EVIL~! alkeiper

The same thought crossed my mind. I would offer Urbina arbitration. If he accepts, you have another reliever on your hands. If he's found not-guilty, welcome back. If he's guilty, the Phillies could avoid his salary simply due to his failure to show up.

The way this market's going, it would be silly not to offer arbitration to virtually any reliever.

I doubt it. The 1988 race was very close, and it's not entirely clear that Clark was the very best in the league. The 1989 award went to Kevin Mitchell, who hit 47 home runs in a fluke season. You really have to dig into the stats to push Clark ahead of Mitchell.

The stupidity just keeps on coming this offseason, as far as free agent signings go. I can understand passing on Sandoval, whose AAA season may be a fluke. But Matt Kata's a flat out better player, and I don't think he's even reached arbitration yet. All things considered, Gillick's probably signing Nunez as David Bell insurance.

Very little. Graig Nettles, Babe Ruth, Pete Rose corked bats. Gaylord Perry and others doctored baseballs. It rarely comes up when discussing talent. Garvey was a guy who was consistantly good for a long amount of time. His career statistics come up short though, and it's hard to stump for his election without making a case for many similar players who also missed out.

If nothing else, at least the Cubs have the best middle relief and bench in the division. That way, they have plenty of weapons when they're down 3-0 in the 7th.

The duel Keltner list for Albert Belle and Will Clark... 1. Was he ever regarded as the best player in baseball? Did anybody, while he was active, ever suggest that he was the best player in baseball? Belle was not the best player in the game, although he was one of the top five or ten in his prime. Bill James' system rates Will Clark as the best player in baseball in 1988-89. Clark's value is hidden because he played in a tough hitters' park, and it is hidden in little statistics. In 1988-89, he stole 17 bases, was caught 4 times, and grounded into 15 double plays over two full seasons. 2. Was he the best player on his team? Yes in both cases. Belle was the best player on an Indians team that won 100 games in a 144 game season. He was the best player on his team every year from 1994-99, except for '97 when he loses out to Frank Thomas. Will Clark was the best player on the San Francisco Giants from 1987-92. That club won two division titles and an NL pennant. 3. Was he the best player in baseball at his position? Was he the best player in the league at his position? Clark was certainly the best first baseman in the league in his prime. Belle is a less solid candidate. Belle was probably the best left fielder in the league in his prime. 4. Did he have an impact on a number of pennant races? As mentioned, Belle was the best player on the Cleveland Indian teams that demolished their competition in 1995-96. Clark's teams reached the postseason often. Twice with the SF Giants and twice with the Texas Rangers. Will Clark was also involved in one of the best deadline deals in baseball history. Acquired by the Cardinals to replace the injured Mark McGwire, Clark hit .345 with 12 home runs in 51 games. 5. Was he good enough that he could play regularly after passing his prime? Clark was good enough to play and regularly produced solid numbers, but retired at the age of 36 before his skills eroded. His season OPS+ the last four years were 128, 126, 124 and 145. Belle however retired at the age of 34 due to an arthritic hip condition. 6. Is he the very best baseball player in history who is not in the Hall of Fame? No. I think Bert Blyleven and Ron Santo share that honor. 7. Are most players who have comparable statistics in the Hall of Fame? Belle's list is filled with recent players. Of his three eligible comps, one is in. No player with Clark's statistics is in the Hall. 8. Do the player's numbers meet Hall of Fame standards? No. When all is said, Clark only hit 284 career home runs, along with 2176 hits. Belle collected 381 home runs and 1,726 hits. Belle's adjusted OPS is 60th all time, Clark's is 88th. For largely offensive players with short careers, that is probably not going to cut it. 9. Is there any evidence to suggest that the player was significantly better or worse than is suggested by his statistics? Certainly. Both players perform well when you break down smaller statistics. Clark was a .333 hitter in 31 career postseason games. 10. Is he the best player at his position who is eligible for the Hall of Fame? Clark would have to compete with Keith Hernandez, Dick Allen and Don Mattingly. Belle loses out to Minnie Minoso. 11. How many MVP-type seasons did he have? Did he ever win an MVP award? If not, how many times was he close? Clark never won an MVP but deserved it twice. Belle probably deserved an MVP in 1998 but never won one. 12. How many All-Star-type seasons did he have? How many All-Star games did he play in? Did most of the players who played in this many All-Star games go into the Hall of Fame? Five All Star games for Belle, six for Clark. 13. If this man were the best player on his team, would it be likely that the team could win the pennant? Absolutely. 14. What impact did the player have on baseball history? Was he responsible for any rule changes? Did he introduce any new equipment? Did he change the game in any way? None apparent. 15. Did the player uphold the standards of sportsmanship and character that the Hall of Fame, in its written guidelines, instructs us to consider? This is where Belle loses points. He holds a reputation as one of the biggest horse's asses in baseball. When you take the last point into account, Belle's candidacy is suspect. Will Clark's case is stronger than many people may imagine, when you really study the issue.

I believe this year's special election is a once and done deal. I don't think there is a point to spreading it out because Buck O'Neill is almost certainly the only remaining living player. No one is even around who can say they saw some of them play. Win Shares are a Bill James creation that attempts to place all of a player's accomplishments into a single statistic. The gimmick of win shares is that it starts with a team's statistics (and win total) and works backwards. It's not perfect, but it is better than any system I've seen at measuring fielding performance. A full explanation literally requires a book. Someone suggested running a Keltner List on Albert Belle, and I'll do that.

Let me run out some peripherals... Barry Zito: 228.3 IP, 26 HRs, 89 BBs, 171 Ks Esteban Loaiza: 217 IP, 18 HRs, 55 BBs, 173 Ks Loaiza doesn't walk many guys. Beane may be thinking, "let's get a guy who doesn't mess around with the hitters, let the other team put the ball in play, and our superior defense will take care of the rest." As for the Abreu trade rumor, that's the worst idea I've ever heard.

I would be surprised if we don't see several negro league players inducted. Possibly a dozen. Let's draw a distinction between worst Hall of Fame candidate, and worst player to draw a vote. My pick is Hal Lanier, for racking up just 60 win shares while playing almost 1200 career games. There's a good argument that closers aren't as valuable as other players. In this case, I think you first have to make the decision whether relievers deserve the Hall, and then you need to rate them solely among relievers.

I'm not getting worked up, just trying to explain why fans are beginning to view the Red Sox and the Yankees in the same light. Understand that I am one of those who has defended the Yankees' massive spending in the past, and will do the same with the Red Sox. But I think it is frustrating when fans of mid-level teams never hear about their own teams in on such deals.

Arroyo and Youkilis for Torii Hunter is like the Yankees? Elaborate, plz, b/c when I think of Yankees, I think of overpaying for veterans, not making good trades. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> It's the idea that your team has the god-given right to acquire a big name for every single hole you have in the ballclub. No center fielder? Let's get Torii Hunter! Need a pitcher? Let's trade for Curt Schilling or Randy Johnson! Need a set-up man? B.J. Ryan! There are such things as role players that other teams settle for. I don't think it's the teams as much as the fantasy baseball mentality of the fans and sports radio.

Blyleven, Dawson, Gossage and Trammell would receive my votes. Sutter pehaps, but I'd like to go one closer at a time. I waver on Dale Murphy and could get talked into him.

It's fun around my area, as my college (East Stroudsburg University) has made it to the NCAA Division II Semifinals. We've got Great Valley University coming up this Saturday.

In Roberson's case, we have a 26 year old who produced a 112/40 K:BB ratio in AA. Considering he's nearly at his peak, that would not look pretty against Major League caliber pitching. He's a 5th outfielder at best, but perhaps an exciting AAA player. Bourn's statistics look disappointing this season, but take into account that he skipped High A ball. Bourn has Willy Taveras type skills, but he brings an extra one to the table: plate discipline. Bourn draws walks and steals bases at a high percentage. If he can develop any kind of extra base power, he's going to be a good one. If he doesn't, he could turn into another Jason Tyner.

1776, by David McCullough. I plan on reading it during semester break.

I wish I lived closer to Reading. If they put Hamels, Gio, and Haigwood all in AA (a reasonable possability) it could be a fun year watching that rotation. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Don't forget about Scott Mathieson, who was the #2 pitching prospect in the organization before the trade. I will likely take a trip or two to Reading myself to watch the AA team play. This year we should get Michael Bourn and Chris Roberson in Scranton, but the rest is thin.

That's certainly a new way of thinking about it. Since the Cardinals rely so heavily on their power hitting first baseman, do they need more first basemen? Or should they look at covering their weaknesses instead? Besides, a large part of the White Sox' pitching success is actually their fielding. We'll see how good a fielder Aaron Rowand is based on what happens to the Phillies' pitching staff this season.

Don't the White Sox have enough pitching? I'm loving the Thome trade though. It actually feels like we have a farm system again!

And just for kicks, actually reading the Insider column on espn.com, Billy Beane reportably said the A's are NOT actively shopping Barry Zito, and that baseball insiders, and not the Athletics, have surmised that either Mike Piazza or Frank Thomas MIGHT be a good fix for the Athletics. This is why I don't pay attention to offseason rumors.

That's funny, because both guys are free agents. It's bad enough that rumors are tossed around without being misinterpreted along the way.

Just is the experience you'll find at just about every mid-level job in the Corporate chain that you'll ever work at.

I agree with Mike. What fun is it to cheer for the Red Sox against the evil empire when the Sox have become everything we've ever hated about the Yankees? As for the thoughts on the Sox, I'll be shocked if the Brewers fall out of contention, and Luis Castillo would not be a good fit for the Red Sox.

There's a part of me that wants to go to an Eagles game just to start a Phillies chant. I enjoy minor league baseball tremendously. There's less fooling around and wasting time, and everything's cheaper.

Washburn's peripherals are mediocre, but what isn't seen in the average stat line is that he almost never allows opposing runners to steal bases because his pickoff move is so good. Washburn did not allow a single runner to steal a base last season. The problem is that Washburn will be overpaid.