HOF reaction

A few quick words on the results of the HOF voting that were announced today. The results weren't very surprising, and ended up as follows:

Cal Ripken, Jr. -- 98.5% of vote
Tony Gwynn -- 97.6%
Goose Gossage -- 71.2%
Jim Rice -- 63.5%
Andre Dawson -- 56.7%
Bert Blyleven -- 47.7%
Lee Smith -- 39.8%
Jack Morris -- 37.1%
Mark McGwire -- 23.5%
...
Alan Trammell -- 13.4%
75% of the vote required for induction

I listed Trammell, because he was on my ballot of HOFers, along with Ripken, Gwynn, McGwire, Blyleven, and Gossage. Ripken and Gwynn got in, and Gossage missed by a hair, meaning that he'll likely be inducted next year. Blyleven got less than 50%, which means that it's looking doubtful that he'll ever get in. McGwire got a very poor showing, and the odds that the BBWAA will ever let him in are remote. But Trammell did worse than all of them, which is just too bad. I guess everybody's got a short memory.
The Jim Rice steam train rolls on, as he'll likely get in, if only as the result of physical intimidation from Red Sox fans. Rarely has history been revised and subverted with such energy.
Andre Dawson made a good showing and could get in in the future, but I doubt it. I personally don't think he should, as he's also gotten a big lift in popularity after his retirement. This is thanks mainly to his (undeserved) 1987 MVP and the fact that he had bad knees. If only the voters realized that there's a place for all those people "who would have been good enough, but ..." and it's not in Cooperstown.
In my next blog entry, I'd like to take a look at the forthcoming HOF elections. Let's see who's going to be on the ballot and look at their candidacy. I've already expressed my desire to induct McGwire, Blyleven, Gossage, and Trammell, so they'll be on my ballot again next year. So let's just look at the new players entering the ballot. That will be posted as soon as I finish the massive project of updating my all-time stats on . . . well, everyone. Is tomorrow okay?

Another very interesting story developed today, reported in the New York Daily News. The Daily News reported that, last year, Barry Bonds tested positive for amphetamine use and then tried to blame it on teammate Mike Sweeney. The paper cited several unnamed sources that claim that after Bonds' positive test, he blamed it on something he borrowed from Mike Sweeney's locker.
Well, this adds some more fuel to the fire, doesn't it? The first thing to point out -- strenuously -- is that this is just a report in the Daily News right now, and there's been no confirmation (nor will there be, barring a subpoena). It is, of course, tempting to speculate on what this means if it is true. If it is true, it finally offers a solid plank for the anti-Bonds forces to stand upon, giving them evidence much better than circumstantial (as if Game of Shadows weren't enough). The fact that he tried to blame it on a teammate -- if true -- just gives us more insight into the happy world of Barry.

Some quick free agent notes:

• Mark Mulder signed a two-year deal with the Cardinals for $13 million. It's not a lot of money by any means and gives the Cards a fifth body to put in the starting lineup. However, I'm more than a little troubled by the horrific drop in Mulder's quality since mid-2004. At this point, there are no guarantees that he can give the Cardinals much more than he did last year. However, in the Cards' predicament, I can understand them taking the chance. I just don't think it's a chance I would have taken.
• John Thomson signed a low-end deal with the Blue Jays for $500,000 and will compete for a spot in the rotation in Spring Training. Thomson was a decent LAIM before injuries sapped his effectiveness in recent years. He's a great guy to take a flier on if you need pitching, especially for pocket change.
  Oddly enough, Thomson took the opportunity during the announcement to insult Paul Lo Duca. Apparently, Thomson's other offer was from the Mets, and he (for some unknown reason) doesn't think the world of Paul Lo Duca. "As far as just looking at Paul Lo Duca across the field," he says, "I'm not really into how he acts behind the plate."
  I'm not sure what that means, and the two have never played together on the same team, so who knows where this came from. Thomson's entitled to his opini0ns, although by now, you'd think he'd know better than to express them during a conference call. Thomson just earned himself a world of bad blood (and bad press) by making a comment that was not only insulting but totally irrelevant.

I'll be back with the big numbers soon. While you're waiting, see Children of Men.

Johnson gone?

Several news bits on the baseball wire today. First, I need to offer a correction to a previous entry. When I spoke about the government's seizure of the players' steroid test results, I didn't have the whole story. I was forming my opinions based on the early AP wire reports. But I should have waited, as Maury Brown has offered a great deal of clarification in his Business of Baseball blog and at Baseball Prospectus. Apparently, I wasn't getting at the real issue of the case.
While some of my general remarks are still valid, I was mistaken in thinking that the legal bone of contention here was the search itself. As it turns out, the government had the authority to seize records pertaining to the 11 players implicated in the BALCO scandal. As it turns out, the government (according to Brown) seized a lot of records of a lot of different athletes, far beyond those covered by their search warrant and even extending into other sports.
The issue of "spontaneous discovery," or whatever it's called, is a thorny one in constitutional law. Did the feds, in searching for incriminating evidence, have the right to seize evidence unspecified in the search warrant just because it may also indicate illegal activity? It's a thorny issue, and it's not surprising that it's got people up in arms.
So I apologize if my original analysis of this news story was premature. A lot of the general arguments in the article I still stand by, but of course, I was basing my specific arguments on an incomplete understanding of the facts. Luckily, there are people like Maury out there to elucidate these matters (you know, like what a reporter should do).

That aside, let's look into some interesting transactions over the past few days:

• The Yankees have reached a tentative agreement to trade Randy Johnson back to the Arizona Diamondbacks. The two sides now have a 72-hour window to finalize it. The Yankees would get reliever Luis Vizcaino and three minor leaguer prospects. The prospects haven't been officially confirmed, but reports are that they are pitchers Ross Ohlendorf and Steven Jackson, plus shortstop Alberto Gonzalez.
  The Yankees would reportedly pick up about $2 million of Johnson's $14 million salary next year. It also looks like the deal would include an extension for the 2008 season amounting to $10 million.
  The minor leaguers given up by Arizona aren't just no-names. Ohlendorf is a promising right-handed starter, who spent most of 2005 in Double-A notching a 3.29 ERA and a 29:125 BB:K ratio in 177.2 IP. He made one start in Triple-A, and it was a good one. Ohlendorf's peripherals show a good-but-not-great strikeout rate and a slightly high walk rate. Still, he's a great guy for the Yankees, helping to deepen their minor league pitching arsenal. And even if he's just a serviceable starter, that's worth a lot in this year's market.
  Steven Jackson is a decent minor league arm, but doesn't look like he'll make much of an impact in the majors. Alberto Gonzalez is a shortstop with a decent batting average but not much in the way of secondary offensive skills. Plus, with Jeter and Cano stuck in the majors for quite a while, it's doubtful he'll amount to much.
  The big plus for the Yankees, though, is cutting $14 million from their payroll with Johnson. Vizcaino won't cost more than a couple million dollars in arbitration. He's no savior, but if the Yankees are going to get mid-level relief pitchers, it's much better that they get them for $2.5 million rather than making another Steve Karsay-sized mistake.
  It's possible that this move could hurt the Yankees somewhat in the short term. Johnson is getting quite old and is showing a good deal of wear and tear, but there's a good chance that he's still got some good pitching in that left arm. What makes this an acceptable risk is the fact that the Yanks are already set 1-4 in their pitching staff, and they've got top prospect Phillip Hughes coming up sometime in mid-season. And if they were going to trade away a starter, it's best that they trade the oldest one; no pitcher on the team makes more than Johnson, and the Yanks apparently didn't want to gamble $16 million on something as risky as Johnson when he's just their #5 pitcher. And at his age, it's not like he's a factor in their long-term plans.
  My only reservation about this deal is to wonder if maybe the Yankees could have gotten more. Johnson is still a potent guy, and there's obviously a big market out there for a big-game pitcher. But my guess is that the Yankees wouldn't have gotten more for Johnson without paying more on his salary. And I'll lay my bets right now that the $10 million or so that the Yanks save on this deal gets earmarked as "Roger Clemens money."
  From the Diamondbacks' perspective, they took a big step toward solving their pitching problems without giving up a great deal of talent in exchange. Johnson is a big risk, as I said before, but the 'Backs feel that they can contend in '07 if they can just shore up their pitching staff. As it is right now, the D-Back starting rotation is: Brandon Webb, Randy Johnson, Livan Hernandez, Doug Davis, and somebody else (Juan Cruz/Edgar Gonzalez/?). That's not a bad bunch. If Johnson comes through with a good season, you'll have an ace (Webb) a legit #2 (Johnson), and two legitimate LAIMs (Livan and Davis). Combine that with the heaps of potential in the Arizona offense, and I think the D-Backs really are contenders in 2007. The only real snag is that $14 million (plus a $10 million extension for '08, which sounds like it's a conditional agreement). That's a lot to gamble on a 43-year-old power pitcher with deteriorating knees and a bad back. It's a big risk for Arizona, but it might just be a worthwhile one.
• The Indians signed Keith Foulke to a 1 year, $5 million contract, with a mutual option for 2008 and a possible $2 million extra in performance incentives for 2007. This ends the silly idea that Joe Borowski will be the Indians' closer next year. But Foulke may not be any less silly. Foulke hasn't had a really good season since 2004, and -- like Eric Gagne -- the Indians are really hoping that he'll be able to pitch like his old self again. Their risk isn't monetary -- $5 million isn't much -- but it's a risk for the ballclub if they install the wrong guy at closer and end up sending their bullpen up in flames.
• The agent for Mark Loretta is reporting that his client will be signing with Houston for a one-year deal worth between $2.5 and $3.5 million, depending on incentive bonuses. It's unclear where Loretta will be playing, with Craig Biggio nominally slotted in at second, but Loretta's agent stressed that Loretta can play "all over the infield." I don't know about that, but Loretta would be great insurance in case Biggio keeps degenerating past the point of no return. He could also fill in at first base if they want to move Berkman to the outfield or split some time at third with Morgan Ensberg. Loretta's a nifty guy to have around, especially as a super-sub. He's not going to mean a whole lot to Houston's bottom line, but he will make their season move a little more comfortably.
• The Yankees signed Doug Mientkiewicz to a one-year contract for 2007. Mientkiewicz joins Andy Phillips and Josh Phelps as potential first basemen for 2007. Mientkiewicz is a lefty and Josh Phelps is a righty; this would seem to imply a fairly effective platoon for next season. Phelps is a better hitter than he's given credit for, especially if he can sit against tough righties. Mientkiewicz can be the spot starter for twice a week or so and also serve as a defensive replacement. Hopefully, the odd man out will be Andy Phillips, who has nothing to offer beyond what a Phelps/Mientkiewicz platoon could accomplish. Not that said platoon will be very good, but it will at least fill a hole, and it's not like the Yanks aren't getting their offense from other places.
  On the contrary, it's refreshing to see the Yankees looking for low-cost solutions to their problems. I'd have to check the numbers to make sure, but I think this is the most conservative offseason in years for New York. They've only signed three major free agent, Kei Igawa, Andy Pettite, and Mike Mussina. While Igawa's contract was high, it wasn't at all unreasonable in context. Pettitte gets a lot of money yearly, but it's a one-year deal with a one-year option, which is amazing in this market. And Mussina's contract was just absurdly good for New York. Not only that, but the Yankees have traded away two big contracts, with Randy Johnson and Gary Sheffield taking off.
  This is very good news for Yankee fans, because if they can start spending all of that money with good efficiency, then the AL East is theirs.
• The Red Sox signed former Mariner Joel Pineiro to a 1-year, $4 million contract. They say that Pineiro will get a chance to win the job of closer. I find this really, really, really hard to believe. It's hard for me to believe that any team would take such a failed starting pitcher and make them their closer, let alone a team with great resources playing in a city that simply does not tolerate failure. If I had to guess right now, I'd say that the Red Sox' closer in 2007 will be Jonothan Papelbon.
• There's very little information out so far, but this is a big story: the University Medical Systems, Inc. (Ohio) has just published a study showing that Mark McGwire's 70th home run ball from 1998 was -- to put it bluntly -- juiced. The rules of major league baseball are quite specific about the composition of the ball itself, and these rules do not allow for the "rubber ring" around the "pill" of the ball discovered in McGwire's home run ball. This offers pretty interesting evidence that Major League Baseball was indeed juicing the ball during the heightened home-run era of the mid-90's and could help explain some of the high numbers (and also alleviate some of the hysteria claiming that steroids alone were responsible).
  Another interesting fact was brought up by Jay Jaffe at Baseball Prospectus. Jaffe, who wrote an interesting article about the steroid era in Will Carrol's excellent book The Juice, cites other studies that also suggested that MLB baseballs weren't quite what they claimed to be. A 2000 study done by University of Massachusetts-Lowell showed that the variation in composition among "official" baseballs is higher and more significant than previously thought. The study claims, according to Jaffe, that the difference between the two extremes in composition could amount to a difference of about 49 feet on a fly ball.
  Another story in 2000 quoted researchers at the Center for Quantitative Imaging. This research team studied hundreds of baseballs from different eras and came to a pretty solid conclusion. According to Dr. Avrami S. Grader: "“It’s astonishing to see the changes to the core over the decades. It is a completely different ball today.”
  Here's another quote from the article, again quoting Jaffe's article:
  “Surrounding the core is a band made of synthetic rubber that over the years has been altered in thickness while the size of the core has increased which gives the ball additional ‘pop’ or liveliness,” said David Zavagno, president of Universal. “More importantly, this band is not part of Major League manufacturing specifications.”
  There's certainly room for a lot more research on this subject, but we could have stumbled upon a fairly obvious, yet previously unmentioned reason for some of the rise in offense in the 1990's. This would make for a lot of questions for baseball officials, who have always claimed that the ball hasn't changed and that the manufacturing process is held up to the strictest standards. The most notable thing to come out of this could be the possibility that baseball knowingly juiced the ball and then lied about it for years. Even if they weren't aware of the change in manufacturing, that itself is a damning bit of ignorance, especially since they've personally vouched for the new balls.
  Trouble in the Realm . . .

Good night and have a pleasant tomorrow.

A baseball fan's NYRs

These are my New Year's resolutions concerning baseball; I doubt this is the place to discuss eating right and exercising, unless we're talking about spring training.

In the year of 2007, I, Aaron Whitehead, hereby resolve to:

• Watch as much baseball as I can. I know, this doesn't exactly jibe with the whole "eating right" thing. But due to financial constraints and time constraints, I haven't been able to watch as much baseball as I should. And though I may be a sabermetrician at heart, nothing can replace watching ballgames in order to get a better, closer look at the player's on the micro level.
  Therefore, I will have to order either the MLB.com season pass, or -- preferably -- the cable network subscription.
• Become a better "scout." In a perfect world, scouting and statistical analysis would go side by side. The best analysis is that which incorporates the best elements of both. If I want to really expand my baseball knowledge, I'd better start by improving by ability to analyze and examine with my own eyes.
  This isn't to say that my "stats" knowledge is perfect -- certainly not -- but of the two, scouting is the area that finds me in the most ignorance. It would be to my great advantage to improve this. Mainly, I'd like to judge the finer mechanical aspects of the game, from a pitcher's mechanics and his rhythm, a hitter's mechanics and his tendencies, and especially the various skills of the defender.
• Communicate and discuss my analysis. I've taken the first big step in this regard by putting my writings on the internet. But a website is like a theatrical production; if no one sees it, does it matter? So I need to take active steps to advertise (on a budget) and try to bring people in to read what I'm writing.
  Firstly, I'd like to create a greater dialogue in my writing. The little feedback I have gotten has been very useful, and while feedback can certainly sting and hurt you for a while, it's ultimately necessary. I'd love for my site to be visited by "big-name" bloggers or writers on the internet; obviously, that would be nice. But I'd also love to get some traffic from regular people; either someone dropping by for a bit, or a regular.
  Blogs aren't built in a day, and neither will mine be. But if you're going to spend a lot of time talking, you might as well try and find some people to listen.
• Balance "wisdom" and humility. As time goes by, I get a greater urge to change the name of the website, to cease calling myself a "whiz kid" and stop referring to my blogs as "wisdom." It's not that I don't have confidence in my writing, it's just that such words tend to imply works of greatness and breadth rather than a work in progress by someone who is learning far more than he's teaching. I worry that now that people are actually reading my work, they may mistake my "title" as boisterous, or as a claim that my work is infallible. Nothing could be further from the truth. I'd like nothing more than to be able to call myself "the guy who writes a lot and has a couple of ideas."
  But that's not exactly catchy, is it? The reason I even decided to title the blog at all was to give it some sense of resonance and, perhaps, a catchy name to stick in the brain. No one gets on TV by saying that they "just d0n't know" the answer to the question; people are attracted to those who have answers, not to those who profess ignorance.
  While this is true, and I recognize that some confidence (perhaps a little over-confidence) is necessary, I cannot fall in the trap of trying to make my every entry perfect. When I realized recently that "I was being watched," that is, that my audience had increased from about 3 or 4 to as much as 10, I became very self-conscious of the fact and thought that I needed to make everything I said sound wise and perfect. As a result, I lost a lot of the ease that makes my writing effective and, by setting myself up to an impossible standard, was hurting myself by removing any equivocation or levity from my writing. I eventually realized that I'm not going to be perfect, my work isn't going to be the best in the world in a week, and I'm fooling myself to think so.
  I never want to be one of those talking heads on TV who has an absolutely ironclad opinion about every issue there is. Nothing is more harmful to serious analysis than someone who can't admit that they just don't know. Hopefully, I can hold on to that without having to write "I just don't know" into my title.
• Keep reading. I've been devouring baseball books for over 4 years now, but I've especially picked up over the last two years or so. I've been focusing mainly on analysis, but have also made a great effort to seek out books on history. Anything I can do to broaden my historical knowledge of the game will only help my attempts to analyze the present. Books also give me the opportunity to see baseball in a new light; some recent examples would be Andrew Zimbalist's Baseball and Billions, and Jerry Crasnick's License to Deal, both books that look at the business side of baseball. The next thing on my reading list is a twofer: the new Baseball America handbook and, in February, the Baseball Prospectus annual.
• Travel. This is a new year's resolution of mine in general. I'm a big history buff and have been itching to get in the car and drive to some of the many interesting places within a day's drive of Cincinnati. Why not include a stop at all of the ballparks nearby? It may be a more visceral learning experience, but it's hard to deny that you can learn something about a team, its city, and its fans, by going to see them in their ballpark. The list of parks I've been to is woefully small (to be fair, it's hard for anyone to keep up these days). Time to mark some more off the list this summer, namely: Jacobs Field in Cleveland, Turner Field in Atlanta, Comiskey Park in Chicago, new Busch Stadium in St. Louis, and Yankee Stadium, to start.
• Keep working. At any one time, I've got a few different projects kicking around. While my employment status and my theatre work can certainly interfere with my ability to feed this habit, I hope that I'll never stop working to keep up this blog and improve myself as an analyst. That's a promise to myself and a promise to you.

For those of you who do read, thank you -- thank you very much. Let's hope that 2007 is a good year for all of us, and most of all -- a lot of fun.

Ringing in 2-007 with a vodka martini

With the holidays come and gone, there have been some major free agent signings that I haven't gotten a chance to touch upon. I've been enjoying time with my friends and family but now can wrap up the last transactions of the calendar year. Sorry for the delay, but bloggers have lives, too. Well, actually we don't, but . . . you know what I mean.

• The biggest news, of course, is that prize left-hander Barry Zito signed a 7-year, $126 million deal with the Giants. The deal is the richest ever given a pitcher (AAV -- Average Annual Value -- of $18 million), and one of the longest, with only the 8-year deal given to Mike Hampton surpassing it.
  Where to begin? I guess a comparison to Hampton would be most apt. Not that the two situations are really similar -- Zito's going to the easy league and staying in a pitcher's park -- but let's remember the success rate of pitchers signed to contracts this long. It's Zito, Hampton, and Kevin Brown, and boy, that's not good company for young Barry. (I have to mention -- Zito's #1 similarity score through age 28 is none other than Hampton himself; take it for what it's worth).
  Remember that Kevin Brown looked like a safe 7-year investment at the time of the deal. Brown was a good deal older (33 when he signed; Zito is 28), but was also much better and much more reliable. Brown built up a reputation as a solid pitcher with Texas before becoming arguably baseball's best pitcher from 1995-1998, with ERA+ numbers of 136, 214, 150, and 160, consecutively. Brown signed the deal and gave the Dodgers two good years (1999 and 2000) before injuries turned him into Mr. Brittle. After 2000, Brown's seasonal IP were: 115.2, 63.2, 211, 132, 73.1. That 211 was a fine 2003 with the Dodgers that got him traded to the Yankees, where he reverted to form and finished his career in 2005.
  Although their styles of pitching aren't at all similar, and the five-year age difference is a huge difference, I think we can see Zito's deal working out in a similar fashion. Zito likely won't experience his deterioration as soon as Brown did -- the deal runs through his age 35 season -- the net effect may be similar: two good years and a lot of wasted money. Zito isn't remotely as good as Brown was at his peak, so even if he maintains his current value, he won't be worth $18 million a year. And no sane person would bet that much money for 7 years on something as unpredictable as a pitching arm.
  There are three main problems with this deal: 1) Zito isn't nearly as good as the Giants (and the press) think he is, and neither he -- nor any other pitcher -- is worth gambling $126 million on 7 years into the future; 2) Zito's 2006 performance is troubling, indicating a loss of stuff and with ill omens for the future, and 3) Zito's environment won't be as helpful in San Francisco.
  Point #1: Even if Zito maintains his current level of performance for seven years (something no one can safely predict), this deal won't be worth it. Zito is an above-average, durable pitcher who was really good for one season (2003), won a Cy Young Award he didn't deserve, and has been overrated ever since. None the less, he makes 34 starts a year and manages an above-average ERA (his ERA+ numbers since '03: 129, 105, 116, 116). His strikeout rate is above-average, but he also gives up a lot of walks and home runs (Zito has finished in the AL's top 5 in walks allowed every full season of his career but one). So the Giants are paying $18 million per year to an above-average innings-eater.
  This point was summed up well by Keith Law on ESPN Radio. He was asked if he'd ever looked at Zito and seen one of the five best pitchers in baseball. Law answered without hesitation, "No." I would add "absolutely not." He might have been back in 2003 when his fastball and curve were working so well, but not since and most likely not again. Why you would give the biggest contract in history to the tenth of twelfth best pitcher in the AL (and the second-best on your team, behind Matt Cain) is beyond me.
  Point #2: Zito's never really been the same since 2003, and it's not looking good. I'm not a scout (obviously), but most everything I've heard since then has been about the trouble he's had getting the curve over for strikes and the lost zip on his fastball. From what I've seen -- and admittedly I don't see the A's much -- that's pretty accurate. The scouting reports jibe with the numbers, which show that not only is Zito settling back into the "comfortably above-average pitcher," there are signs of trouble ahead. This may not mean serious trouble, but it would certainly make it unlikely that Zito's every going to break through and pitch like an ace again, even though he's sure as hell getting paid like one.
  Point #3: San Francisco isn't really the best setting for Zito. It's not that bad, certainly; it's big and roomy to suit Zito's fly-ball/walk tendencies, and it's in the weak league, which should give Zito a boost in ERA regardless of what he does. Many commentators point out that Zito will be pitching a lot not just in San Francisco, but in other roomy ballparks in Los Angeles and San Diego. That's true. He'll also be pitching a lot in Colorado and Arizona, where pitchers like Zito go to die. Let's not forget that.
  And, as many have pointed out, Zito will not have the benefit of a strong defense behind him, especially in the outfield. The A's have been one of baseball's best defensive teams in recent years, and this was never more true than in 2005, when they had Jay Payton, Mark Kotsay, and Milton Bradley covering ground for Zito. It's a long, long fall down to the level of Barry Bonds, Dave Roberts and Randy Winn. (Roberts isn't bad, but he's got a lot of room to cover.) He also won't have the benefit of Oakland's generous foul territory (a foul out in Oakland is an 8th-row souvenir and a do-over for the hitter in most ballparks).
  But this isn't just an odd fit for Zito, it's an odd choice for the Giants. The Giants, who have already leveraged big money on winning right away, can't really afford to stretch their payroll to the breaking point, and yet they've done exactly that. Zito is an improvement over the other guys in that he's about ten years younger and will be around for more than a year or two, but the benefit of a long contract is also a risk and a weakness; name one team that has ever looked back on a big, long-term deal with anything but regret about the last year or two (or four). You need look no further than Hampton and Brown, or most every other player given a contract in Zito's pay range. The only pitcher who's really justified such a blockbuster contract is Pedro Martinez.
  I'm not a political scientist, and I'm not a scout. But I know two things for damn sure: Dan Quayle is no Jack Kennedy, and Barry Zito is no Pedro Martinez.
  
  What's the bright side for the Giants? The "optimistic" view is that Zito will reverse his downward trend in peripherals and give the Giants solid work. Zito will certainly get a cosmetic boost from moving to the NL, and he could even manage a career year or two and contend for another Cy Young. He won't make the Giants contenders (at least, not by himself), and he won't push them to the World Series (neither Brown nor Hampton made it to the postseason until after they were traded away).
  But it's highly doubtful that Zito's couple of good years will outweight the other 5, especially as he reaches his mid-30's and the risk factor increases exponentially. The Giants have made a big mistake here, and this could prove to be the mortal one for Brian Sabean's career.
• The other "big" pitcher left on the market, Jeff Suppan, signed a four year deal with the Brewers for $42 million. The deal is pretty much in line with what other pitchers have been making this offseason. While I don't think the deal is a big mistake, I have several reservations.
  The big thing that many commentators have pointed out is Suppan, who relies very heavily on his defense, is going to be very disappointed with the "D" in Milwaukee. Think of the confidence Suppan must have had to turn around and see an infield of Albert Pujols, Scott Rolen, and David Eckstein. What will he think when he takes a look at Prince Fielder's glovework at first? How will he adjust to the Merry Misadventures of Rickie Weeks at second? Corey Hart isn't bad, but he's not Scott Rolen; and if Bill Hall ends up at shortstop, God help us all. I saw one computation that had Suppan gaining a half-run of ERA simply due to more balls in play turning into hits. Suppan isn't a bad pitcher, and he's done quite well with the Cardinals, but I wonder if the Brewers know what he looks like in translation?
  All that said, I can understand why GM Doug Melvin made this deal. I think he's one of the most competent GMs in the game, and so I can give him the benefit of the doubt. He knows that pitching is his biggest weakness, especially if Ben Sheets is injured again. He's got a lot of major league-ready hitters, but no pitchers ready to step in and fill that #3 role. He sees that the NL Central is soft and weak, and he knows that a team with his payroll doesn't get a lot of chances like 2007. So I can certainly understand the logical reasoning behind this decision.
  I understand it, but I disagree with it. I think Melvin may have been too enamored of Suppan's Postseason Halo and not observant enough to see that his 4.12 ERA last year was an ensemble effort; remove the ensemble, and you're left with a 32-year-old low-strikeout pitcher with a 4.50 ERA. That's not bad, but it's not worth $13 million. Tomo Ohka may not be famous, but he's about 80% as valuable as Suppan at 25% of the price.
  The Suppan deal won't be the biggest disappointment of the offseason by a longshot. But it's a rare misstep for the Brewers, which is unfortunate. I have to admit; I'm kind of rooting for them to shock the world and win the division.
• The Rangers and White Sox completed a semi-challenge trade last Saturday. The Sox sent erstwhile 5th starter Brandon McCarthy to Texas along with minor leaguer David Paisano in exchange for top pitching prospect John Danks and minor league pitchers Nick Masset and Jacob Rasner.
  I'm interested as to why the White Sox made this trade. McCarthy was penciled in as their #5 starter next season, but now that position will be filled by Gavin Floyd, Charlie Haeger, or perhaps even young Danks. McCarthy was a promising young pitcher whose only real achilles heel was home runs, and that's a problem in Chicago (it's also a problem in Texas, but there you go). After making room for McCarthy by trading Freddy Garcia, Chicago GM Kenny Williams has now traded McCarthy away as well. But the more I think about it, the harder it is to determine if the Sox made a good move. McCarthy wasn't the Sox' golden boy; their pitching staff will survive just fine without him. And John Danks is a good-looking young pitcher with a solid minor league track record; his ERAs haven't yet caught up to his strong peripherals, but he's also a 21-year-old at Triple A. He turns 22 in April with the potential to make the big leagues quickly. McCarthy is two years older than Danks, which is a pretty major distinction, especially since he's already spent time in the big leagues; the Sox control Danks for 6 major league seasons starting next year. Maybe that's the determining factor that would make the Sox get rid of a pitcher who could be better and more reliable than Danks. But that's debatable; Danks is good. I guess you could argue either way about which is the better pitcher short-term or long-term, but it seems to me that the White Sox gave up some short-term assurance for a riskier long-term prospect -- but one with (possibly) more potential. And since the Sox are just gambling with the #5 spot, it's not a big deal (at least for now).
  This is, essentially, a challenge trade, with Kenny Williams betting that Danks will mean more to the team than McCarthy. It also weighs toward the Sox in that they're also getting some good spare parts. Nick Masset will be 25 next year and made it all the way to the majors with Texas. There's not a whole lot to get excited about, but even if Masset is just a solid arm, hey -- those have value, too. Rasner is a starter that the Rangers took in the 7th round of the 2005 draft; an organizational soldier, if anything. Paisano, the Sox' other player involved, is also in the low minors. He's got some potential, but it's way in the future.
  As for the Rangers, I guess they feel the opposite; that they'd rather have the short term boost of Brandon McCarthy rather than gambling on Danks. To be fair, McCarthy does have a solid minor league track record and should have no trouble filling in as a #3 pitcher in the big leagues. He's young and healthy, too. The troubling thing for me is his tendency to give up fly balls. That won't do him any favors in Texas, although Chicago is a fair home run park in its own right. I've read a lot of commentary dismissing McCarthy's potential in Texas, but I think this is an overreaction; Texas really isn't much worse than Chicago when it comes to inflating offense, so it's not like McCarthy's pitching on the moon. And these were the same commentators who gave McCarthy high marks as a White Sox starter.
  So who won this deal? I really don't know. There's a lot we still don't know about Danks and McCarthy, and it's likely that the Rangers and Sox know more than I do. There are other factors involved in this as well, particularly concerning Barry Zito. The McCarthy trade was probably insurance in case the Rangers didn't sign Barry (and they didn't, as it turned out). Who knows? Right now, I'm inclined to favor Brandon McCarthy, but then I tend to favor the more proven commodity. Danks has the potential to surprise me and make this trade worthwhile. As it is, I think this is just one of those trades that you have to wait on, at least as far as I can see. I'd be interested to get a good scouting report on all the players involved to see if there's something I'm missing.
• Reports came in today that the Orioles signed free agent Aubrey Huff to a 3-year, $20 million deal.
  Well, we can all debate as to whether or not Huff is worth that much money. I'm not sure, but I think he probably is for a team that really needs a corner infielder/outfielder swing man who hits lefty, especially if you're a contender with a hole to fill.
  For many teams, this signing would be perfectly reasonable. But for the Orioles, it's another in a long line of useless signings that is fast establishing them as one of the most inept franchises in the game.
  The biggest question I had was this: where the hell is Huff going to play? The press releases I found made no specific mention. I ask because there's no spot open in the lineup. First base is filled by free agent Kevin Millar (ugh), third base by incumbent Melvin Mora (look out below), left field by free agent Jay Payton (shall I pack your bats for the road trip, Mr. Payton, or just not bother?), right field by rookie sensation Nick Markakis (stud), and DH by incumbent Jay Gibbons (why overachieve when you can just settle for mediocrity?).
  Where does Huff fit in to this picture? He's not an untalented guy and could even be more useful than several of the guys slotted into the lineup. But unless the O's make a trade, they've just spent $20 million on a bench player.
  With most teams, I would take this signing as a pretty good sign that they're going to trade someone. Few teams intentionally overcrowd their lineup with expensive free agents. But you can never give the O's the benefit of the doubt when it comes to logic and good sense.
• It's been a month since the J.D. Drew deal was announced and, unless I slept through the announcement, the deal still hasn't been finalized. I said before that I think the deal will get done, just because it's in everyone's best interests. But a month of silence can't be ignored.
• The Marlins signed Aaron Boone to a one-year contract worth a little less than a million dollars. This isn't a bad deal for Florida; they could use some backup for Miguel Cabrera at third, and Boone has his uses as a bench player. His days as a starter are probably over, but he's worth a shot off the bench, especially at a rock-bottom salary.
• The Reds traded for Jeff Conine from the Phillies. They didn't give up a lot to get him, mainly just spare parts, and will likely use Conine as Scott Hatteberg's platoon partner at first base. You could do worse than to have Jeff Conine on your team, but I'm still not sure the Reds are aware of what their real problems are.
• The final numbers on Marcus Giles' deal with the Padres: one year, $3.25 million, with a club option worth $4 mil. for 2008. I'm still not sure what Schuerholz was thinking when he cut Giles, but he sure gave Kevin Towers one hell of a Christmas present.
• Big, BIG news on the legal front: federal authorities have subpoenaed the test results from the MLB's confidential substance abuse tests of 2003.
  In 2003, as negotiated in the CBA, baseball initiated a confidential drug testing system to measure the use of steroids in baseball. Although positive tests were high enough to automatically trigger a full random drug-testing policy, they weren't nearly as high as the "25-50%" figures being bandied about in the news.
  The tests were done under the agreement that the results would be confidential; samples would not be linked to individual athletes and no disciplinary action would be taken (the Union, of course, insisted on these parameters).
  Enter the federal government.
  The feds recently raided the lab that held these old samples and also acquired the super-confidential coding system that connected the samples with the players. It seems that in their quest to mount a perjury case against Barry Bonds, they were looking for evidence of a positive steroid test (it's doubtful that the feds were targeting anyone else, except possibly Giambi and Sheffield). Although I don't see what good this raid would do for the government's case. If Bonds tested negative, that really hurts their case. And if he tested positive, so what? Bonds has already admitted to using PEDs, he just claims that he wasn't aware he was using them.
  At any rate, the player's union sued, claiming that the tests were confidential and the government's raid was an invasion of privacy. In a scary ruling, the courts decided against the union. Union head Don Fehr has promised to appeal the ruling, but right now it's very possible that the government can keep the samples and use them as evidence.
  This is a terrible blow for the Players' Union. With the players and the results now linked, the names of the positive tests will come out eventually, and that won't accomplish anything at all except to make a few dozen ballplayers' lives a living hell.
  And I can't help but feel that the Union itself is somewhat to blame. When the Union agreed to the confidential testing, they must have known (I hope) that Major League Baseball has, of course, no power to fight a federal subpoena. The feds could give a damn about a confidentiality agreement between the MLB and the MLBPA; in a criminal case, a subpoena trumps it all. Don Fehr must have known on some level that any assurances he got about confidentiality weren't backed up with any muscle. He should have known that he was about to agree to the systematic documentation of illegal activity among his union members, which would leave him totally vulnerable to federal subpoena, something Bud Selig has no power to control. Was Fehr really so unaware of this danger?
  Fehr's argument is on the basis of privilege and constitutional rights. That's difficult. He agreed to forfeit the consitutional rights of the players so that they could submit to the drug tests. That was fine. But letting other people read the results -- that's an invasion of privacy? The MLB has a right to your urine, but the federal government doesn't have the right to subpoena evidence of criminal activity? What logic is that?
  The more substantive argument is that since the feds seized the samples from a medical lab, they violated the players'/patients' right to medical privacy, i.e. "doctor-patient privilege." But this isn't really a case of a patient and doctor's privileged records. The feds aren't issuing subpoenas for Barry Bonds' latest medical checkup. The MLB and their contracted labs can hardly be granted the same privilege as a "doctor" who deals with the players as patients. Don Fehr disagrees; according to an AP report, Fehr said that if the ruling "is allowed to stand it will effectively repeal the Fourth Amendment for confidential electronic records."
  Strong words. But does the privilege really apply here? However useless the information might be to the feds, and however damaging it would be to the players, is there a legal basis for arguing that the raids violate the 4th Amendment? Hard to see. Among the things I'm not an expert on is constitutional law (most of my knowledge thereof was gleaned from AP US History class and Law & Order episodes). But is there precedent for the government getting subpoena power over employer/employee drug test results? With more and more companies testing employees for drugs, that must have gone before the courts by now. If the precedent was set that the government has no right to those records, then Fehr's case is solid. If the precedent is that an employer/employee confidentiality agreement is no match for a federal subpoena, then his case is toast.
  On a personal level, I consider myself to be a strong supporter of civil liberties. And I'm troubled by the invasive nature of drug testing. I certainly don't want my previous remarks to suggest that I want the government seizing these records. On the contrary. However, given the legal system as it is, there doesn't seem to be a strong legal argument to prevent them from doing so. It's a shame, but then welcome to post-9/11 life.
  And above all, I personally think that Don Fehr should have been ready for this.

We'll end today's entry with those strong words. We've covered a lot of topics, and somehow I've managed to tell everyone about all the things I'm not an expert in. That's not a good way to built a reputation for excellence, and they may revoke my claim to "whiz kid" status.
But that leads me to my next article: my New Year's resolutions (for baseball).

I'll see you then. Have a safe and happy New Year.

Best Case/Worst Case

In the spirit of the new year, and having finished my "official" team-by-team outlook, I decided to lighten things up with a look at some possible headlines in the coming year. So let's go team-by-team and look at the "best case" and "worst case" scenario for 2007.

NATIONAL LEAGUE

Atlanta Braves

Best Case:

BRAVES WIN! ATLANTA FANS CAN NO LONGER COMPLAIN ABOUT WINNING 100 GAMES AND LOSING IN OCTOBER

Worst Case:

BRAVES FINISH 4TH! ATLANTA FANS WONDER WHY THEY USED TO COMPLAIN ABOUT WINNING 100 GAMES AND LOSING IN OCTOBER

Florida Marlins:

Best Case:

JEFFREY LORIA VISITED BY 3 SPIRITS; SIGNS CONTRACT EXTENSION WITH MIGUEL CABRERA AND BUYS TURKEY FOR CRATCHIT FAMILY

Worst Case:

JEFFREY LORIA THREATENS TO SELL OFF MORE PLAYERS UNLESS CITY GIVES HIM NEW STADIUM

and in other news . . .

JEFFREY LORIA THREATENS TO FORECLOSE ON THE ORPHANAGE UNLESS CITY GIVES HIM NEW STADIUM

New York Mets:

Best Case:

PEDRO'S RETURN SPARKS DRIVE TO WORLD CHAMPIONSHIP

Worst Case:

PEDRO ADMITS THAT OLD AGE "IS MY DADDY"

Philadelphia Phillies:

Best Case:

PAT BURRELL HITS 30 HOME RUNS; FANS BOO

Worst Case:

PAT BURRELL DONATES THE MONEY FOR LITTLE JIMMY'S LEG OPERATION; FANS BOO

Washington Nationals:

Best Case:

GM JIM BOWDEN GRANTED "MOST FAVORED FRANCHISE" TRADING STATUS WITH CINCINNATI

Worst Case:

SAMMY SOSA RETURNS, COMPLETES CRAPPY ROSTER

Chicago Cubs:

Best Case:

CUBS WIN WILD CARD THANKS TO MVP LEE AND CY YOUNG WINNER ZAMBRANO; GM HENDRY GIVEN CREDIT FOR SPENDING $300 MILLION ON A BUNCH OF OTHER GUYS

Worst Case:

CUBS LOSE; ANNOUNCERS FIRED

Cincinnati Reds:

Best Case:

GM WAYNE KRIVSKY INVENTS TIME MACHINE, REGAINS AUSTIN KEARNS AND FELIPE LOPEZ

Worst Case:

GM WAYNE KRIVSKY TRADES ADAM DUNN TO WASHINGTON FOR NOOK LOGAN, A TABLE LAMP, AND A PIECE OF TAPE

Houston Astros:

Best Case:

CLEMENS RETURNS TO LEAD ASTROS TO WILD CARD; CARLOS LEE MASTERS USE OF HIS GLOVE

Worst Case:

CLEMENS' RETURN POINTLESS; CARLOS LEE EATEN BY LEFT-FIELD WALL

Milwaukee Brewers:

Best Case:

BREWERS WIN WILD CARD! BUD SELIG FORCED TO STOP WHINING ABOUT SMALL-MARKET FRANCHISES

Worst Case:

BREWERS LOSE; SELIG RE-NAMES STADIUM "I TOLD YOU SO"

Pittsburgh Pirates:

Best Case:

"GM FOR A DAY" PROMOTION A SUCCESS, OWNERS MAKE IT PERMANENT

Worst Case:

STEELERS FAN UNCOVERS EVIDENCE OF OTHER PROFESSIONAL SPORTS IN CITY; EXPERTS SKEPTICAL

St. Louis Cardinals:

Best Case:

CARDS REPEAT! PUJOLS: 'TWICE IS NICE!'

Worst Case:

CARDS LOSE! PUJOLS: 'WE'RE ALL THE SUCK WITH NONE OF THE LUCK'

Arizona Diamondbacks:

Best Case:

ROOKIE SENSATIONS STEER 'BACKS TO DIVISION TITLE

Worst Case:

ARIZONA FARM SYSTEM PLAGUED BY LOCUSTS

Colorado Rockies:

Best Case:

COLORADO PLAYERS SWEAR OFF DEER-HUNTING, WIN WILD CARD

Worst Case:

ROOKIES TULOWITZKI, CLOSSER INJURED IN SQUID-MEAT TRAGEDY

Los Angeles Dodgers:

Best Case:

GM COLLETTI REDISCOVERS OWN FARM SYSTEM; REPORTS OF A HAUNTING BY THE GHOST OF BRANCH RICKEY ARE UNFOUNDED

Worst Case:

NOMAR, GONZO, PIERRE STUMBLE; BORED ROOKIES PLAY SUDOKU ON THE BENCH

San Diego Padres:

Best Case:

DAVID WELLS COMES OUT OF RETIREMENT

Worst Case:

DAVID WELLS COMES OUT OF RETIREMENT

San Francisco Giants:

Best Case:

GIANTS GET YOUNGER; MTV ALWAYS ON IN THE CLUBHOUSE

Worst Case:

GIANTS GET OLDER; MURDER, SHE WROTE ALWAYS ON IN THE CLUBHOUSE

AMERICAN LEAGUE

Baltimore Orioles:

Best Case:

OWNER ANGELOS SELLS TEAM; BUYER UNKNOWN, IRRELEVANT

Worst Case:

FANS ORGANIZE PROTEST AS ORIOLES LOSE; ANGELOS RAISES TICKET PRICES OUT OF SPITE

Boston Red Sox:

Best Case:

ACE PITCHING PROPELS SOX OVER YANKS; MATSUZAKA RUNS FOR MAYOR

Worst Case:

PITCHING STUMBLES AS SOX FALL TO YANKS; MATSUZAKA RUNS FOR HIS LIFE

New York Yankees:

Best Case:

YANKS BEAT MARLINS IN SERIES; STEINBRENNER REQUESTS 'DAVID & GOLIATH' STORY STRICKEN FROM THE BIBLE

Worst Case:

METS BEAT YANKS IN SERIES; STEINBRENNER REQUESTS 'THOU SHALT NOT KILL' STRICKEN FROM THE BIBLE

Tampa Bay Devil Rays:

Best Case:

DEVIL RAYS WIN FRANCHISE-RECORD 80TH GAME AS THOUSANDS CHEER

Worst Case:

DEVIL RAYS WIN FRANCHISE-RECORD 80TH GAME AS DOZENS CHEER

Toronto Blue Jays:

Best Case:

JAYS WIN DIVISION; RICCARDI CALLED 'GENIUS' BY FANS

Worst Case:

JAYS FINISH 3RD; RICCIARD CALLED 'SMARMY LITTLE *$%#!' BY FANS

Chicago White Sox:

Best Case:

SOX WIN; FANS OVERTURN CARS AFTER GAME

Worst Case:

SOX LOSE; MANAGER GUILLEN OVERTURNS CARS AFTER GAME

Cleveland Indians:

Best Case:

INDIANS CONQUER UNCANNY BAD LUCK AND WIN THE DIVISION

Worst Case:

INDIAN SIZEMORE PLAGUED BY BLACK CAT; STEPS ON CRACK, MOTHER HOSPITALIZED

Detroit Tigers:

Best Case:

PITCHER ROGERS WINS ERA TITLE; CLAIMS BROWN SPOT ON HAND IS 'JUST A BIRTHMARK'

Worst Case:

PITCHER ROGERS SIGNS ENDORSEMENT DEAL WITH IVORY SOAP, LOSES TEN STRAIGHT

Kansas City Royals:

Best Case:

ROYALS FINISH ABOVE .500; HALL-OF-FAMER BRETT 'PROUD TO BE A ROYAL AGAIN'

Worst Case:

ROYALS FINISH LAST; FORMER ROYAL BRETT CLAIMS TO HAVE BEEN A MARINER

Minnesota Twins:

Best Case:

TWINS REPEAT AS DIVISION CHAMPS DESPITE LOW PAYROLL

Worst Case:

GM TERRY RYAN FORCED TO TRADE FOR EXPENSIVE ALL-STAR, GETS FIRED

Los Angeles Angels:

Best Case:

ANGELS LOSE IN APPEAL; TEAM NAME CAN BE NO LONGER THAN 4 WORDS

Worst Case:

LOS ANGELES ANGELS OF ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA, USA ON THE CONTINENT OF NORTH AMERICA IN THE WESTERN HEMISPHERE OF THE PLANET EARTH IN THE MILKY WAY GALAXY GO BANKRUPT PAYING FOR NEW BUSINESS CARDS

Oakland Athletics:

Best Case:

WORLD SERIES VICTORY SHOWS BILLY BEANE'S EFFECTIVE NEW METHOD

Worst Case:

NEW YORK TIMES BESTSELLER SHOWS BILLY BEANE'S EFFECTIVE NEW METHOD

Seattle Mariners:

Best Case:

GM BAVASI TRADES FOR LAST YEAR'S MOST VALUABLE PLAYER

Worst Case:

GM BAVASI TRADES FOR LAST YEAR'S LEAST VALUABLE PLAYER

Texas Rangers:

Best Case:

RANGERS WIN DIVISION, EVOKE MEMORIES OF 1996 SQUAD

Worst Case:

RANGERS FINISH LAST, EVOKE MEMORIES OF 1985 SQUAD

Happy New Year.

Looking Ahead: Texas Rangers

2006 W-L Record: 80-82
2006 pW-pL Record: 86-76
Runs Scored: 835 (4th in AL)
Runs Allowed: 784 (8th in AL)
Free Agents: Rod Barajas, Mark DeRosa, Adam Eaton, Jerry Hairston, Jr., Carlos Lee, Gary Matthews, Jr., Kip Wells

2007 Projected Lineup:
1B -- Mark Teixeira
2B -- Ian Kinsler
SS -- Michael Young
3B -- Hank Blalock
LF -- Frank Catalanotto/Brad Wilkerson
CF -- Kenny Lofton
RF -- Nelson Cruz
C -- Gerald Laird?
DH -- Jason Botts?

2007 Proj. Rotation:
Kevin Millwood
Vicente Padilla
Brandon McCarthy
Robinson Tejeda
Edinson Volquez/Kameron Loe

2007 Proj. Closer: Eric Gagne

Offense/Defense:
The Ranger offense appears to be in fine shape. The 2006 club wasn't quite as potent as anticipated, but in some ways they compensated. Where Mark Teixeira and Brad Wilkerson slumped, Gary Matthews and Mark DeRosa had unlikely career years. Adam Eaton got injured, but Vicente Padilla stayed healthy. The team traded for Carlos Lee and didn't even have to give up much to get him. That looks like a lot of turnover among their free agents, but the core group of contributors is still there. The Rangers appear to have a potent lineup, and although the outfield could use some juice, they'll probably be just fine.
The Texas infield returns intact from 2006. First baseman Mark Teixeira had a bit of an off year in '06 (282/371/514 is an off year for him), but should make a strong return in 2007. Second baseman Ian Kinsler is what the Rangers expected; a thoroughly capable hitter (286/347/454) and defender (-3 FRAA) who should man the position for the near future.
At shortstop, the Rangers have Michael Young. Young has always hit well for the position, and 2006 was no exception (314/356/459). But in the past, Young was a defensive liability. A former second baseman, Young shifted to shortstop when Alfonso Soriano came to town. That gave the Rangers arguably the worst middle infield in baseball. Young wasn't a bad second baseman, but at shorstop, he was agonizing. He was among the league's worst from 2003-2005, posting an FRAA of -16, -14 and -14 in those years.
But last year, Young's FRAA flipped to a Gold Glove-caliber +20. This was no illusion. Although the change doesn't appear as dramatic, other metrics have Young making a sizable improvement defensively. Win Shares has him improving from 4.3 fielding WS in '05 to 7.7 last year, a whole win unto himself. It's really hard to say what's actually going on here. It's unlikely that Young made a sudden improvement in defense at age 29, and even if he was that good in 2006, it's tough to predict what will happen in 2007. With defense, it's difficult to separate the underlying reality from the system of measurement. Part of this improvement could be due to the subtraction of the woeful Soriano to his left (defense does have an interdependent quality). But if pressed, I'd say that Young is more likely to be a below-average infielder next year. It's hard to imagine that he just suddenly got a lot better, although his case is eerily similar to that of Derek Jeter, who did maintain his defensive improvement.
At third base, the Rangers have the only real disappointment in the entire infield. It's sad, too, because he was supposed to be a rising star. None the less, Hank Blalock's career has hit the skids, and it's hard to see why. With almost no change in playing time, Blalock's power, patience, and batting average have all dropped from the high levels of performance he set in 2003 and 2004. Last year, Blalock hit 266/325/401, below-average for a player in Texas' offensive haven. This was a step down from 2005 (263/318/431), which was a step down from 2004 (276/355/500). Blalock's power has been cut nearly in half; in 2004 he had 73 extra-base hits, but he fell to just 45 last year. It's highly unusual for such an all-around wonder to succeed so well at such a young age (Blalock hit the game-winning homer in the 2003 All-Star Game at age 23) and then suffer a plunge in quality for no apparent reason. It seems like Blalock should bounce back eventually, but it's not looking good. Blalock may, unfortunately, share a page in the history books with contemporary Sean Burroughs as unexpected failures.
The Ranger outfield has been their weakness for years, as they've failed to find good hitters, especially in the outfield corners. And while the 2007 squad isn't that scary, it does have the potential for improvement. Time in left field will likely be shared between Frank Catalanotto and Brad Wilkerson. That would make for a fine platoon if both men weren't lefties. Catalanotto has had good success in Toronto as a platoon player, hitting 300/376/439 last season. But his success was mainly due to a platoon; 91% of his at-bats were against righties, and he hit just 237/348/342 when he did face lefties.
One possible solution would be to combine Catalanotto with Nelson Cruz. The Rangers seem determined to give the 27-year-old Cruz a spot in the starting lineup, but Catalanotto's need for a platoon mate could override that commitment. Plus, the Rangers have the advantage of redundancy in the outfield; even if you combine Cruz/Catalanotto in left, you can put Wilkerson in right and have Jason Botts as your full-time DH. Wilkerson had the worst year of his career struggling through injuries in 2006 (222/306/422), but the 252/358/448 lifetime hitter should be able to bounce back with solid offensive production to g0 with his defensive versatility.
Botts, who will get at least some playing time at DH, is a product of the Texas farm system. He's the classic big ol' sugger, with lots of power and lots of strikeouts. But Botts has already shown good plate discipline and has nothing left to prove in the minors (2006 in Triple-A: 309/398/582). His defense will limit him to DH, but he should hit well enough to hold down the position, even if only part-time.
In center field, the Rangers signed Kenny Lofton to a one-year contract. Lofton isn't going to give you a lot, but he does provide defense and solid offense from the position and is a far better investment than outgoing CF Gary Matthews, Jr. Plus, Lofton's 1-year agreement leaves the Rangers free to pursue one of the big-name center fielders coming on the market in the 2007 offseason (Andruw Jones, anyone?).
Behind the plate, the Rangers will replace the overrated Rod Barajas with Gerald Laird. Laird isn't much of a hitter (although he hit 296/332/473 in '06), but is a good defender and a good placeholder until hot prospect Taylor Teagarden is ready (around 2008-9).

There isn't the star power here that we associate with the Texas offense, and their friendly home park probably makes them look better than they are. But they're well-set with at least adequate production at every position and decent depth as well. If they can get pitching support, they could be considered a dark horse candidate for the postseason.

Pitching:
Of course, we've been saying that for years. The Rangers haven't had a really good pitching staff in over 20 years. In fact, the Rangers are rarely even above-average. In 1983, the Rangers posted an ERA+ of 122, the best in the league. Since then, they've only topped 102 four times in 23 years. The Rangers have only been strongly above-average 4 times since 1983, and they haven't been excellent since (their highest ERA+ since was 111 in 2004). It becomes very dull and repetitive to say that the Rangers need pitching every offseason, but it's still as true as it ever was. The Texas pitching staff was adequate in 2006 (ERA+ of 102), but with a poor defense and a lineup that's merely good, it will take a lot more than that to solve things.
Making matters worse, the Rangers' efforts to solve their pitching problems since '83 have led to catastrophe more often than not. The most notable example is the 5-year contract handed out to Chan Ho Park in 2000, one of the worst free agent deals ever. While the Rangers haven't repeated the Park fiasco since, they've committed a lot of money to pitchers that just aren't worth it.
The Rangers are paying Kevin Millwood Park-esque money; he's entering the second year of a 5-year, $60 million deal. Of course, Millwood is a better (and more proven) pitcher than Park, and what with inflation and all, the deal isn't that bad. But it's a backloaded deal, meaning that Millwood will earn $11 million in 2009 (at age 34) and $12 million in 2010 (if his option vests).
It must be said that the Millwood deal looks a lot better in light of what's happened this past offseason. But for their troubles, the Rangers did not get an ace (as they were hoping); they got an above-average pitcher whose durability is questionable. Millwood's ERA in 2006 was 4.52, although considering his ballpark, he did pitch fairly well (ERA+ of 102). His peripheral stats were basically unchanged from his 2005 season (2.86 ERA, ERA+ of 143). This could mean that Millwood was unlucky in 2006, or that he was lucky in 2005. Probably both.
The Millwood deal won't kill the Rangers, but it should be said that they're counting on him to be something that he's not: a #1 starter. Only with the salary inflation of the past few months does this deal look acceptable.
Much less acceptable is the deal given to Vicente Padilla. The Rangers traded for Padilla before 2006 and saw him put up a 4.50 ERA. He has similar peripherals as Millwood, except that his BB rate is much higher and his K rate is slightly higher. What Padilla doesn't have, however, is any sort of reputation for reliability. I discussed Padilla's deal when it went down, and my reaction is still that he's not reliable enough to pay $11 million a year. It's true that the contract is one of the more reasonable of those given out to free agent pitchers this offseason, but I'm still skeptical. The only extenuating circumstance here is the Rangers' desperation for starting pitchers -- even those who are just decent. And that desperation is the result of their own negligence.
The Rangers have Brandon McCarthy pencilled in as their #3. I'll be discussing the McCarthy deal in more detail later, but in short he's a big boost to their rotation. They may have given up too much to get him, but McCarthy's advantage is that he's already established himself at the big-league level. The trouble here is fly balls; McCarthy gives up a lot of them, and Texas isn't the place for that.
It will be the same bunch of shmoes filling out the back end of the rotation, with the possible exception of young Edinson Volquez. Volquez is one of the Rangers' top pitching prospects (yes, they do have some), and the closest to contributing at the big-league level. He threw 33.1 innings with the big club in 2006, but those are best forgotten (7.29 ERA, 17:15 BB:K ratio). Volquez does have a bright future, but he also has a troubling increase in walk rate to explain. Even at Triple-A last year, he was walking a lot of hitters (72 in 120.2 IP). This set a new career high for him by a mile; his combined 89 walks in 154 IP last year were far more than his previous career high of 41, set in 127.1 IP in 2004. The result could be that he begins that season in Triple-A.
If Volquez doesn't make the rotation, it will likely be the unimpressive if adequate combination of Robinson Tejeda and Kameron Loe filling things out.

In the bullpen, the Rangers made a big splash by signing Eric Gagne to a 1-year contract. This is a big risk, but it's a relatively cheap one and one that could pay off well. It's odd, though, that the Rangers got Gagne when they already had a closer in Akinori Otsuka. Otsuka is a bit old (35 next year), but is reliable and did quite well in his first season in Texas last year (2.11 ERA, 11:47 BB:K ratio). It's not that Gagne isn't a risk worth taking, it's just that it seems to me that the Rangers could have put that money to use elsewhere. And there is the very real possibility that Gagne will get re-injured, or that he just won't pitch nearly as well as he used to.
One benefit of the Gagne signing is that it gives the bullpen more depth, with Otsuka moving to a setup role. The Rangers should be able to fill out a competent group behind them, with returning favorites Ron Mahay and Rick Bauer along with some of their rising young pitching talent.

In the end, though, there's very little chance that the Texas pitching staff will be much better than it was last year. They added some upside with the acquisition of McCarthy and Gagne, as well as the continuing development of their prospects, but the realistic expectation just isn't much more than average to above-average -- the same as always.

Offseason Game Plan:
Now that I've finished my "Looking Ahead" series, the offseason is virtually over. I did not anticipate this, as there are usually a few big names stuck around after the New Year. But for whatever reason, everything happened really fast this year. Barry Zito (Giants) and Jeff Suppan (Brewers) are gone, and now the biggest names left out there are guys like Mark Mulder, Cliff Floyd, and Eddie Guardado.
So there's not much that the Rangers can do. The good thing is that there's not much they should do. The Rangers are basically stuck with what they've got, and unless they can find a good deal for Hank Blalock, this is what they're going to be taking into 2007.
There's a lot of encouragement to be found in the Rangers' Pythagorean W-L record of 86-76 last year. This suggests that the team already was above-average, and just needs to take a small step forward to enter the land of 90 wins, and thus contention. However, I'm pessimistic that the Rangers were really that good in 2006, and I'm also fairly pessimistic about how much they've really improved for 2007. The Rangers should be considered as an outside shot for the postseason -- if everyone hits like they should and the rotation stays healthy, it's not unreasonable to see them winning 90 games -- but it's highly unlikely that the Rangers can pass all of the other AL teams that are hovering around the 90-win mark.
Only four AL teams can make the postseason, and right now I'd say that the Yankees, Red Sox, Blue Jays, Indians, White Sox, Twins, Tigers, Angels, and A's are better teams than the Rangers. It's important to remember that; the Rangers are about the 10th-best team in the AL. Even if they shock everyone and pass three or four of the teams on this list, that means that they're going to be watching the postseason on TV once again.
There is hope for Texas; they have young pitching prospects, a core of offensive talent, and the money to buy more offense. But it's a very tall order to expect them to be contenders as soon as next year.

Looking Ahead: Seattle Mariners

2006 W-L Record: 78-84
2006 pW-pL Record: 78-84
Runs Scored: 756 (13th in AL)
Runs Allowed: 792 (9th in AL)
Free Agents: Carl Everett, Gil Meche, Eduardo Perez, Joel Pineiro

2007 Projected Lineup:
1B -- Richie Sexson
2B -- Jose Lopez
SS -- Yuniesky Betancourt
3B -- Adrian Beltre
LF -- Raul Ibanez
CF -- Ichiro Suzuki
RF -- Jose Guillen
C -- Kenji Johjima
DH -- Jose Vidro?

2007 Proj. Rotation:
Felix Hernandez
Miguel Batista
Jarrod Washburn
Horacio Ramirez
Jake Woods?

2007 Proj. Closer: J.J. Putz

Offense/Defense:
Well, it's no secret that the Mariners need some work. They especially need someone to goose their offense or something; even considering their park, they aren't scoring runs and don't look to be scoring many more in the near future. Compound that with a front office who's made a name for itself this offseason by making really bad trades, and I don't think there's any reasonable way to see the M's as contenders in 2007.
It's always tough to recover from a 99-loss season, but it's even tougher when Plan A pretty much turns out to be a failure. The M's tried to aggressively improve their team by paying out big money to Richie Sexson and Adrian Beltre. With those two in the lineup, the Mariners managed to score exactly 1 run more in 2005 than they did in '04. The improvement to a 69-93 record was due mainly to the relative improvement in the pitching staff.
But we'll get to that later. The M's are stuck with the Beltre and Sexson contracts, although neither look quite as bad as they did at the time. Seattle made the same mistake many teams are making, in that they were paying a player to match their peak performance on a yearly basis. That just doesn't happen. And while Beltre and Sexson are both good enough, neither one has been enough to lift the Seattle lineup out of the doldrums. This is an object lesson for teams looking to improve a really bad team through one or two big splashy signings.
In between these decent but expensive corner infielders, the M's are playing a punchless pair of glovemen. Yuniesky Betancourt, the shortstop, had the reputation as a good-glove/no-hit type and pretty much lived up to the hype (289/310/403). Even worse, Betancourt's glove wasn't as good as expected. FRAA rates him at an ugly -13 FRAA. Other metrics aren't as negative; his 5.4 fielding Win Shares were 6th in the AL. Either way, it's pretty clear that young Betancourt has to carry a Gold Glove if he wants to keep the starting job.
Jose Lopez has more promise with the bat than Betancourt, although it should be noted that he's never really produced at the major league level (career 265/300/392) and has never been able to bring his bat with him from Tacoma. He's still young yet, so the M's shouldn't be in any hurry to get rid of him.
Unfortunately, his defense may force the issue. Lopez has never been great with the glove, but his -18 FRAA in 2006 made him an utter liability. And unlike Betancourt, this may not be a mirage; Lopez doesn't have Betancourt's pedigree with the glove, and the other defensive metrics seem to support the idea that he's not that good (his 2.8 defensive Win Shares rank 11th among AL second basemen). Lopez is the kind of guy who would be tolerable if you were getting your production elsewhere, but he could get pushed by the middle-infield prospects in the system, especially if the team can't get a good upgrade anywhere else in the infield.
The outfield situation is a lot less depressing, but still troublesome. The only sure thing is Ichiro. Ichiro was most closer to form in 2006, hitting 322/370/416 with such strong defense that he was shifted to center field to replace Jeremy Reed, another disappointing prospect (doesn't that sound familiar?). I'm not really sure how the shift to center will affect Ichiro's defense, but it will make his offense more valuable. And besides, this team has a whole lot to worry about besides Ichiro -- well, except for his impending free agency (after 2007).
We're likely to see Raul Ibanez manning left field, which isn't phenomenal news, but it's good for this team. Ibanez is still productive (289/353/516) and reasonably priced, at that. The M's could use a few more of those.
In right field, the M's took a gamble and acquired Jose Guillen. Guillen has often been compared this offseason to Carl Everett, the team's abortive DH solution from last year. But I'm more optimistic about him than some. He does have the attitude, yes, but he's also younger than he seems (31 next year) and still has the chance to be productive. His 2006 was a loss, yes, but he hit well in cavernous RFK Stadium in 2005 (283/338/479). And even if some of that is lost in translation, the M's are only committing $5.5 million to him, with a mutual option for 2008. So even if Guillen fails, the M's won't be in too much trouble; they can shift Ichiro back and go with Reed in center or promote Jones from the minors.
The other productive/cost-effective player in the lineup is catcher Kenji Johjima. Johjima profiled as an above-average hitter, and that turned out to be accurate (291/332/451). Concerns about his defense were apparently ill-considered. The ascension of catching prospect Jeff Clement could create some conflict here, but having too many catchers is a good problem, and the M's haven't had too many of those lately.
The M's were looking for an upgrade to DH Ben Broussard. But somewhere along the line . . . I don't know, I guess the "up" part was lost in translation, and the Mariners eventually made a strong downgrade by trading away relatively valauble prospects Chris Snelling and Emiliano Fruto for Washington's Jose Vidro.
I spoke about the Vidro trade recently, so you can visit the link to get my reaction. Suffice to say, the Mariners don't need to be paying old guys to clog up a lineup that's already proven to be pretty inadequate.

And that's about it. The Mariners had the second-worst offense in the AL last year, and I can't find any evidence that they're about to improve by any significant amount. They've already got plenty of money committed to Ichiro, Beltre, and Sexson. They've got some productive guys that are relatively cheap, such as Johjima and Ibanez. And they've got some unproductive guys who are relatively cheap (Vidro). Most of their young hitters are either a year or two away from making a big impact or have such a low ceiling that it's not worth getting too excited.
Example: Baseball America recently rated the Top 10 Prospects in the Seattle system. Most of them are pitchers, and most of them are in the low minors.
The only real hopes for 2007 are #1 Adam Jones and #2 Jeff Clement. Both have made it to the major leagues, but both appear as though they need more minor league seasoning. Jones could easily come up if Jose Guillen explodes, but with the acquisition of Kenji Johjima, there's no pressing need for Clement, a catcher.
For a franchise in such desperate straits, you need better production from your farm system, so that there is no pressing need to spend money on free agents. But the M's farm system has fallen on hard times in recent years, with the long line of injured pitching prospects especially ugly. There's not a lot of help coming up from below, and there's not a lot of help available from the free agent market. Unless the Mariners get really lucky in one of those two areas, they're not going to threaten the Angels or Athletics anytime soon.

Pitching:
It would be nice if I could turn around and make glowing comments about the Mariners' pitching staff. After all, neither Oakland nor the Angels are a whole lot better offensively; they may have much better upside, but the A's only outscored Seattle by 15 runs last year; the Angels by only 10.
But while both of those teams have a fine pitching staff to back them up, the Mariners have squat. There is some room for optimism, and it's very possible that they can improve over 2006. But there's just not enough here to compensate for the lineup.
The M's should be able to count on better production from ace Felix Hernandez. We all got a bit ahead of ourselves with the whole "King Felix" coronation and forgot that it's not that easy with a 20-year-old kid. But the good news is that Felix's peripherals were still strong in '06. His 4.52 ERA just doesn't jibe with his 60:176 BB:K ratio and 23 HR allowed in 191 IP. Felix Hernandez circa 2005 is still there, but we're going to have be a bit more patient before engraving his Cooperstown plaque.
The M's did make one move this offseason that should somewhat help the team. They overpaid to get Miguel Batista, but never the less, they're getting a pretty reliable LAIM. His BB:K ratio is troubling, but then it's always been that way. Seattle shouldn't expect a strong #2 in Batista, but if they're just hoping for a solid innings-eater at the back of the rotation, then they've got their man.
The trouble is that there are no good arms to support King Felix. Batista is a slightly overpaid LAIM, and Jarrod Washburn is an even more-overpaid one (2006: 4.67 ERA, 55:103 BB:K). Both men are capable of a surprise year where they pitch like a #2, but that's wishcasting; the more realistic scenario sees them both as supporting actors.
The M's don't have a lot to back these guys up. The most likely candidates are Horacio Ramirez (acquired in another bad trade), Jake Woods, Cha-Seung Baek, and Ryan Feierabend. None of them have much breakout potential, leaving the M's in bad shape if their 1-2-3 starters don't work like clockwork.
It should be noted that the M's have been rumored to be in the Barry Zito hunt. It doesn't seem likely that Zito will land in Seattle, which is probably best for the M's. They don't need to pay any more superstar salaries to non-superstars. If they were right on the cusp of contending, maybe; but they sure as hell aren't.

The bullpen was seriously weakened by the loss of Rafael Soriano (for Horacio f'n Ramirez?!), but the M's do still have J.J. Putz to close. Putz seems a lot younger than he really is. He'll be 30 years old next year despite only pitching three full seasons in the majors. But they were good seasons. His 2006 campaign established him as one of the best closers in the league. Putz managed a 13:104 BB:K ratio and a 2.30 ERA, saving 36 games for the M's. Both the ERA and the K rate are way out of line with his previous major league production. Putz certainly has the stuff of a dominant closer, but we should be suspicious that his 2006 results were such an aberration.
Soriano would have been a great setup man/insurance policy, but apparently the Mariners decided they'd rather have a bad starter with a history of injuries. And now that Soriano's gone, there aren't many sure things in the Seattle 'pen. Young Mark Lowe had a good debut in the majors last season and should have a bigger role in '07. Young Jon Huber seems to have taken well to his conversion to relief, and while he doesn't have a high ceiling, he could be useful. Julio "Mr. Flyball" Mateo will return in '07, as will George Sherrill and Jake Woods (if he's not a starter). This isn't a bad group of guys, but neither is it in any way intimidating.

The addition of Washburn and now Batista to the pitching staff has added a lot of salary without adding a whole lot of upside. Both pitchers would be great guys to supplement a good group of young starters, but they're miscast as #2 guys, and they're especially overpaid for a team with little hope of making the postseason. Add to that the loss of prospects in Mr. Bavasi's December to Dismember trades, and you've got to scrape the bottom of the barrel to find much optimism for this pitching staff, or this franchise, for that matter.

Offseason Game Plan:
Well, since the offseason is mostly over, it's too late for me to tell Bill Bavasi to exercise caution. That bus has left the depot.
I would have encouraged the Mariners to explore trading away players like Sexson or even Washburn if they felt they could get a good return in prospects. Instead the Mariners are getting rid of the few prospects they have to make a completely unrealistic run for the 2007 postseason. This smacks of a desperate man afraid to lose his job. And in fact, I wouldn't expect Bavasi to finish the season as the team GM, unless lightning strikes or they find a faith healer who specializes in pitching arms.

Looking Ahead: Oakland Athletics

2006 W-L Record: 93-69
2006 pW-pL Record: 85-77
Runs Scored: 771 (9th in AL)
Runs Allowed: 727 (3rd in AL)
Free Agents: Jay Payton, Frank Thomas, Barry Zito

2007 Projected Lineup:
1B -- Dan Johnson
2B -- Mark Ellis
SS -- Bobby Crosby
3B -- Eric Chavez
LF -- Nick Swisher
CF -- Mark Kotsay
RF -- Milton Bradley
C -- Jason Kendall
DH -- Mike Piazza

2007 Proj. Rotation:
Rich Harden
Dan Haren
Joe Blanton
Esteban Loaiza
Joe Kennedy?

2007 Proj. Closer: Huston Street

Offense/Defense:
The Oakland defense tied for 2nd in the AL in fielding percentage (.986) but were 6th in DER at .688. This could indicate the declining range of aging guys like Mark Kotsay and Mark Ellis, as well as injuries to key defenders Chavez and Crosby. But even if it's not quite as good as it looks, the Oakland defense is fine; the problem here is the offense.
The A's 9th-place finish in runs scored was the result of a roster stretched to its limits by injuries. Not only did the A's see regression from defensive stalwart Mark Ellis (249/319/385), they had to deal with the increasingly dismal output of guys like Jason Kendall (295/367/342) and Mark Kotsay (275/332/386).
But even with these guys bringing up the rear, the A's were supposed to be contenders with the rest of their lineup. Unfortunately for them, that didn't quite work out the way they'd hoped.
Despite getting good defense from Eric Chavez, the third baseman just isn't hitting like an MVP (241/351/435 in '06; career 271/350/489) and probably never will. When he's healthy, that's fine. But if he struggles with injuries again, as in 2006, the A's don't have the depth to replace his output.
The same can be said of Bobby Crosby. Crosby, a big-time prospect, suffered through yet another injury-plagued season (229/298/338) that was even worse than 2005, when he was also injured. It's easy to stay positive about Crosby since he's still young (just 26 next year) and does have a decent major league season under his belt (a 239/319/426 2004). But Crosby has yet to hit really well in the majors, and since 2004, he hasn't been able to stay in the lineup. Neither of these things bode really well for a guy who was supposed to be a future MVP. The A's need him to be productive to avoid another quick playoff exit.
First baseman Dan Johnson didn't have the high expectations of Crosby, but he was supposed to be a solid-hitting first base option like he was in 2005 (275/355/451). Instead, he was barely adequate (234/323/381) and got shipped to the minors. With prospect Daric Barton stalled (259/389/395 at Triple-A), The A's had no choice but to shift Nick Swisher to first and spend far too much time playing Jay Payton in left (296/325/418). Johnson should bounce back next year, and he's still got that 2005 swing left in him, but this was another step back on a team that couldn't afford any more of them. Combined with the injuries/regression suffered by 2B Mark Ellis, and the Oakland infield was effectively decimated in 2006. In the postseason, instead of a strong Johnson-Ellis-Crosby-Chavez infield, the A's were forced to play Swisher-D'Angelo Jimenez-Marco Scutaro-Chavez, with the punchless Payton in left field. Little wonder then that the Tigers swept them.
Swisher, who split time between left field and first base, was one of the few bright spots for the team. The team of Moneyball fame finished with a merely average .340 OBP, but that was no fault of Swisher's; the 25-year-old paced the team with 97 walks and also swatted 35 homers. He helped fill a big vacuum, and it was lucky for the A's that one of their young hitters was finally coming through.
Fiery trade acquisition Milton Bradley spent most of the time in right field, but the injury bug bit again, limiting him to 96 games. Bradley performed quite well, hitting 276/370/447 with the team, but it was little consolation; it was a case of "another one bites the dust" with Bobby Kielty forced to replace him.
The other Special Ks, Kotsay and Kendall, were unimpressive, as mentioned above. So the team went through most of the season with only Swisher (and sometimes Chavez and Bradley) contributing from the field. The team that looked like it had strong depth was instead held back by numerous injuries and disappointments, and their lack of depth (especially in the middle infield) was what people remembered.
Fortunately for Oakland, they had an insurance policy at DH. Now coming into 2006, no one would have predicted that Frank Thomas -- of all people -- would be the most reliable and productive hitter on the ballclub, and yet that's exactly how things turned out. Thomas only played 137 games, but he made them count; he hit 270/381/545, with a team-leading 39 HR and 114 RBI. He almost single-handedly kept the team afloat and resurrected his chances for Cooperstown, all for a relative pittance.

The A's will get to re-boot and try again next year, with the same cast of characters (sans Thomas) out to prove that they weren't overachieving when they reached the ALCS last year. The A's offense has a lot to prove. They must stay healthy, simply because there is little room for error; with most of the roster injury-prone, new manager Bob Geren will have to play mix-and-match with hopefully better options than Mark Kiger in 2007. A lot of people will have to step it up if the A's want to fight off the Angels and repeat in '07, with the most obvious being Eric Chavez and Bobby Crosby.

Pitching:
The Oakland pitching staff saved the offense last year, and there's every indication that they can do the same thing this year. Injuries struck here, too, as erstwhile ace Rich Harden made only 9 starts the entire season due to injury. Projections are still good for Harden, but his injury history is long enough now that Billy Beane should have visions of Mark Prior dancing in his head.
The good news is that even without Harden, the A's pitching staff survived. Barry Zito led the team in ERA at 3.83, despite a career-high 99 walks and a surprising 27 HR allowed (Oakland played as a pitcher's park in 2006). With Zito headed out as a free agent, the mantle of "backup ace" falls to Danny Haren, who should bear the burden quite well. Haren is, in fact, a better pitcher than Zito in the present and future. Haren will be just 26 next year and is coming off a season where he led the A's staff in innings (223) and strikeouts (176). His HR allowed were troubling (31), leading to a less-than-stellar 4.12 ERA. But Haren is the real deal; a strong #2 who can step in as a temporary ace if Harden falls again.
Behind Harden and Haren, the A's have two perfectly acceptable LAIMs. Esteban Loaiza got off to a woeful start, but -- while he didn't justify his brand-new contract -- he pitched well enough, managing a 4.89 ERA in 26 starts. Injuries may have played a part in Loaiza's struggles, although he doesn't have much potential to go under 4.50 in ERA at age 35.
The LAIM with the better growth potential is Joe Blanton. Blanton came on the scene with a strong rookie seaosn in 2005 (3.53 ERA in 201.1 IP), but his low strikeout rate caught up with him (116 K) and his 2006 ERA fell all the way to 4.82. The real Blanton is likely somewhere in between, and -- at age 25 -- he'll be cheap and productive for a while yet.
If Rich Harden can stay healthy and somewhat replace the departing Barry Zito, there's no reason to think that the 2007 starting rotation will be any worse than the 2006 squad. They've got the guys out there to eat up innings, but they would certainly like a better showing from everyone, at least in terms of runs allowed. They're losing depth along with Zito -- Joe Kennedy will likely step into the #5 spot -- but they may not be losing any quality at all.

The Oakland bullpen took a similar path as the rotation. Despite the troubles facing closer Huston Street, the A's managed to surround him with a fine cast of supporting players and ended up with a solid staff. Street regressed from his unlikely brilliance in 2005 (1.72), seeing his ERA nearly double to 3.31. Street's poise is real and was documented past the point of insanity in 2005. But his stuff is debatable. It's doubtful that he's going to assume the mantle of Mariano Rivera as the game's best closer, as the 2005 hype suggested. But even if he settles in as an above-average guy, he'll be valuable. And there's every reason to indicate that he can do that and more.
Behind Street, the A's have competent setup man Justin Duchscherer (2.91 ERA), Kiko Calero (3.41) and young Chad Gaudin (3.09). The A's wrote the book on the fungibility of closers and setup men, and their current pen is not only cheap, but very cost-effective. Behind those three, the team has long man Kirk Saarloos, Ron Flores, and a couple other options out of the 'pen. If the A's fail to repeat in '07, it will not likely be the fault of the bullpen.

Offseason Game Plan:
The A's have already nabbed Mike Piazza to fill the Thomas void at DH; they just need to hope that he's the 2006 version (332/372/564 on the road) and not an earlier version (251/326/452 overall in '05).
The A's could use a better insurance policy than Kirk Saarloos for the possible Harden injury. But considering the going rate for starting pitching, it's not likely that the team will do anything more than nibble at the free agent periphery. GM Billy Beane has even been involved in rumors trading away a starting pitcher, such as Blanton or Haren.
Really, though, it all comes down to the options. While the team needs better depth, the problem is mostly with the incumbent personnel. There's not a lot you need to change about a lineup that still includes Nick Swisher, Bobby Crosby, Eric Chavez, Milton Bradley and Piazza.
Top priority is keeping everyone healthy.