A.L. West Off-Season: Team by Team

Los Angeles Angels

Nov. 6:  Angels re-sign Bobby Abreu to a two-year contract worth $19 MM, with a vesting option for 2012.
Abreu’s $5 million contract for 2009 was (over-)reported as the biggest bargain of the offseason.  And it may have been.  Abreu brought much-needed plate discipline (.390 OBP) to a team that has never actively sought high-OBP players.
The snag is that Abreu has gone from under- to over-rated very quickly.  His power is basically gone.  He hasn’t hit more than 30 homers since 2001, and hasn’t hit more than 20 since 2005.  His 15 blasts in 2009 are a more accurate predictor of his future.
Granted, when combined with an excellent approach at the plate, 15 homers is enough.  The more immediate problem is Abreu’s declining defense.  He wasn’t as good as his reputation in his younger days and is quickly degenerating to designated-hitter status.  If that day comes in the next two years, it will be the Angels’ problem to deal with.  Because if his on-base skills slip, he could end up being a below-average DH.
The lesson here is that the same player who’s a bargain at 1/$5MM may not be one at 2/$19MM.

Dec. 16:  Angels sign Hideki Matsui to a one-year contract worth $6 million.

AL West Preview: Angels and Demons

My Prediction:
1st: Los Angeles Angels
2nd: Oakland Athletics
3rd: Texas Rangers
4th: Seattle Mariners
Los Angeles Angels

The only team that needed Mark Teixeira more than the Yankees was the Angels. With the injuries to Vladimir Guerrero, the Angels just don't have an impact bat anymore – period. They finished 10th in the AL in runs scored last year, and that was with half a season of Teixeira hitting 358/449/632*. Their 100-62 record in 2008 disguised a roster whose Pythagorean record was a disappointing 88-74. Stuck in a division with two of the best farm systems – Oakland and Texas – churning out prospects left and right, there's no room for disappointment.

AL West Preview

Los Angeles Angels
2007 W-L: 94-68
2007 pW-pL: 90-72
Strengths: Pitching staff, Vlad Guerrero
Weaknesses: Overpaid $50 million+ outfield, lack of offensive punch
Biggest Change from '07: Torii Hunter and Jon Garland
One Reason:

One reason the Angels will win in '08 is that no team in the division is within 10 wins of them.

One reason the Angels will lose in '08 is if they change divisions.
Notes:
The $50 million outfield referred to above is Torii Hunter ($16MM), Vladimir Guerrero ($14.5MM), Garret Anderson ($12MM) and Gary Matthews, Jr. ($9MM). Hunter is signed for 4 more years, Matthews for 3 more, and Guerrero and Anderson have 1-year club options for 2009. This pretty pickle means that somebody (Anderson and/or Guerrero) will play DH, sharing time with Juan Rivera (who's making just a little more than $2MM). Here's how these guys did last year, listed with their age in the forthcoming 2008 season:

State of the MLB Union . . . AL West

Before I get to the AL West, a few observations about some baseball games I'm watching on this lazy Saturday afternoon:

• The Pirates just beat the Brewers 7-4. This leaves the Brewers just 1/2 game ahead of the Cubs atop the NL Central. The NL Central race between the Cubs and Brewers looks like it's going right down to the wire. Luckily, the Cubs finish up their season in Cincinnati, so (if it's not sold out) I might get the opportunity to see some history made at the GABP.
  The Pirates telecasts are very odd. They have a lot of product placements, but the most puzzling one by far is the Etch-a-Sketch renderings of the players as they come up to bat. Does this mean that most of the Pirates' audience is 5 years old? It would help explain all the empty seats at PNC Park -- I think they actually ran out of people to show in the crowd shots.
  I'll be doing another entry soon, weighing in with my opinions and predictions about the various division races. Although it's getting clearer and clearer who's going to the postseason, and there aren't a lot of really fascinating races left.
• The White Sox are leading the Indians 5-1 after five innings, beating up on Jake Westbrook. I don't worry about the Indians, who have a pretty safe lead in the AL Central. Their only competition is Detroit, who will be without Jeremy Bonderman now.
• The Royals are beating the Twins 4-0. Boy, the Twins were one of my big misses in my preseason predictions. And Gil Meche is pitching a pretty nifty game. I must admit that Meche's contract hasn't been as disastrous as I anticipated, but I stand by my opinion that the deal will be a poor one. It's great that Meche is having such a good year, but will it really continue?

And now, on to the AL West.

Los Angeles Angels (85-59)

2007 AL West Predictions

AL WEST:

Los Angeles Angels (94-68) 92-96 win range

Oakland Athletics (92-70) 90-94 win range

Texas Rangers (84-78) 82-86 win range

Seattle Mariners (72-90) 70-74 win range

LOS ANGELES ANGELS

2006 W-L Record: 89-73 (2nd)

2006 pW-pL Record: 84-78

2007 Projection: 94-68

Strengths: Pitching staff; young hitters, Vlad Guerrero
Weaknesses: Impact hitters; offensive depth

Biggest Change from '06: Their top rookies are either in the majors (Weaver, Kendrick) or getting close (Wood)

One Reason:

One Reason the Angels will win in '07 is that their pitching staff is top-notch. The Angels are heading into 2007 with probably the best starting rotation staff in the league. They don't have a big ace (although John Lackey is underrated), but they've got several guys strongly above-average, such as Lackey, Jered Weaver, Kelvim Escobar and Ervin Santana. Bartolo Colon will take the #5 spot, and although he has the potential to perform well, it's doubtful given his health status. Either way, the Angels' starting rotation should give them a chance to win every night, even with their offense.

One Reason the Angels will lose in '07 is -- speaking of that offense . . . The Angels' lineup consists of Vlad Guerrero and a lot of hope. Their other veterans are either expensive guys who are vaguely productive (Gary Matthews, Jr., Orlando Cabrera) or guys with little left to offer (Garret Anderson, Shea Hillenbrand). They do have some quality guys like Juan Rivera and Chone Figgins who have already established themselves in the majors. But the lineup will succeed or fail based on the success of the young talent. And judging from the past couple years, that's not much to hang your hat on.

Notes:

While I'm less than bullish about the Angel's offense, I think their pitching staff can carry them to October. And Mike Scioscia has been able to win with some thin, slap-happy lineups in the past (though none quite this bad).
The other reason I'm picking the Angels to win the division is that I think they're better than the A's, the only other contender in the AL West. Oakland has a more well-rounded ballclub and is certainly capable of repeating as division champions, but they're a worse team than they were last year and still have a lot of questions surrounding their roster, particularly in terms of injuries. So I'm picking the Angels to win by default.

OAKLAND ATHLETICS

2006 W-L Record: 93-69 (1st)
2006 pW-pL Record: 85-77
2007 Projection: 92-70
Strengths: Well-rounded roster; pitching depth

Weaknesses: Thin offense; few star pitchers
Biggest Change from '06: The loss of Barry Zito, followed closely by the loss of Frank Thomas
One Reason:
One Reason the A's will win in '07 is that they've done a great job of overcoming obstacles over the past seven years or so, and there's no better example than 2006. They had a disappointing lineup then with lots of injuries. They also had a pitching staff with good depth, but no real stars. They beat out the Angels last year despite these flaws, and they're perfectly capable of doing it again this year.

One Reason the A's will lose in '07 is that they're just not as good as they were last year, and they can't keep pace with the Angels by moving backwards. I completely agree that Barry Zito is overrated, but he's still a hard guy to replace in your rotation (although a healthy Rich Harden would help). Frank Thomas was an offensive star last year, and it's hard to see the A's making up for his loss, even with the signing of Mike Piazza.
Notes:

The A's would get a big boost if they could keep even half of last year's walking wounded healthy this year. Rich Harden is priority #1, but they also lost a lot when their middle infield went down (as evidenced in the playoffs, when they started D'Angelo Jimenez at second base). Marco Scutaro is a great backup, but he shouldn't be getting more than 300 at bats.
The A's are also counting on some declining stars to fill in the gaps. There's little chance of Jason Kendall or Mark Kotsay turning things around for a career year, even though they're two guys who can at least be counted upon to stay healthy. Esteban Loaiza wasn't that bad in 2006, but he's not going to fill Barry Zito's shoes.
No, as much as I think the A's will be competitive, I don't see them making the postseason.

TEXAS RANGERS

2006 W-L Record: 80-82 (3rd)
2006 pW-pL Record: 86-76
2007 Projection: 84-78
Strengths: Infield offense; stabilized pitching staff

Weaknesses: Outfield offense; quality and depth of pitching staff
Biggest Change from '06: Nothing significant, other than switching out John Danks for Brandon McCarthy
One Reason:
One Reason the Rangers will win in '07 is that the Angels and A's engage in an on-field brawl that results in full-season suspensions for all 50 players involved.

One Reason the Rangers will lose in '07 is that they're simply not as good as the Angels or A's. Their offense is strong, but not as strong as the ballpark makes it seem. The Rangers are still running out a bare outfield, and they can't count on a lot of production from catcher (Laird) or third base (Blalock) either. Their pitching staff is improving, but it's still not good enough to push this team much past .500.
Notes:

The Rangers will have a tough time simply maintaining what they accomplished last year. Granted, there is room for improvement; Brad Wilkerson and Mark Teixeira should have better years, and the addition of Brandon McCarthy gives the team a reliable #3 for the first time in recent memory. But although this team is taking baby steps forward, they're still not really contenders.

SEATTLE MARINERS

2006 W-L Record: 78-84 (4th)
2006 pW-pL Record: 78-84
2007 Projection: 72-90
Strengths: Infield corners; Outfield; Rotation depth

Weaknesses: Power; Rotation quality; Middle relief
Biggest Change from '06: Added depth of Miguel Batista and Jeff Weaver
One Reason:
One Reason the Mariners will win in '07 is by forfeit.

One Reason the Mariners will lose in '07 is if they just keep doing what they've been doing.
Notes:

I may be too pessimistic about the Mariners. Yes, they improved their starting rotation in the offseason (but at what cost?). And yeah, their offense isn't that bad. Or is it? Really, they've got a star in Ichiro, a few solid players (Sexson, Beltre, Johjima, Ibanez) and then nada. Adding in Jose Guillen and Jose Vidro isn't going to help anything.
And it should be said that the Mariners gave up Rafael Soriano for nothing (viz: Horacio Ramirez), thereby hurting their middle relief prospects. And while the M's did improve their rotation, it was pretty bad to begin with, and no one would call Miguel Batista and Jeff Weaver money in the bank.

GM Bill Bavasi was trying to save his job, and I doubt it will result in much headway out on the field.

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.

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.