OB.

i think the yanks will desperately try to trade Damon. and when they do, they will eat a portion of his salary. at least in part because i don't think there is a team in baseball that would pay him $13M a season.

and don't discard the first half of seasons. those games count the same as september. and Damon getting hurt wasn't a surprise. at his age and the way he plays the game, injury was an obvious risk.

i disagree on Simmons - he knows his shit. i don't always agree with his opinions, but that doesn't take away from his knowledge of sports.

[faldor]

Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, stop right there Pilferk.  There is NO WAY IN HELL that you could ever seriously consider that Johnny Damon would start in CF on the Red Sox over Coco Crisp.  Absolutely NO WAY!  Coco Crisp played gold glove caliber defense in CF this year.  Both players have well below average arms, but Coco tracks down balls with the best of them in the OF.  Damon has lost a few steps in the OF over the last couple years.  You can break out all the zone range stats and whatnot but I don't think anyone ever used the words gold glove to describe Damon's defense this year.  He used to be able to go and get it, but not anymore.  And sure Coco has been a disappointment at the plate, but they would still take him at his money over Damon and his 13 mil for an aging corner OF/DH type in CF.  Of course while I say this, Coco is likely gone this off-season with Ellsbury taking over.  Nice knowing you Coco.  And since you keep sticking up for Johnny saying he's not overpaid, I'm gonna do the unthinkable to all Sox fans and stick up for JD Drew right now.  And lord knows I cursed him out just about all season long, till he hit that grand slam against the Indians.  First off JD had a tough first half on AND off the field.  Changing leagues, getting used to new pitchers is a bit of an adjustment.  Also his infant son was seriously ill and in the hospital, that's gotta weigh on your mind day in and day out.  Fortunately his son got better and JD in turn had a much better end to the season hitting .286 in the 2nd half, and September #'s of .342/4/18.  And I think you mentioned before that Damon was a better OF'er than Drew as well.  I don't know what you're basing this on, zone rating again I presume?  I'm not saying Drew is among the best at his position or anything but I've never heard anyone say a bad word about his defense, in fact all I've heard is praise.  The same can not be said for Damon, not anymore.  In his prime, he was a very good OF'er despite the weak arm but he just doesn't cover the ground he used to.

[pilferk]

Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, stop right there Pilferk.  There is NO WAY IN HELL that you could ever seriously consider that Johnny Damon would start in CF on the Red Sox over Coco Crisp.  Absolutely NO WAY!  Coco Crisp played gold glove caliber defense in CF this year.  Both players have well below average arms, but Coco tracks down balls with the best of them in the OF.  Damon has lost a few steps in the OF over the last couple years.  You can break out all the zone range stats and whatnot but I don't think anyone ever used the words gold glove to describe Damon's defense this year.

Their stats are almost identical.  You can argue whatever you want, but stats don't lie.

And Damon's bat was MUCH more productive in the 2nd half than Crisp's...when Damon was putting up his typical numbers and was healthy.

He used to be able to go and get it, but not anymore.  And sure Coco has been a disappointment at the plate, but they would still take him at his money over Damon and his 13 mil for an aging corner OF/DH type in CF.  Of course while I say this, Coco is likely gone this off-season with Ellsbury taking over.  Nice knowing you Coco.

My comment about playing center was irrespective of money.  On MOST MLB teams, Damon is your starting center fielder based on his bat and his ability to play the field.  Even the Red Sox.

And since you keep sticking up for Johnny saying he's not overpaid, I'm gonna do the unthinkable to all Sox fans and stick up for JD Drew right now.  And lord knows I cursed him out just about all season long, till he hit that grand slam against the Indians.  First off JD had a tough first half on AND off the field.  Changing leagues, getting used to new pitchers is a bit of an adjustment.  Also his infant son was seriously ill and in the hospital, that's gotta weigh on your mind day in and day out.  Fortunately his son got better and JD in turn had a much better end to the season hitting .286 in the 2nd half, and September #'s of .342/4/18.  And I think you mentioned before that Damon was a better OF'er than Drew as well.  I don't know what you're basing this on, zone rating again I presume?  I'm not saying Drew is among the best at his position or anything but I've never heard anyone say a bad word about his defense, in fact all I've heard is praise.  The same can not be said for Damon, not anymore.  In his prime, he was a very good OF'er despite the weak arm but he just doesn't cover the ground he used to.

Unless Drew was hurt, he gets no pass from me.  As a professional, you're supposed to put the off field stuff away and play.  We all do it in our jobs every day.  On changing leagues, etc....again, you're a pro.  That's part of the job.  They paid you to produce, as mercenary as it sounds.  The only legit "excuse" is really injury, IMHO.

And .286 in the 2nd half?  Didn't sandman just say for 13 mill (more for Drew) you expect a .300 hitter?

Damon gets bagged on because it's a popular thing to do.  Not because, statistically, he's gotten any worse. And stats don't lie. Has he slowed down? Maybe, but the stats say he still gets to balls.  His defense is PERCIEVED as worse, probably because he was taken out of CF.  Of course, the reason he was taken out was because the guy who took his spot was playing the best defense in MLB at that position, or pretty close to it.

Drew and Damon are both starting caliber players on most MLB teams.  I'm not really BAGGING on JD Drew.  I'm pointing out that the Sox were willing to pay MORE money for a guy who produced LESS than Damon did....so if Damon is "overpaid" then isn't Drew "overpaid", too?

[pilferk]

no, they were the favorites this year. it would have been an upset if they lost to cleveland. the red sox were the best team in baseball all year. obviously every team has their ups and downs.

Odds-wise, they were not the favorites.  The Yankees were, both at the begining of the season (11-2 vs 6-1) and when the playoffs started (3-1 vs 4-1).

Again, Cleveland and Boston had identical records at the end of the season.  You might have percieved they were favored, but again the odds were pretty close. Boston was favored SLIGHTLY in their series based on home field advantage (the home team was favored in each game).  When Boston went down 3-1, Cleveland was the overwhelming favorite in Vegas to win the series. 

every team in the league looks for a leadoff hitter with a strong OB. not serviceable OB. and when you pay near top dollar for a leadoff hitting CF, you want a strong OB.

Damon's OBP is pretty much right in his career numbers wheelhouse.  Why do you think the Yankees would expect that to change?  He's perfectly suited to that spot because he's a patient hitter who takes pitches, benefiting the hitters after him.  He's a sometimes power threat who you can't pitch around late in the game, because Jeter and Abreu are equally as dangerous.  He does pretty much what you expect from him every game..and his numbers are VERY consistent across his career.  The ONLY time he's not put up consistent numbers is when he's been hurt.  Seems logical to me.

i think the yanks will desperately try to trade Damon. and when they do, they will eat a portion of his salary. at least in part because i don't think there is a team in baseball that would pay him $13M a season.

We'll see.  I think the White Sox would pay it.  I think there's a couple other teams that would, too.  It would depend on need and perceived value.  Again, though, we're talking about what he IS getting paid, not what he "might" get on the open market after a mixed bag year.  Given the weak free agent market, and teams need to fill spots in their OF....I'd be pretty surprised if the Yanks needed to subsidize anything.

It wouldn't surprise me to find Damon traded, but not nearly for the reasons you think.  The outfield is crowded, and in a perfect world, you'd let Johnny be the DH and part time LF'er.  But the Yanks have the albatross of Giambi hanging around their necks...which makes it tough.  You think paying 13 million for a bench player would be bad?  How about 21 million (Giambi's salary next year) for the same thing?  They need to move ONE of them, and Damon is much more marketable, valuable, and tradeable than Giambi.   I hate it, because at the end of the day I'd like to see Giambi given a plane ticket and a kick in the rear, and see Johnny retire as a Yankee, but the realities and economics of the situation are unlikely to see that scenario play out.

And they need pitching.....with Pettite opting out, the best way for them to get it is through trade.  And Damon is probably the best thing they have to offer up, without gutting their young pitching (which they simply can't do if they want to be competitive next year).  That still means he's valuable to the team and has nothing to do with being "overpaid".

and don't discard the first half of seasons. those games count the same as september. and Damon getting hurt wasn't a surprise. at his age and the way he plays the game, injury was an obvious risk.

Yes, they do.  But injury doesn't really depend on how much the games "count".  I'm not throwing out the 1st half because it was the 1st half.  I'm saying they're not indicative of his true value or worth..because he was hurt

Injury is an obvious risk to every player.  As for it "not being a surprise"...you're projecting to try to justify your opinion here.  He doesnt' have a history of being injured, and he came back from the injury just fine and was VERY productive in the 2nd half.  If you're "predicting" that he'll now have an ongoing chronic issue, and that will result in him being "overpaid", we'll have to wait and see.  I haven't seen any indication of that....and I'm not willing to base someone's value on ONE injury.  You want to levy the claim against people like Carl Pavano and Kevin Brown...and even Giambi, and I'll be right there with you.

Beckett had a blister and missed some starts.  He's had chronic blister problems.  Does that mean he's "overpaid", too?

i disagree on Simmons - he knows his shit. i don't always agree with his opinions, but that doesn't take away from his knowledge of sports.

He's a humorist who moonlights as a sports guy...and he needs a good fact checker.  He's smart, but he's not exactly the benchmark for armchair GM or predicting what's best for a team. He tends to not be able to balance the business side vs the team front office side vs the "Fans" side very well.   When he sticks to the humor, he's entertaining and great for the casual fan.  When he tries to do serious editorial, usually his content is lacking and his conclusions tend to be shaky, at best.  But, to each his own......

[faldor]

Oh J.D. Drew is grossly overpaid, I'm not arguiing that.  Even if he repeated his #'s with the Dodgers, which were solid, I'd still think he was overpaid.  But there is sometimes a transition period from changing leagues.  Josh Beckett went through it.  MANY people thought the Sox were crazy to sign him to a 4 year extension last year when he was giving up homers left and right and an ERA hovering around 5.00.  But he certainly made the correct adjustments and showed that he is well worth the money, in fact he's a bargain.  I'm not saying that J.D. is gonna be an MVP candidate next year or anything but I'm willing to let him start with a clean slate at least.  I guess you're entitled to do the same with Johnny.  But I seriously don't get your admiration for his defensive abilities.  I saw the man play CF for the Sox for years.  His arm was terrible, still is (same as Coco).  He tracked down nearly everything in CF, but not as good as Coco.  Damon has certainly lost a few steps over the years so there's NO WAY he can cover anywhere near as much ground as Crisp THESE days.  I don't care what stats you whip out and show me.  I saw Crisp make unlimited highlight reel catches this year, he was a staple on Web Gems. 

[sandman]

yes, drew is overpaid. he was very unpopular all season long. he did come through HUGE when it mattered most.

my .300 comment wasn't meant to be an absolute benchmark. what i meant was when you go out and sign someone to be your leadoff hitter at top dollar, you are hoping they maintain their level of recent play.

he batted OVER .300 for two seasons before they signed him. they were hoping for the same level of play (or something close to it). he's not even in the neighborhood. he has not been that spark plug he was for the red sox.

[pilferk]

Oh J.D. Drew is grossly overpaid, I'm not arguiing that.  Even if he repeated his #'s with the Dodgers, which were solid, I'd still think he was overpaid.  But there is sometimes a transition period from changing leagues.  Josh Beckett went through it.  MANY people thought the Sox were crazy to sign him to a 4 year extension last year when he was giving up homers left and right and an ERA hovering around 5.00.  But he certainly made the correct adjustments and showed that he is well worth the money, in fact he's a bargain.  I'm not saying that J.D. is gonna be an MVP candidate next year or anything but I'm willing to let him start with a clean slate at least.  I guess you're entitled to do the same with Johnny.  But I seriously don't get your admiration for his defensive abilities.  I saw the man play CF for the Sox for years.  His arm was terrible, still is (same as Coco).  He tracked down nearly everything in CF, but not as good as Coco.  Damon has certainly lost a few steps over the years so there's NO WAY he can cover anywhere near as much ground as Crisp THESE days.  I don't care what stats you whip out and show me.  I saw Crisp make unlimited highlight reel catches this year, he was a staple on Web Gems. 

On Drew....you made my point perfectly.  With Beckett too.  When judging whether a player is "overpaid", you need to take the complete body of work for the contract, AND look at the anomalies to see if they're explainable by injury, etc.

I don't "admire" Damon's defensive abilities (I save that for Melky).  But I think they're at least average in the league....maybe slightly better.  Stats back that up.  Add his offensive stats, and you've got a starter on most MLB teams.

Listen...while I certainly put some stock in the anecdotal, highlight film memories.....there is one overwhelming truth here: Stats don't lie.  And those stats say that Coco and Damon are roughly equivalent when making plays.  Coco may make them prettier.  He may make them easier.  But the stats say they both make them in roughly equal numbers, and in the end, that's what counts.  Combine that with the fact that Damon's offensive skills are a considerable upgrade to Crisp's, and that would mean giving him the nod over Crisp. Every day of the week, twice on Sunday.  Put both players in front of a manager as their two options at CF, no consideration of money, and I've no doubt Coco is carrying Johnny's equipment bag into the clubhouse.  And if you're protecting a lead late in the game, or it's a blowout....maybe Coco will get the nod as a defensive replacement

There are 9 CF's with better zone ratings.  Sizemore (.916), Wells (.911), Crisp (.911), Granderson (.908), Beltran (.908), Melky (.903) Hunter (.894), Rowan (.889(, and Dejesus (.889).

There are 0 (that's right, zero) with better fielding percentages. Damon's was 1.000 this year.

Of the 9 CF's above, 4 (Melky, Hunter, Rowand and Granderson) had years at the plate that match or exceed Damon's numbers.  Admittedly, some (like Crisp) were close.  If we compare Damon's more indicitve 2nd half, again, 4 players matched his numbers (Granderson, Beltran, Hunter, and Rowand).

Given all that, again, I'll reiterate my feeling that Damon would be starting on MOST MLB teams in the league.

[pilferk]

yes, drew is overpaid. he was very unpopular all season long. he did come through HUGE when it mattered most.

my .300 comment wasn't meant to be an absolute benchmark. what i meant was when you go out and sign someone to be your leadoff hitter at top dollar, you are hoping they maintain their level of recent play.

he batted OVER .300 for two seasons before they signed him. they were hoping for the same level of play (or something close to it). he's not even in the neighborhood. he has not been that spark plug he was for the red sox.

Sounds like backtracking to me.....

When you sign a player, you might HOPE they continue on a hot streak.  You EXPECT they'll be right around their career numbers EVERY year.  He has been (when healthy).   Almost exactly.  There's something to be said for consistency.

And when you decide to pay him, the agent is going to argue one set (the higher set) and the team the other (the lower set). You meet somewhere in the middle.  I'd say his current stats are roughly equivalent to the $$'s.

 "Over .300" is true, but let's be more specific.  He hit .304 and .316.  Good numbers, for sure.  I'd say .296 is certainly "in the neighborhood" to that (his 2nd half # this year).  Close enough to be happy with, from a contract value standpoint.  And he's hit .285 and .270 (again, .296 when healthy) over the past 2 seasons....compared with his .288 career average over 12 full seasons + 1 partial season (the year he broke in).  Looks, again, to be exactly in the wheelhouse. 

Who's to say they're paying him to be a sparkplug?  I certainly didn't see that mentioned in the reports on the contract terms.  Given it would be odd to include that....I think we would have heard about it.

The Yanks are, and probably always will be, a very different type of ball club than the Red Sox.  I'd be surprised if they had any notion they were paying Johnny to be a "spark plug".  On the contrary, from the reports at the time all discussions with the front office were about Johnny "toning it down" and cutting his hair.

[sandman]

damon would not start for phillies, mets, braves, dodgers, mariners, twins, indians, tigers. that's 8 that he definitely would not start at CF. then there's at least 7 or 8 others where you could argue either way, such as the red sox. so off the top of my head i think it's around HALF of the teams.

also, regarding vegas odds....yes, when a team is down 3-1, i think's it pretty obvious they are the underdog. and when a team is down 10-0 in the 9th, same thing.

and the yankees didn't sign damon for his career numbers. he had TWO consecutive seasons far above his career numbers. that's what his contract was based on. he hasn't lived up to it.

[sandman]

it's simple....there will be two things to watch:

1. we'll see how many teams are lining up to try to trade for damon (you would expect a guy living up to the value of his contract to generate alot of interest).

2. if the yankees do trade him, we'll see if they eat some of his salary.

[pilferk]

and the yankees didn't sign damon for his career numbers. he had TWO consecutive seasons far above his career numbers. that's what his contract was based on. he hasn't lived up to it.

Really?  You were privy to the negotiations?

Of course not. 

The fact is, when contracts are negotiated both sets of numbers are looked at...the agent negotiates using the higher set, the team the lower set.  Point being, both sets are considered, 

The team HOPES for the higher set, and expects something close to a players career statistical pattern...especially when there's a LONG history to look at.

That's the reality of what happens in a baseball front office. 

[pilferk]

it's simple....there will be two things to watch:

1. we'll see how many teams are lining up to try to trade for damon (you would expect a guy living up to the value of his contract to generate alot of interest).

How many teams are looking for a center fielder or LF'er right now?  I can think of 3.  Only 2 of them have things the Yanks would want (established starting pitching).  There might be more, but they're the only 3 I can think of.

Just because you would start damon given him and another option doesn't mean you go out of your way to get him.  There's a fundamental difference between "pie in the sky" choices and giving up something of value to be able to make that choice.

2. if the yankees do trade him, we'll see if they eat some of his salary.

Comparative to the value of the contract of who they get for him.  Cash considerations to even out the value of the trade notwithstanding.

[pilferk]

damon would not start for phillies, mets, braves, dodgers, mariners, twins, indians, tigers. that's 8 that he definitely would not start at CF. then there's at least 7 or 8 others where you could argue either way, such as the red sox. so off the top of my head i think it's around HALF of the teams.

also, regarding vegas odds....yes, when a team is down 3-1, i think's it pretty obvious they are the underdog. and when a team is down 10-0 in the 9th, same thing.

Again, based simply on stats and talent....I still say most.  If you want to split hairs and say 1/2, I'm OK with that. That puts us one team apart on our "figuring".  That still means he's pretty darn valuable.

 I'd even argue the braves (Jones is a fixture, but has had a horrid year, and even his recent stats are well below Damons) are certainly an option based on talent, ability, and stats.  The 7 or 8 that "could go either way", the number soundly support the conclusion that Damon wins out....you might make a decision based on something else (simply to prove a point, for example), but statistically, Damon wins. 

Again, realize we're talking a pie in the sky decision by a manager here.  Not "should we scrap what we have and go out and get Damon" but "If we had Damon and X, who would you play".  Most MLB teams...or, if you'd rather, at least HALF of MLB teams...would likely choose Damon.

You brought up the odds...you labeled them underdogs based on the odds.  If you're going to do it once.....shouldn't it apply all the time?  Not simply where it bolsters your point?

[faldor]

According to Buster Olney of www.espn.com, and Curt Schilling's blog at www.38pitches.com, it appears that he and the Sox are close to agreement on a 1 year deal. ?8 million, plus 2 million in incentives. ?I wish Axl Rose had a blog like Curt, then we'd know what's going on exactly. ?Not really, Curt talks a little TOO much. ?So the Sox should have the same starting 5 going into next season, with potential ace in the making Clay Buccholz in the wings. ?Now the focus turns to Lowell, and trading Coco Crisp. ?On the Yankee front, Pettitte declined 16 million dollar option, as he's not sure if he wants to play next year of retire but it appears it's Yankees or golf/hunting/whatever activity Andy enjoys.

[pilferk]

According to Buster Olney of www.espn.com, and Curt Schilling's blog at www.38pitches.com, it appears that he and the Sox are close to agreement on a 1 year deal.  8 million, plus 2 million in incentives.  I wish Axl Rose had a blog like Curt, then we'd know what's going on exactly.  Not really, Curt talks a little TOO much.  So the Sox should have the same starting 5 going into next season, with potential ace in the making Clay Buccholz in the wings.  Now the focus turns to Lowell, and trading Coco Crisp.  On the Yankee front, Pettitte declined 16 million dollar option, as he's not sure if he wants to play next year of retire but it appears it's Yankees or golf/hunting/whatever activity Andy enjoys.

I'm not shocked on the Schilling front.  I pretty much expected it.  They need one more effective year from Schill, IMHO, to bridge the gap to the youngsters.

I also figure Lowell will sign with them pretty soon, too.  They just can't let him go.  They'd be complete idiots to let him go....and his most likely destination would be NY....and would go a LONG way toward fixing their hole at 3b, AND would have the added benefit of shoring up the lost offense.

We'll see on Crisp.  I think they keep him around one more year, but Ellsbury does appear to be "the real deal", so maybe they WILL run him without a safety net.   Everyone seems to have crowded outfields these days.....

I'm also not surprised, though I'm a bit disappointed, in Andy's decision.  The good news, sort of, is there isn't any real "issues" between the two sides.  Andy's just not sure if he wants to play or not.  He's said it's the Yanks or nobody, which is good, and they have a standing 16+ million dollar offer to him.  His agent says that he'd expect that once Andy decides, they'll get a deal done within 24 hours.  Andy says it's strictly about family and his body...he's not worried about any of the teams decisions or uncertainty, which is good, too.  I hope we see him back in pinstripes next year...or, at least, in the YES network booth.

FYI, I hear he likes to fish.

[sandman]

it's simple....there will be two things to watch:

1. we'll see how many teams are lining up to try to trade for damon (you would expect a guy living up to the value of his contract to generate alot of interest).

How many teams are looking for a center fielder or LF'er right now?? I can think of 3.? Only 2 of them have things the Yanks would want (established starting pitching).? There might be more, but they're the only 3 I can think of.

there's 3 teams looking for CF in the NL East alone.

don't you think the yanks want someone to play 3rd?

[sandman]

damon would not start for phillies, mets, braves, dodgers, mariners, twins, indians, tigers. that's 8 that he definitely would not start at CF. then there's at least 7 or 8 others where you could argue either way, such as the red sox. so off the top of my head i think it's around HALF of the teams.

also, regarding vegas odds....yes, when a team is down 3-1, i think's it pretty obvious they are the underdog. and when a team is down 10-0 in the 9th, same thing.

You brought up the odds...you labeled them underdogs based on the odds.? If you're going to do it once.....shouldn't it apply all the time?? Not simply where it bolsters your point?

hey, if you want to add to the red sox "underdog" theories, feel free.

futures don't tell you much. i place very little stock in them as they are essentially hypothetical. head to head is how you determine favorites/underdogs. and the red sox were favored in all 3 of their playoff series.