The arbitration deadline has passed, and there were a few interesting A's-related developments:

a.)  The team declined to offer arbitration to Frank Thomas and Alan Embree.

b.)  The Diamondbacks and Phillies decided against offering Adam Dunn and Pat Burrell arbitration.  Although both players were Type A free agents, any team may now sign them without yielding any of their own draft picks.

Does that make either player more attractive from your point of view?  Is the team perhaps more likely to engage them? Neither player is a good defender, although they both have first-base experience and might be less of a liability at first base than they are in left field.

Please vote below!

According to mlbtraderumors.com, via Mychael Urban, the A's have declined to offer arbitration to both of their Type B free agents.

Embree might've eventually yielded a top-50 draft pick in the '09 draft if he had been offered and signed with another team.  But the team eschewed the gamble that Embree would accept the team's offer and receive a ~$4M payday to be a back-end-of-the-bullpen reliever for the A's next year. 

The A's 40-man roster still stands at 39 players.

There are a few other free agents that will learn their arbitration fates tonight that might be of interest to A's fans:

-The Diamondbacks have already revealed that Type A FA Adam Dunn was not offered arbitration.  Dunn stood to earn a raise to perhaps $15M or more for '09, and the Diamondbacks apparently didn't want to risk Dunn accepting the offer and bloat their payroll.

-The Phillies will make a similarly important decision with Pat Burrell by 9 p.m. Pacific time tonight.

Pure speculation on my part:  Burrell and Dunn might become more attractive first-base options for the A's if they lack arbitration tags, since both players are Type A's and, if signed, would've cost the A's their second-round draft pick in '09.  (Obviously both players would become more attractive to every team, not just the A's, if they aren't offered arby).

Further evidence of league-wide hesitancy about arbitration offers came earlier today, when the Yankees reportedly declined an arbitration offer to Type A free agent Bobby Abreu, who seeks at least a three-year deal and would've yielded two high draft picks for the Yankees if they had offered arby and he had signed elsewhere. 

The missus and I are out the door to use my credit card, but since Friday's my front page day, I thought I'd quickly post my A's wish list, in order of priority, in the spirit of the biggest shopping day of the year:

1.  Rafael Furcal - "The Torpedo" lunched with Beane and checked out Bay Area real estate while in town Tuesday. (I'm guessing that the "businessmen" outside of the Burger King on Hegenberger weren't part of the tour).   I wish that Furcal could have been persuaded before he left town for the Dominican Republic; the skeptic in me is afraid that Torpedo is waiting to see if a preferred team will bowl him over with an offer.  I'm still optimistic. 

2.  Nick Johnson - I'd be thrilled with a trade of Javier Herrera and/or Richie Robnett for him, but I hope he wouldn't require any of our top eight arms on the farm.  Potential .400 OBP guy with 20 homers, along with projected league-average-or-slightly-better defense.  With only one year and $5.5M remaining on his contract, he figures to be cheaper than Giambi, and is obviously a better defender.

3. Randy Johnson - Johnson is likely to require only a one-year commitment, and he has an excellent k-to-walk ratio.  He's also a Walnut Creek native and only five wins away from 300, so perhaps there's some sentimental value to bringing him in as well.  His biggest problem is allowing home runs, and the Coliseum would help suppress that.  Johnson also wouldn't require the A's to yield a draft pick.  I think that a few of the A's young pitchers could benefit from watching Johnson's preparation for each start and intensity.  I like him much more than Brad Penny, who has a high walk rate and literally quit on the Dodgers during the last two weeks of the season, packing up and going home early.

4.  Eduardo Morlan - This year's Rule 5 draft-eligible crop is thinner than it's been in year's past. There's probably a few good reasons for that - in the post-PED era, rosters are going to be slightly younger, and the high cost of free agents makes it more essential than ever to protect young talent.  With apologies to PT's yen for James Skelton (Tigers catcher), I think that Eduardo Morlan of the Rays organization is the best player available in a very thin Rule 5 crop.  A nice combination of good stats and upside, if his fastball returns to the mid-90s after slipping a few ticks this year.  Morlan will likely be picked before the A's turn to draft, but the team could always trade up, a la Ryan Goleski (with much better results, hopefully).

(I don't actually think the A's will take a Rule 5 pick; if they really wanted an extra reliever, they could've simply protected Brad Kilby).

Assuming that Crosby gets traded for a low-level non-roster player, and that Herrera/Robnett are traded for Johnson, these moves would put the A's roster at 40 entering Spring Training.  I'm also assuming that Embree gets offered arbitration, declines, and eventually signs with another team, yielding the A's another draft pick. 

This off-season presents an interesting situation at the 6-hole, where several teams could potentially swap shortstops and more than 25% of the league is in need of an upgrade.

Here are eight players who might be available and could be considered starting shortstops:

Free Agents:  Rafael Furcal, Edgar Renteria, Orlando Cabrera, Cesar Izturis

Trade Candidates:  Bobby Crosby, Julio Lugo, Yunel Escobar, Khalil Greene

(Note:  Two notable omissions here are J.J. Hardy of the Brewers and Jack Wilson of the Pirates.  Wilson makes $7.5 million next year and is less attractive than these eight; Hardy I left off purely because I doubt he's realistically available at this point. Next year, after Alcides Escobar has spent some time in AAA, I could see him being traded. But not yet.) 

The next list is six teams in need of shortstop upgrades:

A's, Dodgers, Tigers, Orioles, Giants, Cardinals

(Some notes here:  The White Sox have said publicly that they are very likely to give their vacant shortstop job to Alexei Ramirez.  The Cubs made inquiries initially with Furcal, but Dempster's signing and Ryan Theriot's success make that extremely unlikely.)

I'll add the Braves and the Padres to this list, only on the possibility that the two teams eventually consummate a Jack Peavy trade and Yunel Escobar is inevitably involved.

8 teams, 8 players - where will they go, and why?

Furcal - A's.  We've written thousands of words about this already.

Renteria - Cardinals.  Seems destined for a return to the NL.  Cardinals want more offense than they've had at the position.

O. Cabrera - Dodgers.  They have money to spend, but seem interested in starting an SS to a shorter-term deal than Furcal, so as to not block their SS prospects.

Izturis - Orioles.  They're stressing defense and won't be an attractive option to any of the top 3 FA's.  No sense in playing major bucks for Cabrera or Renteria, anyway.

Lugo - traded to the Tigers, in a swap for Dontrelle Willis (who could then be re-routed to the Rangers or to the NL by the Red Sox in exchange for a catcher or prospect, perhaps).

Escobar - traded to the Padres in a Jake Peavy trade, as part of a huge package

Greene - traded to Atlanta along with Peavy, with Atlanta absorbing all salary and giving up 4-5 prospects.  Greene played his college ball in the South (Clemson) and might experience a mini-renaissance in a better hitter's park. 

Crosby - traded to the Giants(?) This one's admittedly wishcasting.  But I see some semblance of a fit: he's a life-long Californian, he might hit a lot of doubles in that park, and the Giants won't want to enter the year with Burriss as their primary option.  Crosby wouldn't be their first or even second choice, but this is assuming they missed out on two of their favorite options (Furcal, Renteria).

I could also see Renteria to the Giants, Crosby to the Orioles, and Izturis re-upping with the Cards. 

*I think part of why the A's are trying to strike quickly with Furcal is to eliminate the Dodgers from the bidding.  If the Dodgers are still waiting for the C.C. Sabathia and Manny dominoes to fall, they're probably reluctant to commit major money elsewhere, in hopes that they might still land one of those pieces.

But where do YOU see these eight guys landing?

With the Cubs reportedly close to an agreement with Ryan Dempster to re-sign for 4 years and slightly more than $50 million, they appear to have removed themselves from the Jake Peavy sweepstakes. 

This has put the Padres in the awkward position of cycling back to a team that had essentially already removed itself - the Braves. 

Huh?

Let's review these events, in analogy form:

1. Kevin Towers asked his dream girl, Atlanta, to the dance over the loud speaker on the morning announcements.
2. Atlanta publicly said no.
3. Kevin asked three other girls, who came back with, "I have a hair appointment," "My cat is sick," and "I don't like to dance."
4. Kevin returns to girl #1, beaming, and says, "Good news - I can still go with you!"

In spite of this post's Onion-y title, Towers has in fact been anything but a best seller in the past month, perhaps damaging his perception both within the game and among fans.

I doubt you'll see him on a list of the game's top 5 GM's again anytime soon.  This saga has been a blueprint in "How to Mis-manage a Trade Negotiation".

Step 1:
1. Inaccurately evaluate the market for your player. Towers, like many Padre fans, wanted a Dan Haren quality-package, while ignoring that Haren had a much more team-friendly contract and LACKED A NO-TRADE CLAUSE.  When all 29 teams aren't eligible to even acquire the player, that has to reduce the expected return.

2.  Openly, publicly pursue trade negotiations involving a player who has a no-trade clause.  Paradoxically, player became more powerful than management in this entire situation, and everyone ended up with egg on their face as the Padres and Towers were essentially subservient to Peavy. To some fans, it made Peavy look petulant and the Padres look arrogant.

3.  Alienate every team involved by publicly scoffing at the offers that are coming in, and announcing which teams are "lucky enough" to be in the bidding. 

This could have been handled discreetly and effectively, and it wasn't.

The blame lies mostly with Towers:

1)  He thought he could get a Dan Haren-quality package for Peavy, and 2)  he thought that he should open up the bidding to every team possible first and then try to get Peavy's blessing for that particular team afterward, rather than covertly getting Peavy's blessing and then quietly engaging 1-2 teams only to avoid media leaks.

How can we speculate as to those two things?  If you've followed the entire saga daily on mlbtraderumors, you know that several of the supposed offerings from various teams have slipped out, and you've already read a nauseating number of Jake Peavy quotes about which teams he'd like to play for, which teams he doesn't like, etc. 

None of that - none! - should have ever happened.  It implies that the team had to go back and forth to Peavy more than once, seeking approval for this team or that team, after fielding offers.  At one point Peavy and his agent even expressed displeasure about the possibility of the Braves losing Yunel Escobar, because Peavy would be joining a team weakened by Escobar's departure. 

The Padres and Towers' motive - extracting maximum value - is entirely logical.  But it looks like they've overplayed their hand and suffered the consequences of seeking as many bids as possible - multiple media leaks, embarrassment, and alienation from their best trade partners in terms of logical fit...and they still haven't consummated a deal.

How could, or perhaps should, this have gone?

1. "Jake, let's be honest: we aren't going to be a championship team for a while, and you deserve to play for a champion.  We don't even need to ask you about Houston, since we already know they aren't a good match in terms of prospects*, but which other two teams would you most like to play for if you weren't a Padre?"  (The team should already know this answer - it's asked for Peavy's benefit).
2. "Uh...the Cubs and Braves, contenders closer to home."
3. "And would you accept a trade to those two teams, Jake?"
4. "Only if they make the option year at the end of my contract guaranteed."
5. "Ok, Jake. We promise to only engage those two teams, to keep our discussions private to avoid an embarrassing Brian Giles incident,  and we promise that, IF we can reach a deal with those two teams, your option year will be guaranteed.  We also promise to have the entire situation wrapped up in two weeks, max.  In exchange, though, can we ask that you keep this between us and out of the press?"
6. "Sure."
7. "Ok. So, we will be negotiating with those two teams privately over the next two weeks.  You won't be reading about it in the press, the other players involved will be confidential, and we might not have updates for a while.  But the whole thing will be handled in the next two weeks, and by then you'll know if you're be wearing a Padres, Cubs, or Braves uniform next spring."

*(The Astros' public involvement is, to me, the part that shows the least foresight.  It was illogical to ever start dialogue with any team lacking prospects).

If these trade talks had played out in the manner of the hypothetical conversation above, it would've allowed Towers to negotiate freely, quietly and productively between two legitimate and serious suitors, rather than play a big game of  "Telephone" for three weeks with reporters, Peavy, and a few AL teams Peavy didn't want to play for anyway.

As an A's fan, there are two things that stick out in my mind as I reflect upon the Peavy saga and how it has unfolded:

1.  I have a greater appreciation of Billy Beane.  He has been in the middle of two of the highest-profile trades made in the last three years, and the media has barely heard a whisper of either one of them before them before they happened.  Both trades shocked even the most hardcore A's fans - which is probably good sign - it means info wasn't leaked, and that negotiations were smooth, quick, and respectful.  That reflects the very high level of preparation in the A's front office. I also didn't hear even one player complaint in the aftermath of either trade from anyone involved.

2.  When a player has a full no-trade clause, it can potentially wreak havoc on a long-term reloading/rebuilding plan.  It clouds the logical baseball power structure between management and player, and hinders the GM's ability to effectively do his job.  The Peavy situation represents perfectly why I would rather give a player millions of dollars beyond the typical offer, rather than a full no-trade clause.  (hence my proposal for a Furcal offer that's perceived as being significantly above-market). 

Jason Kendall and Mark Kotsay have proved that you can almost always extract some future value from a player who is underperforming his contract, so long as he doesn't have a full NTC, if you're willing to eat some or all of the player's contract.

To me, overpaying by a few million dollars far outweighs the risk of a situation that resembles Peavy/Padres unfolding a few years from now.  It's clearly affecting the team's off-season and even long-term plans, and perhaps also hurting goodwill with their fanbase, which will cost San Diego at the ticket gates. 

If you want to skip my blathering, please at least vote in the poll at the bottom.  77% of 1,000 ANers are pleased with the Holliday trade.  How many of you would be ok with acquiring Furcal at a steep price?

All right, I'm in. Hook, line, and sinker/slider.  I hope that the A's sign Furcal to a contract in the neighborhood of four years, $60 million, without a no-trade clause. 

"Zounds!  Egads!" you say?  (Even though no one under the age of 80 has used those two words in the last 50 years.)   "It's too much money, and he's got a balky back!" 

I'll agree with you, on both counts.  And yet I still could rationalize that 15MM a year investment, even for four years.  Here's seven quick-hitting reasons why for your Friday afternoon reading:

1.)  The team is undeniably re-entering a contention phase, and Furcal accelerates that plan.  He removes the biggest liability amongst the team's starting nine (Crosby) and puts much better offense and better defense in that spot. 

2.)  Even as Furcal declines between age 31 and 35, it's highly unlikely that anyone in the A's farm system could come close to outperforming him over the next four years. Declining Furcal is very likely still much better than Gregorio Petit or Cliff Pennington.  And those 2-3 wins might be the difference between making the playoffs during each of the next four seasons.

3.)  There won't be a better shortstop on the free agent market for a while.  Amazingly, Crosby and Khalil Greene are actually the headliners of next year's free agent class.  If the Brewers can lock up J.J. Hardy long-term in the next two years, it's possible that Furcal - warts and all - will end up being the best shortstop on the FA market over the course of the next three offseasons, until (if) Rollins hits free agency.  There's no way the A's want to wait that long to find an adequate solution. 

4.)  Signing Furcal, even it means overpaying, makes the trade market for Crosby slightly better, by removing the most attractive alternative for every team with shortstop needs.  If the A's absorb $4-5 million of the $5.5 million owed Crosby next year, I have no doubt that they can acquire at least a Jerry Blevins-quality player (6 years of below-market quality relief).

5.)  Furcal would cost the A's nothing in terms of free-agent compensation, and therefore would cost nothing in the team's rebuilding efforts.  His injury-riddled '08 depressed his Elias numbers and he didn't even achieve Type B status.  I doubt the A's want to sign anyone this offseason that would cost them their second-rounder.  This is part of why I wouldn't advocate the Edgar Renteria fallback option - Renteria's a Type A, and he's likely to be offered arbitration, which would cost the A's their second-round pick (since their first rounder is protected). 

6.)  The team is in wonderful position financially to absorb a contract of this size and length.  The team has tons of cost-controlled, valuable assets and virtually zero bad contracts.  Absorbing most of Crosby's deal AND signing Furcal for $15MM per would still keep the team's payroll in the $65 million range for '09. 

7.)  By not offering him a no-trade clause, or at most an 8-to-10 team partial no-trade clause, the team would guarantee that, at worst, Furcal could simply yield a future asset via trade, with the A's absorbing some cash.  Mark Kotsay and Jason Kendall both yielded good value, even in terrible declines.  Surely, Rafael Furcal would yield even more.  Even if he struggled for the next 2 years and wanted out, some team would want him, and would have a great need, due to the aforementioned lack of shortstops on the next three FA markets.   And again, that's the worst-case scenario.  The best-case scenario, of course, is that he stays healthy and does  well for the A's over the next four years, making a positive difference of 2-3 wins each year during some contending seasons.

You may hate the idea of offering him 60 million.  I'm just trying to be realistic.  He wouldn't accept coming to Oakland (which surely isn't his top choice), or a partial no-trade clause, for anything less than an offer that's 10% (15%?) better than any other offer he receives. 

So, in light of the Holliday acquistion, and Beane's public comments that he plans to keep Holliday through the '09 season, would you sign Furcal to a four year, 60MM contract without a no-trade clause? 

According to Tim Brown of Yahoo! Sports, the A's have traded Carlos Gonzalez, Greg Smith, and Huston Street for Colorado left fielder Matt Holiday.

Holiday is owed 13.5 million in '09 and then would stand to become a free agent, barring a contract extension. His agent is Scott Boras.

Huston Street is arb-eligible and has two remaining years of contractual control; Greg Smith has five remaining years of team control, and CarGon has six.

 This is an update/overflow thread to Sal's excellent and incredibly timely thread below.

(Inspired by baseballgirl's post from Wednesday, these five ideas all probably require collective bargaining, but I’m assuming absolute power in this hypothetical):

1. Allow the trading of draft picks and institute “hard” draft pick slotting (NBA style), which would instantly ensure that the projected best talent is always taken in the first round as it should, and as it is in every other sport with a draft. Slotting and trading of picks go hand-in-hand, because if you’re going to tell the team drafting No. 1 that they HAVE to pay the top player an $8.5MM signing bonus, it’s only fair to allow them to trade out of that position if they think they can find better value in a lower slot.

Obviously the specific slot figures would be written into the CBA and would increase each year with inflation and with the continued health of the game, just as FA prices do. In addition to the obvious benefits, it would mean that players would simply sign their deals immediately (since there’s no dollar figure to negotiate) and get a few extra months of minor league development instead of holding out and not playing until the following spring.

I have a wild hunch this could become a hot-button topic after the ‘09 draft. I wouldn’t be surprised to see Strasburg demand $15-20 million if he has a healthy, dominant junior season. If he falls past No. 1, and someone ends up paying that figure, that might create enough animosity in the Player’s Union and among small-market owners that they’d actually agree to bargain the issue of “hard slotting” draft picks. And draft pick trading is a logical short step from there, because it gives owners the ability to manage their money/bonuses as they choose.

This would also spice up the trading deadline each year, as each team in the hunt would have additional trading chits if they wished to go for broke down the stretch.  Just like the NFL and NBA's draft-pick trading rules, MLB would need to mandate that draft picks too far into the future couldn't be traded, so that overzealous GMs wouldn't mortgage the future of the franchise to save their own jobs in the short term.  (e.g., allow draft pick trading for a maximum of 2-3 years into the future).

2. Include International players in the Rule 4 (North American amateur) June draft. There’s certainly enough intelligence and resources league-wide to make this a possibility now, even if there wasn’t a few decades back. It might also help make all 50 rounds of the draft relevant for every team.  More importantly, it would help to remove some of the ethical concerns associated with agents/buscones, bonus-skimming, and broken promises that currently give a black eye to the International scene. Critics say this would “ruin” baseball in Venezuela and the Dominican Republic; I highly doubt that two incredibly passionate baseball countries would simply quit playing over this.  But would the International players have to 18 to be eligible for the modified draft, or only 16?

3. Completely revise the archaic ELIAS player ranking system and the FA compensation system. I’m pretty sure they’ll do something with this in the next CBA (2011). It’s a good idea to compensate teams for lost free agents; it’s a really bad idea to use things like fielding percentage and batting average as key determinants for that compensation.  It creates crazy inequities like this, where Juan Uribe is worthy of compensation, but Jason Giambi isn't.  

4. Eliminate ALL playoff off-days.

You can’t really eliminate regular season off-days, because you need buffers for rainouts, and you occasionally need an off day/travel day for the quality of play to remain high and for players to remain sane.

But no one should have trouble getting up adrenaline for three weeks of playoffs.

What if teams had to actually use their 25-man roster in the playoffs? That’s what got them there, isn’t it? This also helps allieviate the rainout problem. The season could still still start practically rain-free on April 6 and be comfortably done before Halloween if there were no scheduled playoff off-days.

Allow 5 days for the division series, 7 days for the LCS, and 7 for the World Series = 19 days total.

You want a day or two off? Kick your opponent’s butt quickly.

In addition to reducing the likelihood of rain, this might actually improve the quality of play, by reducing the awkwardly long stretches of time between some pitchers' outings.

Let’s look at how this would play out in in the ’09 season, when the season begins on April 5th and ends on Sunday, October 4th.

*Allow Monday for Game 163/one-game playoffs that decide the race.
*The Divisional Series each start on Tuesday, Oct. 6th. Eighteen days later, Game 7 of the World Series would be played on October 24th, with perhaps no rain at all.

Sure, there would be four playoff games every day for the entire first week of the playoffs. Isn’t that kind of awesome though? The NCAA seems to think so each March, and so do thousands of people who skip work on the first Thursday and Friday of March Madness, and millions who watch their productivity plummet as they watch the NCAA Tourney on the office TV.

In fact, here’s a revenue-generating olive branch in the direction of those networks who lost ratings by playing daytime playoff games:

You could make the Division Series a best-of-seven in this proposal, and the World Series Game 7 would still end by October 26th, the 21st day of the postseason.  Exactly three weeks of playoffs. That’s a few extra games of revenue for the stations to compensate for inferior time slots in the morning, as the station tries to fit in four playoff games in a day.

Or, the league could treat the Division Series the way CBS treats Day 1 and 2 of March Madness – play two playoff games simultaneously, and the network can pop back and forth, covering the most interesting one. During blowouts, rainouts, and pitching changes, there’s still some relevant action to switch over to. With four daily games, two of them could start at 5:30 and two of them could start at 8:30 Eastern., kind of like Sunday NFL coverage.

5.  Steal from David Pinto and Tom Tango.

From Pinto:

"I really think we should get rid of the NL and AL.  Divide the teams into five six-team divisions.  Each division plays 90 games in division, and 72 games against two other divisions on a rotating basis.  Five division champions, three wild cards.  Rank all division champs ahead of the wild cards, and rank the team 1-8 based on winning percentage.  One plays eight, two plays seven, etc. in the first round.  Second round, re-rank the teams, wild cards always last.  One plays four, etc.  The two winners play for the championship."

And after eliminating the AL/NL distinction, this from Tango:

For every major league game, allow the home team's manager to determine whether the DH will be used or not.

What do you think?

After last night's incredible Red Sox comeback, baseball fans are left without a playoff game until the action resumes Saturday with Game Six at Tampa Bay.

Since Friday's my assigned AN posting day, I thought a quick league-wide free agent discussion could be a bridge until game-time tomorrow.

In the comments section, please pick ~10 of the top free agents and make a prediction as to where they will sign this offseason.  If you want, you could add a quick analysis of why you think they'll land at that particular destination.

Here's mine:

Sabathia - Yankees.  Not his ideal choice (NL, West Coast), but money talks (eight years, 150MM).

Burnett - Yankees.  Largest deal on table. Yanks rotation becomes Sabathia/Wang/BurnettPettitte/Mussina, with Hughes and Kennedy as #6 and #7.  Inevitably Hughes will be needed most of the year as a terrific injury fill-in.  Joba remains in pen and pitches 80 healthy, high-leverage innings.  (This scenario won't happen,  but it would make them a playoff team again if it did.  Instead they'll enter the year thin, with Joba as their #4 and Hughes as their #5, and no depth.  One or both will get hurt, there's no depth behind them, and that's how you get Sidney Ponson starting 10 games for a $210MM team).

Sheets - Red Sox.  Takes a slight discount in years/money.  Sox don't need 200 innings thanks to their depth - just 140-150 good ones, and a guy who is a playoff starter in Wakefield's place.  Sheets is also good insurance against a badly injured Beckett or completely ineffective Wakefield in the '09 regular season, which would torpedo a BoSox playoff berth.

Lowe - Dodgers.  He pitched well in LA, likes it there, and needs the NL.  Best deal on the table.  Yanks/Red Sox wisely take a pass.

K-Rod - Mets.  Largest deal on the table, good clubhouse fit, great area of need for NY.

Fuentes - Brewers.  Brewers miss out on Sabathia, have money to burn, and decide they need a closer.  Best deal on the table.

Furcal - Dodgers.  Mutual interest, enough cash available to keep other suitors at bay.  Even after a three-error game in the clincher, Torre and brass didn't throw him under the bus. 

Giambi - Yankees.  To me, no one's writing that the smart play is to either exercise the option or get him to agree to a slightly cheaper one-year deal.  Why does it make sense for the Yankees to let him walk?  Let me get this straight:  The Yankees sign aging vets who can hit almost every year. It's smart business - money is their best available resource.  But those guys eventually need to take res idence at the lowest rungs of the defensive spectrum.  So instead of keeping those lower rungs open for their aging hitters for years to come, they're gonna sign...a first baseman who will marginally outperform Giambi offensively to an 8-9 year contract?  Think about this:  What position is A-Rod going to be playing on defense when he's 39, 40 years old?  What are they going to do with Jeter in his late-30s, when they want him to retire as a Yankee but his shortstop defense is intolerable?  I think the Yanks should try to bring Giambi and Abreu back for a year and leave those lower defensive rungs (LF, 1b) open for the long-term.  With the pitching additions I mentioned above, that team could absorb having a bad defense.  If their starting nine is Posada-Giambi-Cano-Jeter-A-Rod-Nady-Damon-Abreu-Matsui, AND they have the rotation I mentioned above, that's a playoff team, terrible defense and all.

Teixiera - Angels.  Somehow I have a feeling that Tex would crumple like Shawn Bradley taking a charge if he signed in New York.  He belongs in LA, and they obviously traded for him anticipating it could become a long-term relationship.  They'll get him, make a minor pitching addition or two, and become a 90-91-win team on paper again, ensuring them yet another playoff berth in a weak West.

Manny Ramirez - Mets.  What other team wants to make a 4-5 year commitment to him?  If there's one clubhouse in baseball where he can both feel comfortable long-term, AND be disciplined if necessary without alienating him, it's this one.  This signing, along with K-Rod and one or two of the second-to-third-tier starters, would return them to the playoffs.  

Adam Dunn - Cubs.  Obscene cash gets him to accept less-than-favorite destination and likely position switch (RF).  They've done it before (Soriano).  They need a left-handed bat and this is the best one left.  I guess I could see Raul Ibanez going here instead, and Soriano moving (yet again!) to right field.  By the time he's 38, Soriano will be catching Monday through Friday and pitching left-handed out of the bullpen on weekends.  

Pat Burrell - Phillies.  I couldn't find a better fit for him.  Philly's a tough place to play, and he's already won that battle, and the fans.  Good vibes and plenty of revenue from getting to the World Series.  Fills two voids that would be created if he left (righty power bat, left field).  Might as well pencil him in there, even though his deal will probably look Eric Byrnesian by the end of it.  

Those are my predictions on 12 top free agents.  I intentionally left out Orlando Hudson, the second-best middle infielder, because I think he's overrated. 

If the Yankees and Red Sox gobble up that much free agent pitching, it'll force other contenders to take some serious gambles.  Some team is going to take an expensive multi-year flier on Oliver Perez; another team is going to bank on 30 decent starts from Carl Pavano.  I could see the Mets getting one of those guys, and the Cubs re-signing Dempster and Wood.  Paul Byrd and Jon Garland would make sense for budget-conscious NL contenders like the Brewers or Cardinals, since they can't be more than a No. 5 in the AL at this point in their careers.  That covers pretty much every relevant starter, and also covers the pitching needs of every contender, since they'll be the ones who drive the market.  

Two quick trade predictions:  Peavy to the Dodgers, Huston Street to the Cardinals.  The Blue Jays, as the fourth-best team in the AL East for the foreseeable future, should perhaps consider trading Roy Halladay and extracting max value for one of the five best pitchers in baseball...but I don't think they will, even though they could get 6-7 prospects and instantly have one of the top 5 farm systems in the game on the basis of that one trade if they did.

Leave your own ideas and scenarios below!  

Is good hitting contagious? 

More to the point:  Do hitters perform better when they are surrounded by other patient, proficient hitters? 

Now if you've already decided where you stand on that question, you have probably also decided what you think the A's should do this winter.

Billy Beane has already mentioned an interest in finding out how much better Jack Cust could be with some established hitters around him.  From there, its not much of a leap to suggest that Beane might be interested in seeing if the addition of a few established hitters could have a positive effect on the rest of the young lineup as well.

With that I hope to plant the seed for a humble rebuttal to my colleague's well-articulated arguments in favor of shunning the pricey 1-to-2 year signing of an aging vet.

Parsing through both Beane and Wolff's recent comments, we've learned:

1. The team is in the market for at least one hitter, and it won't be one of the big, expensive names that will command 4+ years and $70 million or more.
2. Eric Chavez is still being penciled in as the team's third baseman, and the A's won't acquire an expensive third baseman as long as that's the case.
3. The team and Mark Ellis are back in contract talks and both sides seem amenable to a deal being reached.
4. Beane doesn't seem willing to trade from his farm system in order to bolster the major league offense.

We might as well use that information to inform our offseason predictions.  With that, here's my best guess as to the '09 Opening Day 40-man Roster, with the corresponding transactions and commentary in between.

Continue reading this post »