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

Arizona Diamondbacks

Dec. 9:  The D-Backs completed the following three-team trade:

TEAM	LOSING	RECEIVING
Yankees	Ian Kennedy,Phil Coke, Austin Jackson	Curtis Granderson
D-Backs	Max Scherzer, Daniel Schlereth	Edwin Jackson, Kennedy
Tigers	Granderson, Jackson	Scherzer, Schlereth, Coke, Jackson

This deal makes good sense for the Yankees; they needed an everyday center fielder, and they’re not giving up any impact players.
The deal also makes good sense for Detroit; Granderson was overrated and besides, the team really needed to save money.  They get back well-needed pitching depth.
 For the Diamondbacks . . . well, the deal makes no sense.

NL West Preview: Manny to the Rescue

Prediction
1 – Los Angeles Dodgers
2 – Arizona Diamondbacks
3 – San Francisco Giants
4 – Colorado Rockies
5 – San Diego Padres

Los Angeles Dodgers
Last year's NL West race came down to the final week of the season, with L.A. just edging out the Diamondbacks. This year's race looks about the same, with the Dodgers and 'Backs pacing the division. What really separates the two is L.A.'s great opportunity for improvement; they've got the young talent to take the division by storm.
It starts in the rotation with ace Chad Billingsley. The Dodgers will miss Derek Lowe, but Billingsley should be able to step up and do just as well, if not better. Last year, Billingsley posted a 3.14 ERA and struck out 201 batters in 200.2 innings. The only concern here is the big increase in innings pitched in 2008 (65.1 more than in 2007, including the postseason) as well as his 80 walks allowed. The other young stud in the L.A. stable is Clayton Kershaw. Long-term, Kershaw's ceiling may be higher than Billingsley's, but he's still quite young; he just turned 21. But while he may not top 200 innings, Kershaw looked pretty sharp as a 20-year-old rookie last year, managing a 4.26 ERA with 100 K in 107.2 IP.

2008 NL West in Review

Arizona Diamondbacks

W-L: 82-80 (2nd in NL West)
pW-pL: 82-80
Payroll: $66,202,712 (13th in NL)
R/G: 4.44 (10th in NL)
ERA: 3.99 (5th in NL)
DER: .685 (T-12th in NL)
Team MVPs: Brandon Webb, Dan Haren, Stephen Drew
A Drag on the Payroll: Eric Byrnes (209/272/369, 52 G, $6 MM)
What Went Right:

NL West Preview

ARIZONA DIAMONDBACKS

2007 W-L Record: 90-72
2007 pW-pL Record: 79-83
Strengths: Maturing young blue-chippers, Brandon Webb
Weaknesses: Inconsistent offense, tough division
Biggest Change from '07: Dan Haren
One Reason:

The Anticlimax

The Boston Red Sox swept the Colorado Rockies in 4 games, their second series sweep in past the 4 years. Now the question is what will happen in Boston now that their underdog status is dead and gone. What will replace it? How will the historic behaviors and attitudes of New England sports fans change now that the central narrative of their favorite baseball team has been rendered obsolete?
I think the glory days of Boston fandom (somewhere between 2003 and the present) are over and done. As the Red Sox become the new Yankees, their nationwide fanbase, built upon the David .vs. Goliath myth, will begin to fade. The fire of the core New England fanbase, on the other hand, may subside somewhat, but will not be going away anytime soon. But the Red Sox' national (and international) following may be in jeopardy. As the central narrative of the team changes, the myth/legend that drew so many nationwide fans in the first place will disappear. This may not be the end of the world, but it may be bad news for the team's revenues, which may be cresting after several years of obscene success.
I'm not on the ground in New England to measure the energy of the Red Sox nation firsthand. But I wonder if the truly magical allure of the Red Sox -- which has existed in some form for 50 years, give or take -- has reached its peak. While there is every reason to believe that the Red Sox will be a juggernaut franchise for years to come, I think it's worth noting that in the future, our image of the Red Sox will always be different. And it didn't start when they reversed the curse in 2004 -- it started when they slowly and methodically demolished a lesser team in October. That, my friends, is what the Yankees do, and if the Sox continue to perform like this in October (and there's every reason to believe that they will), they will indeed be the New Yankees.

In other news:

"Patience"

Reflecting on the Sox' annihilation of the Rockies, here's a very insightful quote from Red Sox hitting coach Dave Magadan (excerpted from Jayson Stark's column about the game):

"For me, patience is not necessarily walking," said Magadan. "Patience at the plate is waiting for your pitch to hit. And the byproduct of that can be a walk. But a lot of times, you're going to hit in a lot of hitters' counts. These guys have a real good idea of what they're looking for, and they will be stubborn and wait till they get that pitch.
"They're going to make the pitcher throw three tough pitches to get them out. And when you've got to make three quality pitchers to get hitters out, it's tough to grind and get through the lineup. Every guy is seeing five, six, seven, eight pitches. And then boom ... one swing of the bat. It makes it tough."

World Series preview

I know, I know -- it's unfair to send in your World Series predictions after Game 1; especially when Game 1 is an absolute rout. We were following the game during breaks at rehearsal, and at one point, Boston was up 4-1. The cast is mostly rooting for the Rockies, and while I don't have an active rooting interest, I'm backing Boston, since I think they're the better team (more on this later). One of the Colorado fans bet that the Rockies would tie it up in the later innings. I looked right at him and said, "I'll bet that Boston scores 10." They scored 13, actually, and romped to a 13-1 victory.
Jeff Francis took the loss and just judging from the box score, it was a typical Boston dismantling. They worked him to 100 pitches by the 5th inning and got 6 runs off of him. Then they got to knock around the Rockies' bullpen and soften it up for future games. Josh Beckett, on the other hand, gets treated with kid gloves so that he'll be fresh as a daisy in Game 5 -- if there is a Game 5.
Which brings me thus:

2007 WORLD SERIES PREDICTIONS:

Starting Pitching

The Boss has left the building?

• According to a report in the New York Post, George Steinbrenner has essentially given over day-to-day control of the Yankees to his sons, Hank and Hal. After The Boss went public with his displeasure with Joe Torre, there were some questions raised about the true extent of the Boss' decision-making power in the Yankee hierarchy these days. Those questions gained some legitimacy when the Yankees did in fact lose to the Indians, but it did not result in the immediate firing of Joe Torre. Torre may indeed be on the way out, but both sides are in talks right now, which is not what Steinbrenner indicated would happen.
  If Steinbrenner's days as the true power of the Yankees are over, it will indeed be the end of an era. It wasn't always easy, but Steinbrenner's run as principal owner of the Yankees saw the team reemerge as the most successful franchise in sports. He took home 7 World Championships during his tenure as owner. A lot of the team's success may have come in spite of him (for example, Brian Cashman's emphasis on the team's youth movement), but it must be said that Steinbrenner's agressiveness and his embrace of the free agent market (while most teams were still in denial) were instrumental in reestablishing the Yankees brand. The team is in fine shape and will survive the transfer of power, but it's worth noting what a huge effect Steinbrenner had on the New York sports world and especially on the game of baseball.

LCS Predictions

With an improbable win over the Yankees, the Indians move on to their first ALCS since 1998. I came into this game highly suspicious of Paul Byrd, but then my predictions haven't been working out lately, anyhow. Byrd wasn't brilliant, but he kept baseball's best offense to 2 runs in 5 innings and got the win. The Indians, meanwhile, knocked out Chein-Ming Wang early and kept on knocking homers.
When I saw Joe Borowski warming up in the bullpen before the 9th, I groaned and said, "Oh, no!" The announcers referenced the last time Borowski pitched at Yankee Stadium, on April 19, when he blew a save in grand fashion and lost the game on an A-Rod walkoff home run. I remember that one vividly; I was there. I like Chip Caray as an announcer, but right on cue, he talked about how important it was to stay with what brought you to the dance, or some other worn cliche. Borowski is "your guy," and if you don't stay with him, you're sending a message to your team. That may be true, but it's also true that Borowski sucks, is a borderline closer, and is the last guy in the Indians bullpen I would send up to face Jeter, Abreu, and A-Rod. The message Wedge should be sending to his team is, "I want to win this game." You'd think that would go without saying, but not in baseball. Keeping a guy in his defined role is what a manager does, even if it's amazingly destructive to the team's chances of winning. Anyone in the Indians clubhouse who thinks that keeping Joe Borowski happy is more important than winning the ALDS should get their head in the game.

Oopsie

Well, that was quick. Both of my picks to win the NLDS were demolished in 3-0 sweeps, as both the Rockies and the Diamondbacks sealed the deal yesterday, going on to the NLCS. For the Rockies, it's the first postseason series win in franchise history (and an impressive one at that), and for the D-Backs it's a pretty impressive return to glory, having missed the playoffs since 2002. It's prety unique for both halves of the LDS to end up as 3-0 sweeps. The only other time that's happened was in the 1996 NLDS (Braves swept Dodgers, Cards swept Padres) and again in the 1997 ALDS (Braves over Astros, Marlins over Giants). It's never happened in the American League, although this year could be the first. I'll wait until later to do my ALCS/NLCS predictions, but if things keep going the way they are, I won't have to wait long.

Rockies 9, Padres 8

Wow.

I don't know if tonight's one-game playoff will go down as one of the most memorable in history, but it should. The Wild Card isn't glamorous, and neither are the Padres and Rockies, but tonight was an incredibly exciting game for a number of reasons.

I must say that I was in rehearsal this evening and didn't join the game until the 8th inning, when it was tied 6-6. Amazingly enough, it stayed tied into the 13th. Both bullpens did a pretty impressive job of keeping the runs off the board. If Heath Bell is an unlikely hero, Matt Herges is even more unlikely, but he threw 3 scoreless innings none the less.
I knew it couldn't go on forever, and when I saw Jorge Julio stroll to the mound in the 13th, I had the feeling that this might be it. Julio, who was as wild as you'd expect, walked Brian Giles and then fell behind Scott Hairston. He then grooved one to Hairston, who knocked it out of the park, giving the Padres an 8-6 lead. The Colorado faithful went silent, and I figured it was over. (The guy who caught the ball actually doubled 0ver in pain when he did, even though it didn't touch his stomach). Julio gave up a single to Chase Headley and then was removed.

A great day . . . for parity

Today was a great day to be a baseball fan, no doubt. There was excitement all across the National League, as two playoff spots were pursued by four teams. The American League was sewed up a while ago -- it should be Red Sox/Angels and Indians/Yankees in the ALDS -- but the National League came into this weekend with no teams having clinched a postseason berth. The D-Backs and Cubs clinched a spot on Friday, and they will face each other in the NLDS. But the NL East and NL Wild Card came down to today and, amazingly enough, only one race was settled.
The Mets got blistered by the lowly Marlins and lost 8-1, with Tom Glavine getting knocked out of the box in the 1st inning. So the Mets had to hope for the Phillies to lose, which would result in a tie and a one-game playoff tomorrow (it actually could have been even more complicated; if both teams had won today, there was a possible 4-way tie with the Rockies and Padres for 2 playoff spots. I don't even want to contemplate what that would result in; there's never even been a 3-way tie for a postseason spot before, let alone a 4-way tie for two spots).
Instead, the Phillies routed the Nationals and clinched the NL East, their first postseason berth since 1993. The Phillies were 7 games back with just two weeks left in the season and somehow managed to come back -- perhaps the most amazing comeback in baseball history. Which, conversely, makes it one of the worst collapses in history for the Mets, right up with the '64 Phillies, '51 Dodgers, and '95 Angels. The borough of Queens might spontaneously explode with anger pretty soon, so I expect ownership to throw some sacrifical lambs to the crowd (Willie Randolph, first of all) to prevent an armed uprising.

State of the Baseball Union: NL West

The NL West has proven, thus far, to be a really exciting race. It's doubly exciting in that these are teams that are fairly young and setting up rivalries and races that should last for a while. The Giants aside, this is a pretty competitive division, and while I would give certain clubs the edge, you have to consider this a good example of competitive balance.

Arizona Diamondbacks (68-53)
My Prediction: 85-77
On Current Pace: 91-71

The Diamondbacks have, as of Wednesday's games, out-performed their Pythagorean prediction (58-63) by ten games. In terms of runs scored and allowed, they should be in 4th place, 1/2 game out of 5th (last). Instead, they've got a three game lead ahead of some darn good teams.

Will their luck continue to hold? It's impossible to say, but I wouldn't bet on them staying so lucky. That said, a team's Pythagorean record isn't everything, and even if it is, they just need to stay lucky for about 6 weeks and they're good.

2007 NL West Predictions

NL WEST:
Los Angeles Dodgers (94-68) 92-96 win range
Arizona Diamondbacks (85-77) 83-87 win range
San Diego Padres (84-78) 82-86 win range
Colorado Rockies (78-84) 76-80 win range
San Francisco Giants (73-89) 71-75 win range

LOS ANGELES DODGERS
2006 W-L Record: 88-74 (2nd)
2006 pW-pL Record: 88-74
2007 Projection: 94-68
Strengths: Farm system; young contributors; pitching staff
Weaknesses: Useless old guys blocking young studs; organizational indifference to prospects
Biggest Change from '06: Jason Schmidt
One Reason:
One reason the Dodgers will win in '07 is that their excellent roster is supplemented by top-notch, major league-ready talent.
One reason the Dodgers will lose in '07 is their misappopriation of playing time. Juan Pierre and Luis Gonzalez shouldn't be playing much at all on a team that has so many young possibilities in the outfield. We can only hope that GM Ned Colletti doesn't further damage his team's future in exchange for dubious returns.
Notes:
They're not without some serious questions, but I think the Dodgers are the best team in the NL going into 2007. As I've said before, I'm encouraged by their depth and their ability to replace injured players or non-entities with quality guys.
The Dodgers are in a very competitive division and certainly won't have any easy time of it. But If I had to pick two teams that I expect to make the playoffs, it would be the Dodgers and Mets.

ARIZONA DIAMONDBACKS
2006 W-L Record: 76-86 (T-4th)
2006 pW-pL Record: 80-82
2007 Projection: 85-77
Strengths: Outfield; Farm system; Stephen Drew, Brandon Webb
Weaknesses: Pitching Depth; Bullpen
Biggest Change from '06: Great prospects finally graduating to the majors
One Reason:
One Reason the D-Backs will win in '07 is that they've got as much raw talent as any team in the league.
One Reason the D-Backs will lose in '07 is that it's questionable whether they can make use of that talent. The offense is mostly young, and it's hard to predict how fast they'll get used to the big leagues. Their pitchers are questionable for different reasons. Livan Hernandez handles a great workload, but is coming off two down years and is moving into a hitter's park. Randy Johnson is still Randy Johnson, just an older, more rickety version. And the back end of the rotation (Doug Davis, Enrique Gonzalez) has some promise but isn't very reliable.
Notes:
I mentioned before that the D-Backs have a broader win range than I've listed. They could realistically finish anywhere between 75 and 90 wins, and perhaps beyond that. They're a team of great talent (especially going forward), but the talent is much more volatile than that of the Dodgers. So I've pencilled in the D-Backs for second place.

SAN DIEGO PADRES
2006 W-L Record: 88-74 (1st)
2006 pW-pL Record: 86-76
2007 Projection: 84-78
Strengths: Pitching Staff; Defense
Weaknesses: Lineup Depth
Biggest Change from '06: Jake Peavy at full strength
One Reason:
One Reason the Padres will win in '07 is that they are reliably good. Their ceiling isn't nearly as high as that of Arizona, but you can predict with some certainty that they'll win 80-some games and stay in the Wild Card race for a while.
One Reason the Padres will lose in '07 is their lack of upside. The Dodgers are going to be setting a high standard in the West. Other than Peavy, there are no real "difference-makers" in San Diego. Brian and Marcus Giles aren't really difference-makers anymore, and neither are pitchers David Wells, Greg Maddux, and Trevor Hoffman (to a lesser extent). The rest of the team is rounded out by solid players such as Mike Cameron, Adrian Gonzalez, Chris Young, and Scott Linebrink. They've got good depth, but there's just little reason to expect this team to break through to 90 wins.
Notes:
The biggest thing to watch here is Jake Peavy. Peavy struggled a bit last week, but if you look into it, a lot of his struggles weren't really his fault. He's still a strong candidate for the Cy Young Award and a good bet to notch 200 Ks.
Another boost would be if Mike Cameron and the Giles brothers played a bit like their older selves. The Padres aren't out of the postseason race entirely, but it just takes a lot of "ifs" and "maybes" to make them sound like contenders.

COLORADO ROCKIES
2006 W-L Record: 76-86 (T-4th)
2006 pW-pL Record: 81-81
2007 Projection: 78-84
Strengths: Young talent; Good offseason moves; Rotation stability; Closer
Weaknesses: Inexperience; Rotation mediocrity
Biggest Change from '06: Youngsters are one year better
One Reason:
One reason the Rockies will win in '07 is that they don't have a really striking weakness. Their lineup is surprisingly potent, if short on impact players. Their rotation is strong but also lacking in impact guys. Their bullpen is fair, but they've got a good closer. They've got several young players reaching the majors with good upside. It's a long shot to expect the Rockies to approach 90 wins, but stranger things have happened.
One reason the Rockies won't win in '07 is that they're in the wrong division. Most of the things they have going for them -- the addition of young, impact players -- can also be said of their chief rivals in L.A. and Arizona. And you could argue that the Dodgers' players have more big-league seasoning and that the D-Backs' players have a higher upside. This means that even if the Rockies do succeed in forming a competitive, well-rounded team for the first time in team history, it might not get them much better than 3rd place.
Notes:
Unlike some commentators, I liked the Rockies' pick-up of Willy Taveras. Taveras has his shortcomings in that he's a weak hitter with an empty average whose strongest suit is defense. But the Rockies don't have a better candidate for CF sitting around. And I think that the rest of the lineup will generate enough pop that they can live with Taveras' offensive issues, especially since he's a great defender.
Two rookies that will likely open the season in the starting lineup are Chris Iannetta (C) and Troy Tulowitzki (SS). Both are very good prospects with the chance to be quite productive and soon. Their performance will go a long way toward making or breaking the Rockies. That's not even considering other prospects such as Jeff Baker who should reach the majors in '07.

SAN FRANCISCO GIANTS
2006 W-L Record: 76-85 (3rd)
2006 pW-pL Record: 76-85
2007 Projection: 73-89
Strengths: The Two Barrys and Matt Cain
Weaknesses: Everybody else
Biggest Change from '06: A free agent exodus leaves the lineup stripped bare.
One Reason:
One reason the Giants win in '07 is that they find a way to clone Barry Bonds 8 times.
One reason the Giants will lose in '07 is that their best-case scenario is about 80-82 wins. Best-case. Worst case is finishing 30 games out of first place.
Notes:
In the NL West, you have three teams -- L.A., Arizona, and Colorado -- on the way up. You've got one team -- San Diego -- who's treading water. And one team -- the Giants -- who are inches away from falling off a cliff. Instead of solving the small problems a few years ago and taking a hit in the short term, the Giants leveraged everything they had into winning in the next few years. Not only did they take this huge risk, but the decisions they made did little to help them on their quest for World Series gold. Instead, their desperation led to signing desperate contracts, some of which have been passable, but many of which have been a total waste. If the Giants had rebuilt around 2004 or 2005, they would have suffered losing seasons in 2005-6 but would be nearing competitiveness in a year or so. As it is, they still lost in 2005 and 2006 with no future hope to compensate. Instead, once this current team dissolves, the Giants will be all but lost on the field. They will have only the skeletal remains of a major league team, with a painfully thin minor league system to support it.
Let this be a lesson to those who wish to sacrifice the long-term for the short-term.

On to the American League this weekend.

Does anyone here speak English? Or ancient Greek?

Go ahead and put me on the DL with a severely bruised ego.
News today re: the tenders, non-tenders and love-me tenders.

• First of all, the Baltimore Orioles signed free agent Jay Payton to a 2-year contract for $9.5 million. The report was that the Orioles had finally found their right-handed hitting outfielder. Well, that's half-true; Payton is right-handed. But I'm not so sure about the whole "hitter" thing.
  The Orioles scored 768 runs last year, only 12 more than the last-place Mariners. You would think that, coming into this off-season, the team would try to target some positions that are ripe for improvement. Catcher, Second Base, Shortstop, Third Base, and DH are filled with free agents (or guys under long-term deals). Corey Patterson is set in center, as is Nick Markakis in right. That leaves first base and left field.
  The Orioles punted one opportunity when they signed Kevin Millar to play first base. But Millar should at least hit enough to survive, and he only got a 1-year deal. But Payton, who walks, talks, and quacks like a fourth outfielder, got a 2-year deal. 34-year-old Payton hit 296/325/418 last year, which isn't in any way adequate for a starting left fielder. Payton's contract isn't for much money, so they would be able to move him to a backup role if an upgrade came along. But are the Orioles even aware that they need an upgrade? And how long will they keep Payton starting in left until they realize it?
• But the big news of today was a trade: the Rockies traded Jason Jennings and reliever Miguel Asencio to Houston for center fielder Willy Taveras and pitching prospects Jason Hirsh and Taylor Buchholz.
  I remarked before that it's a good thing for the Astros that they didn't give up Hirsh, Buchholz, and Taveras to get a pitcher as average (and expensive) as Jon Garland. And yet they've given up just that to get Jennings, who is much cheaper, but whose track record isn't nearly as strong. In fact, Jennings has every appearance of being a LAIM. And although he made a strong showing in 2006, there was little to be happy about from 2002-2005, even when you take Coors Field into account. Add in the fact that Jennings is a free agent after this season (I'm pretty sure), and the Astros have taken a big hit in their long-term plans for a very questionable return on the short term.
  Is it possible that I'm not giving Jennings enough credit? He did pitch quite well in 2006, posting a 3.78 ERA in a tough run environment, setting a career high in innings pitched and strikeouts (212 and 142, respectively). Is it just Coors Field that makes Jennings look bad? Partly. His career ERA on the road is a respectable 4.37, compared to 5.19 at Coors. He has a higher walk rate on the road, but his strikeout rate is also higher. His road K rate is about 6.16 per 9 innings, which is about average.
  So who is Jason Jennings? He's a 28-year-old with good durability who has an average K rate, an above-average walk rate, and is pretty good at limiting home runs, especially given his environment.
  That's a quality guy to have around. He's probably never going to be an All-Star, but that depends on your point of view. The pre-2006 Jennings looked to be much more of a low-end LAIM. But in 2006, Jennings took a noticeable step forward. Is this a step forward for good, or just a career year? Are his numbers, even his road numbers, better than Coors makes them look? That's a tough question.
  However, the point here isn't to question how good Jason Jennings is, it's to ask whether or not the Astros should have made the trade. So is Jennings (and Asencio, the raw throw-in) worth giving up your two top pitching prospects and your starting center fielder?
  I don't think so. Hirsh was the pride of the Houston system. He's shown good control and poise in the minors, arriving in the majors last year for a 9-start engagement. Hirsh pitched quite well last year in Double-A (2.87 ERA, 165 K, 42 BB and 12 HR in 172.1 IP) and continued that in Triple-A this year. He had trouble in Houston, posting a 6.04 ERA thanks in part to 11 HR allowed in 44.2 IP. This could be a problem for Hirsh; he allowed few homers in the minors, but once in Houston his fly-ball tendencies (32% while an Astro) caught up with him. Unfortunately for Hirsh, he's going to Colorado.
  If the deal were Jennings-for-Hirsh straight up, I could understand the Astros' take. Hirsh struggled in the majors, and while it would be premature to condemn him to a career of ineffectiveness, it is possible that he's not the right fit for Houston. Trading him in for a more proven commodity like Jennings would be understandable, although it would be a big risk to give up on Hirsh so quickly.
  The problem is that the Astros -- a team that really needs pitching depth -- actually sacrificed their pitching depth in this deal. Trading away two starting pitching prospects, both of whom have already reached the majors, for one starting pitcher, is hard to understand -- especially when the pitcher you're getting isn't an All-Star at all.
  The other pitcher in the deal, Taylor Buchholz, isn't nearly as promising as Hirsh. Buchholz hasn't had a quality season since 2003 in Double-A. Since then, his K rate has degenerated to unimpressive levels, and he allows far too many walks and home runs to compensate. Buchholz made 19 starts with Houston last year, posting a 5.89 ERA and showing off all of the marginal peripherlas he'd shown in the minors. At age 25, there's little reason to expect much from Buchholz, especially since he's going to a ballpark that will exacerbate his problems.
  Willy Taveras may be an overrated player, but he's still got his high points. He sports as empty a batting average as you'll find (career 284/329/340 hitter), and also steals bases (68/88 in the majors), but not enough to help much. His biggest strength is defense. Taveras looks like a heck of a center fielder out there, and the numbers back up that claim. Taveras is 33 Fielding Runs Above Average in his two full major league seasons, which is phenomenal. If the Astros weren't already stocked with punchless glove men, Taveras might be worth keeping as a cheap alternative.
  
  So: is it worth giving up Hirsh, Buchholz, and Taveras to get Jennings?
  I don't think so. I think Jennings is underrated, and should look better in Houston. The problem will be that he's just under the Astros control for a year, and if they do sign a long-term contract, they be well-told to do it later in the season to see how Jennings takes to the Juice Box.
  Hirsh may have his issues as a pitcher (he's also going to be 25), but he's the best the Astros have. He's cheap and is, in my mind, worth the risk. In my mind, you'd have to give up Hirsh for a pitcher who was demonstrably better. And it's hard to make that case for Jennings, especially in the long term.
  Buchholz doesn't have a lot of upside, but even a fifth starter would be valuable to Houston if he could eat up some innings.
  And while Taveras isn't any sort of complete player, it's hard to believe that the Astros will be a better team without him. They don't have any clear-cut successor on hand, unless they're planning on rushing Hunter Pence right into the starting job (which is possible). If they don't go with Pence, then they'll probably have to go with Chris Burke, which leaves the deteriorating Craig Biggio all alone at second base. Again, more evidence that this move isn't going to do Houston any favors in the short term.
  On the other hand, I kind of like this deal for Colorado. Hirsh may not profile like the best fit for Coors Field, but he does have good control, and any sort of pitching prospect is good news for Colorado. My personal opinion is that they should have kept Jennings, but if they were going to trade him, it's nice to get a valuable pitching prospect and a filler-type young starting pitcher and a new center fielder. Taveras should be more helpful to the Rockies than he was to the Astros. The Rockies look, long-term, like a team that should have a well-balanced offensive attack. Unlike the Astros, they can afford to waste a lineup spot on a glove man, especially if he's a fantastic center fielder roaming one of the widest outfields in baseball.
  The final decision on this trade will have to wait until we see how Jennings is outside of the Denver Bizarro World. But right now, it looks like the Astros gave up a little too much to get not enough in return.
• Several players were not tendered contracts by the deadline, making them free agents. They were mostly marginal players, but some of them were useful guys who could help out a team, such as Aaron Guiel, Victor Zambrano, Brandon Claussen, Chris Reitsma, and Jayson Werth. But only one former All-Star got non-tendered, and it came as a big surprise to me, along with many others.
  The Braves non-tendered Marcus Giles, making him a free agent.
  Giles is far, far more useful than any other player non-tendered. He'll be 29 next year, and is a good-fielding second baseman who hits far above average for the position. Now, it's doubtful that Giles will retain the near-MVP form he showed in 2003 (316/390/526), but there's got to be a market out there for a good-hitting second baseman (career .279 EQA) with a good glove that borders on Gold Glove quality.
  Giles is coming off of a very dismal 2006, where he hit just 262/341/387. Is this perhaps a sign of something worse, and is that why Schuerholz couldn't get a good trade for him? It's possible. Giles' deterioration is partly power-based (he only hit 32 doubles and 11 HR last year), but it was mainly due to a near-30 point drop in his batting average. A his peak, Giles hit over .300, but his average has gone down every year since 2003, and it's possible that this indicates a decrease in bat speed. I watch Braves games more than any team besides the Reds, and while I'm no scout, Giles hasn't seemed as sharp at the plate as he used to. That may just be me rationalizing the stats. But the lack of interest around baseball seems to indicate that there are suspicions surrounding Giles.
  It's really hard to believe that Schuerholz couldn't get something for Giles. He was rumored to be going to San Diego, but that deal never worked out. He may end up there yet. But there are other teams that could use a good second baseman, among them the Mets, Nats (if they can pry away Vidro), Padres, and the Blue Jays, among others.
• It's being reported that the Rangers have reached a 1-year, $6 million contract with Eric Gagne.
  I have mixed feelings about this contract. It's less money than Gagne was rumored to be offered, so it's a much better deal for someone as high-risk as he is. And it's not a lot of money to pay a closer.
  My problem is that the Rangers don't seem to be focused on spending their money in the right places. They already had a closer, in Akinori Otsuka. Otsuka isn't the most reliable closer in the league, but then it seems to me that the Rangers have more pressing issues than giving themselves redundancy in the bullpen. Their starting outfield was Catalanotto/Wilkerson/Nelson Cruz before they signed Kenny Lofton recently. Even with Lofton, their offense isn't as potent as it would seem, and their starting pitching staff is still unimpressive. Even assuming the best-case scenario for Millwood and Padilla, the Rangers still have three spots in their rotation to fill, preferably with people not named Jon Koronka.
  Step 1 is to Identify the Problem. Buying the Player is Step 5 or 6, and you shouldn't jump that far until you've carefully looked at Step 1.
• Miguel Batista is reportedly close to signing a free agent deal for 3 years and $24 million (or $27 million, depending upon who you ask). Those numbers look oddly like contracts that were being signed last season, before the big salary inflation. Batista is basically a LAIM at this point in his career, although there are some troubling signs in his performance over the past few years. His walk rates and strikeout rates have gone in the wrong directions since his career year in 2003. Now, Batista has never had good numbers in that regard, so it's not automatically a reason to suspect his performance. But he's turning 35 next February and is coming off a year of a 4.58 ERA and a 84:110 BB:K ratio in 206.1 IP. He's not the kind of pitcher I would want to sign to this kind of contract, but considering the circumstances, it's not the worst deal of the offseason by any means. The most important thing here is that the Mariners limited themselves to just 3 years. 2 years would have been better, but that's probably wishful thinking.
  But the real trouble here isn't the contract, it's the team that signed it. The Mariners really aren't in any position to sign a risky contract. They're a team that needs to build up a strong foundation of some reliable players before they start going out and speculating. The problem is that the Mariners' downside is still last place by a good margin, and the signing of Batista commits a lot of money without significant changing that. The Mariners need more reliable players and safer contracts; they don't need any more Adrian Beltres.
  If the Yankees had signed this contract, I wouldn't be so negative. The Yankees aren't looking for one pitcher to save them, and they're also fiscally capable of absorbing the loss. But the Mariners are neither of these things. Batista doesn't strongly increase their upside, but he does increase the risk of another season of sunk costs and bad contracts.
  A lot of this is probably rooted in the Mariners' desperation. The M's were criticized for not being active at the Winter Meetings. And there's no better setup for a bad contract than when a GM is pressured to do something. GM Bill Bavasi is especially anxious, considered by many to be on the hot seat this year. And with the team struggling despite having made serious commitments to Adrian Beltre, Richie Sexson, and Jarrod Washburn, Bavasi is about to become the fall guy. And for the most part, that's probably justified.
• Jeff Bagwell is expected to officially announce his retirement this week. I've always been a fan of Bagwell's and never thought he got enough credit for his hitting, especially his 368/451/750 1994.
  But the whispers are starting, and unfortunately, they're probably justified. Bagwell is one player who -- although there's never been any sort of evidence presented against him -- has been strongly suspected of steroid use. We're put in a very unfortunate position when considering Bagwell and the players of his era. On one hand, it's patently unfair to condemn something for suspicions as groundless as these. On the other hand, it would be irresponsible to be naive about the matter and wait for some "smoking gun" that we'll never find.

I'll be back later with my look ahead at the Angels. Only four teams to go!