Comments on: October 18th’s thrilling playoff baseball

By: kg

kg — Thu, 19 Oct 2006 22:30:27 +0000

Not announced yet.
A mariners trainer say that.

By: msb

msb — Thu, 19 Oct 2006 22:23:27 +0000

“The 2006 Seattle Mariners Play of the Year voting has arrived.
Here’s your chance to select the top Seattle Mariners play from the 2006 season. The winning Seattle Mariners play will qualify for MLB.com’s Play of the Year Award voting — part of the 2006 This Year in Baseball Awards — coming in November.”

By: msb

msb — Thu, 19 Oct 2006 18:25:39 +0000

ooh, and also on mlb.com, W. Oahu is beating Waikiki– Jeff Clement now batting!

By: eponymous coward

eponymous coward — Thu, 19 Oct 2006 18:25:06 +0000

Theyâ€™re trying as hard as they think they need to. No oneâ€™s recklessly throwing away money or their future if they donâ€™t think itâ€™s necessary.

In the AL, it might be necessary.

The Yankees, for all their cash, haven’t been any more dominant this millennium than the Braves have been recently (before this year).

That’s because while they spend buttloads of cash, the players they spend it on aren’t worth that much cash. Basically, Steinbrenner’s using his checks to do an imitation of The Little Dutch Boy.

You can pretty much take it to the bank that a core of over-30 players WILL slip, year to year. Individual players might improve, but the group will decline. That’s why the sum of the Yankees is less than the parts every year- because people see last year’s stats and go “OMG THEY ARE TEH AWESOME”, without accounting for the decline.

I don’t think you should manage your franchise in fear of the Yankees. I suspect that next year, they’ll score a lot of runs but not as much as you think they would, because they’ll have injuries and declines to fight through, the pitching will be very “eh”, they’ll win 90-some games, and be just as likely to get knocked off in the playoffs or win out as any other 90-some win team.

By: msb

msb — Thu, 19 Oct 2006 18:24:00 +0000

#69, 74-- mlb.com has a piece today called "What has made the AL dominant?"

By: Paul B

Paul B — Thu, 19 Oct 2006 18:20:31 +0000

There’s a minor difference due to the number of teams in the league. The AL used to have more teams, since the Brewers moved, the NL does.

On the plus side, more teams mean more draft picks in the annual draft. On the negative side for the All Star game, the league has to have at least one player from each team, so the League with more teams probably has a couple of paper weights on the roster.

On the other hand, the AL had to have a Devil Ray and a Royal on the roster, so what do I know?

By: Grizz

Grizz — Thu, 19 Oct 2006 18:09:10 +0000

Evan: The M’s need to free up a number of 40-man roster spots, so the M’s were probably going to DFA both Cruceta and Rivera all along. There is some strategy as to when teams DFA players they may want to keep. Based on the number of waiver claims last week, it looks like the M’s tried to slip Cruceta through when a lot of other teams were doing the same thing. (It would have been Cruceta’s first assignment to the minors, so he would have had to accept it). Sometimes it works (Quiroz), sometimes it does not (Borchard). Unless catcher obsessed Jim Bowden claims him, Rivera should clear waivers, so it probably did not matter when they designated him.

There will probably be a few more players dropped before the November deadline for setting 40-man rosters in advance of the Rule 5 Draft.

By: msb

msb — Thu, 19 Oct 2006 17:27:27 +0000

so where did you see this transaction announcement?

By: Evan

Evan — Thu, 19 Oct 2006 17:02:33 +0000

Rene Rivera got DFAâ€™d.

Given Bavasi’s insane promotions, that might mean he’s calling up Clement next spring.

And if we were going to DFA Rivera anyway, why did we expose Cruceta to waivers?

By: Evan

Evan — Thu, 19 Oct 2006 17:00:56 +0000

Every team is trying hard as hell to win.

They’re trying as hard as they think they need to. No one’s recklessly throwing away money or their future if they don’t think it’s necessary.

In the AL, it might be necessary.