Fueling the fire that this is, indeed, a fanboy site. ;)

Really? Who??

The thinking here in Dallas is that before the Wilkerson trade, the Rangers had three (Nix, Mathews, Mench) and a half (Dellucci) OF. Sledge is okay as a fifth OF assuming Wilkerson starts in CF flanked by some combo of the other three; Nix was really overmatched in CF last year.

If the Rangers trade Mench, they're back down to near a minimum again. The only other OF on their 40-man is Jason Botts, and as an OF, he's a fine defensive 1B. And I understand they are looking to dump Nevin who doesn't play a defensive position any more and hit about .230 last year while striking out a LOT -- 97 in just 380 AB.

I see this rumor about Texas dealing Wilkerson all over the place and just don't see it. They NEED Wilkerson, to start in CF and lead off. For those of you suggesting that Rios go to Texas as part of the package, well, if he's capable of filling the Wilkerson role in Arlington, I assume he could do so in Toronto, too.

They NEED Wilkerson, to start in CF and lead off. For those of you suggesting that Rios go to Texas as part of the package, well, if he's capable of filling the Wilkerson role in Arlington, I assume he could do so in Toronto, too.

As I understand it, the current plan is to give Kinsler every chance, but if he needs a month or two at OKC, to go with Mark DeRosa short term. Apparently DeRosa, if you take away April and May, was pretty solid last year, though that sounds like a bad justification. I suppose Marshall McDougall and/or Joaquin Arias could also fill that role. I assume the Tex preference would be to get a shortstop and slide Young back over there.

Sister, Rogers was never going to come back to Texas, under any circumstances, so I don't think anyone down here considers that a "loss" in the sense you're presenting it.

Well, Nomar is at least available. The biggest hole in the Jays' lineup is in right field, and Giles is obviously one of the best qualified people in all of baseball to fill that particular spot. Not to mention the fact that he's a better hitter than Nomar. But that's water under the dam now...

Indeed. But Padilla did not cost the Rangers Brad Wilkerson, is my point.

The Jays would not play Rios over Wells in CF because Wells is more experienced and a bit better than Rios on defence. Other teams may have bigger needs for a centerfielder if they don't have someone whom they think can hack it defensively while holding their own offensively.

For Texas it may not be the case because Rios is without question better than Wilkerson defensively though I'm not sure how he compares to Nix. Offensively he is younger than Nix and already a better pure hitter and should improve on his .703 ops (to Nix's .664) though to what end it's hard to say. Nix has always been a terrible contact hitter with extremely poor K/BB. Rios isn't terribly patient himself but can make consistent contact. His defence combined with more capable offence than they have from other options in centerfield would have value for the Rangers in the absence of better defensive options.

I think Wilkerson is a swell player but on defence alone, he was worth one win less playing mostly left field and 1B than Rios was playing right field. I think that gap would be a bit bigger if both moved to CF. Offensively, Wilkerson is more than 20 equivalent runs ahead of Rios but his potential to improve at age 28 is very limited while Rios' potential to improve at age 24 is still tangible.

The likelihood is that Wilkerson will have more overall value than Rios in 2006. It's not a lock though. We're not talking about a chasm as between Giles and Rios. We're talking about maybe a difference of 20 runs offensively offset by better defence from Rios and a very significant difference in salaries.

I think I understand what he's driving at here. If the Jays have decided that this is their window to compete, they need to not half ass it. Personally, I still don't think that they've added enough to get to the point where they can say they EXPECT to win the division next year. If you're the New York Yankees you have the resources that you don't need to direct every facet of your organization to winning now. I don't think that this is the case in Toronto. For the Jays, if this is go time, for these moves to make sense, they need to commit all of their available resources to winning now.

Isn't this what the Yankees have done over the last 5 years? Trading almost every worthwhile prospect, trading almost every good young player, spending huge dollars on free agents (and rarely youngish free agents).... were these not "win now" moves? And with their gaping hole in centrefield and their 2-man bullpen and their rotation full of might-bes and once-weres and their losses of $50M+ in 2005, I think it's safe to say that at this point it's caught up to them. The Yanks will still bash the ball in 2006, but their pitching and defence and age make me very optimistic about Toronto's chances of getting out of 3rd place.

I still use Yahoo! and so I looked around for quite a while and found nothing.

I'm a fan of Google (especially Gmail and Google maps), but I'm also a fan of Yahoo and I think the Google search engine is overrated in comparisons with Yahoo... so I just Yahooed "2005 baseball free agents", and waddyaknow... the exact same site comes up as result #3.

Think of the headlines in the star

If the Jays ever start conducting business based on what the malicious fantisizers at the Star think, I'll stop supporting the team.

I think the best place to put Batista (assuming you can't trade him for very good value) is in the rotation.

Absolutely. If I'm JP I offer teams their choice between Batista and Lilly. And maybe I even keep both of them and instead deal Chacin in a package with Hinske.

Minus:
Kevin Brown, $15M
Tom Gordon, $3.7M
Felix Rodriguez, $3.2M
Steve Karsay, down $3.4M
Tino Martinez, down $2.5M
Bernie Williams, down $8.5M

Plus:
Kyle Farnsworth, $6.3M
Jason Giambi, raise of $3.5M
Randy Johnson, raise of $4.5M
Hideki Matsui, raise of $5M

Figures courtesy of Hardball Dollars. This is very rough, I'm not sure if I'm accounting for the "down" numbers correctly - those are probably option buyouts and may well be counted as part of the 2005 budget. And of course I'm only looking at the big dollar changes. But for what it's worth, the above is a net $17M savings, so if Craig's information is correct (and I believe it is), they still need to trim $23M. Sweet!

This description applies equally well to Batista. In his last few years in Arizona, he posted ERA+ numbers in excess of 130, something Lilly has never done in his career.

They are both going to cost around the same next year, and have about the same expected value. I say deal whoever brings back more in a trade. Some GM's will prefer Batista's 95 MPH fastball while others will focus on Lilly's K's and lefthandedness. From a purely objective standpoint, I think Batista has more value. He's got no history of arm problems, and can be used as a starter or closer.

I'm dead set against dealing Chacin. He stands a pretty good chance of matching what you're going to get from Batista or Lilly, but for about 4MM less (at least in 2006). Even though his K/BB and K/9 were a little low, he was pretty consistent from start to finish last year. His WHIP was a little high, but he does such a good job controlling the running game I don't think it's a major concern. Bottom line: I don't think the AL has "figured him out".

Worst offseason? That was clinched the day that the Yankees announced they had an accounting loss of $85 million on top of a $40 million loss in 2004. (It'll be $85M to within a few bucks... whenever a loss range like 50-85M is announced it's always going to be the high end).

Seriously, New York are talking about cutting payroll back to $180M next year, but I think the cuts are going to need to go deeper than that. If the YES deal is undervalued and the "real" bottom line number is $40 million more (i.e. $100M a year instead of the reported $60M), they're only $30 million better off because they lose another $10M to revenue sharing. That still leaves them $55M in the red, which means cutting back the payroll $40 million in total (which with the 40% luxury tax gives them $56 million in cash back to get them to even). That $160 million payroll is probably about what they can afford on fundamentals, to be honest.

How do you cut $40 million from a payroll without having it show up somewhere? This is turning into a nightmare for NY; imagine facing all your players sliding leftward along the defensive spectrum just as you run into cash flow problems to replace them. Bubba Crosby in centerfield, Cano's solphomore jinx at second, a threadbare bench, Wil Nieves catching 40 games and Bernie Williams a $2 million part-time DH. Ow! If Giambi gets hurt again we're going to see a lot more Andy Phillips than anyone thought possible.

They've done well in bringing in Myers and Farnsworth, but two of Wang, Small and Chacon are going to be in the rotation again.

Anyway, that's why I think Clemens won't end up in NY. He made $18 million last season and I doubt he'd play for less than $15M this time around, given his superlative '05 performance. But the Yankees still need to cut almost $25 million to break even... signing Roger and doing nothing else (no CF, no backup C, no extra arm in the pen) will put them right back at a $200+ million payroll again.

No business that is the size of Yankee Global Enterprises can take these kinds of losses for long - maybe not even another year. Expect the Yankees to do whatever they can to save money this offseason.

1. Pat Burrell. He's expensive, but his salary could be offset against Batista/Lilly and/or Koskie. And they have Jason Michaels waiting in the wings to take over fulltime in LF. And Burrell bats right.

2. Jonny Gomes or Aubrey Huff. Tampa is crawling with OF, and is in desperate need of pitching. And maybe the Tampa braintrust is finally willing to cut a deal. Preference to Gomes who is (a) younger and (b) righthanded.

3. Adrian Beltre or Richie Sexson. Beltre would need to come with a few bags of cash. Once again, pitching would be what Seattle is after. To make room (and help offset salary) Hinske or Koskie would need to go the other way.

What's the source of this? I haven't seen it yet.

(Chacin) stands a pretty good chance of matching what you're going to get from Batista or Lilly, but for about 4MM less

I think Chacin is a volatile commodity, just like Batista and Lilly. His WHIP scares me and I don't think it's likely he'll bring it down a lot, so he'll need to continue to step up his game when there are men on base. I'm not convinced that's a repeatable skill - if he has the ability to step up his game at will, why doesn't he do it all the time?

I think Chacin is a much more attractive trade commodity than Batista or Lilly because of his age, his lefthandedness (wrt Batista), his low service time and corresponding low salary, his injury free history (wrt Lilly), and his shiny 13 wins and 'fortunate' 3.72 ERA in 2005. Thus, if someone wants to offer me significantly more for Chacin in a package with Hillenbrand or Hinske than they would for Batista or Lilly straight up, I take it.

As a fan though, I'll be happy if they can address their needs without trading Chacin. He's an easy guy to cheer for.

If JP is that allergic to K's, then I doubt he would trade for Gomes either (who K's even more than Burrell).

At MLB and in the high minors, Tampa has way more hitting than pitching, so it stands to reason they are going to deal from a position of strength to shore up their weaknesses.

Gomes has enough liabilities (defense, K's) that he might be considered expendable. He's an ideal "imperfect" player for the Jays to pursue. He should not be that expensive to trade for, and his primary skill (hitting for power) fits the Jays needs precisely.

JP said early in the offseason that he wasn't interested in Huff - it was in the Star, but it was a direct quote so I believe it.

Jonny Gomes! What a great idea! Would you trade Aaron Hill for him?

That's dripping with sarcasm, but I'll bite.

No, I would not trade Hill for him. And more to the point, why would Tampa ask for him? They currently have Lugo, and labouring under the misapprehension that B.J. Upton might some day be able to handle the position.

Realistically, how high are Tampa Bay on Gomes? Would they want more or less than what the Jays traded for Overbay? Would he be worth it? Is he a future star, or a strikeout-prone platoon hitter?

I'll cede the intellectual high ground to the regulars now, who I'm sure are desperate to say their $0.02...

They signed Stinnett to be the backup catcher. Hard to imagine that a guy who's going to be 36 in 2006, with a career OPS of 710, is an improvement over their old backup catcher.

Those are good observations. Lilly and Batista are of use to teams that are ready to contend right now. Instead of concentrating on who has the bat that Toronto wants, it might be more interesting to look at which contenders might be looking to add another pitcher.

Off the top of my head, these "contending" teams look like they are in need of pitching help:

HOU: Pettitte/Oswalt/Backe/???/???
STL: Carpenter/Mulder/Suppan/Marquis/???
ATL: looking for a closer
WAS: Livan/Patterson/Armas/Drese/???
SD: Peavy/Eaton/Williams/Park/???
CLE: Sabathia/Lee/Westbrook/Elarton/???
TEX: Young/Padilla/????

Texas is such a natural fit. With Diamond, Volquez, and Danks about a year away, they could really use some stopgap solutions to plug into their rotation. If the Rangers won't part with Wilkerson, maybe the Jays should cut a deal for prospects, and then peddle them elsewhere for that big bat they're after?

On December 8, Rotoworld via the Beaver County Times (insert juvenile joke here) reported that the Pirates had interest in Alex Rios. Apparently JP wanted Paul Maholm but the Bucs countered with Tom Gorzelanny. I don't know alot abount Gorzelanny but BA rates him as Pittsburgh's #3 prospect, ahead of Maholm.

I think that if JP is moving Rios he would want ML ready talent, and obviously a RF whether that comes from a Rios trade or somewhere else. It wouldn't make much sense for him to trade Rios for something we have in abundance.

Nothing stopping the Jays from making multiple moves to get where they want to go. Part of the problem they are having is bad matchups between teams that (a) can use their veteran pitchers and hitters and (b) teams that have a power hitter for sale.

Is this a trade prediction? Will we have to throw in Ace to land Wilkerson?

This is inaccurate. His numbers are quite good for a CF. In fact, over the past 3 years, his OPS+ (park adjusted, 100 = league average) has averaged out to 125. Better than Vernon Wells, I might add (he's around 120 or so).

I still think he's too big a risk to disrupt team chemistry. Oakland has gotten themselves both a terrific bargain and a ticking timebomb. The also have the best defensive outfield in baseball now.

Exactly. But I can't resist saying: Depeche, if you know why Atlanta and Oakland have been so much better in the regular season than in the playoffs, why are you yakking here rather than making millions as a pro sporst consultant?

Personally, it's fun to cheer for Beane:

(a) he's smart (b) he's got balls

He makes his share of mistakes, but he makes enough smart moves (draft, trades, free agents) to keep his team competitive on a relatively small budget. And some of those trades (like the Mulder and Hudson deals) were extrememly unpopular.

If you're trying to claim the emporer has no clothes because he has no WS titles, I call bull. If it was an easy task to field a competitive team year in year out, then wouldn't everyone be doing it?

For an exercise in frustration, try cheering for KC, Pittsburgh, Tampa, or Detroit and see how much fun it is. They would be lucky to have someone like Beane running the show.

BTW, you forgot about this:

http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/ATL/1995.shtml

Reading that felt really good. One thing that Perry points out (that I hadn't thought of) if that Overbay's presence will help the development and confidence of Russ Adams. Perry reasons that, because Overbay is particularly adept at picking balls from the dirt and stretching, errant throws from Adams will result in fewer errors and baserunners. What do people think of that idea?

Oh, and Billy Beane is the best.

Barry was also the highest-paid player in baseball, or one of the highest-paid, during that entire stretch. That severely limits the Giants' payroll flexibility. Don't be fooled; Sabean's been a pretty darned good GM, though maybe not in the class of the guy across San Francisco Bay...

Has the market for Batista dried up that much that JP wouldn't trade him at all?

Which isn't really fair either. Epstein had a nice budget to work with, but also made some very smart moves that had nothing to do with his budget advantage.

• signed David Ortiz for 1.25 MM after the Twins cut him loose after 2002 season (any GM could have had him)
• in 2004, traded his most popular player (Garciaparra) to shore up his primary weakness (infield defense)
• played by his own rules and put in a waiver claim on Kevin Millar after he was sold to a Japanese team
• claimed Bronson Arroyo off waivers

The method for generating PrOPS involves using batted-ball data, along with a few other important factors, to predict the offensive output of players using linear regression. The projections are thus based on the way players hit the ball and not actual outcomes. PrOPS credits players who hit the ball similarly with outcomes typical of all players of the comparable hitting profiles. This method strips out some of the luck that pollutes outcome-based hitting statistics, because no player receives direct credit for the actual outcomes at the plate. [per Bradbury, linked above.]

He goes on to explain how he has used some other projection techniques in order to project PrOPS for the upcoming season. I love love love process (i.e. not outcome) based stats, and this article is an example of why THT is a leader in that area.

At any rate, I took a look at his 2006 PrOPS for the Jays, and compared them to actual OPS from last season. If his numbers come to fruition, we are looking at improvements from (in order of most to least improvement): Adams, Hill, Overbay, Zaun, Koskie, Wells and Rios. Conversely, we will see a decline in the performance of (again, in order of degree): Catalanotto, Hillenbrand, Hinske, Johnson and Hudson. It's worth noting that the projected decline for Hudson is insignificant (-.005 OPS), and ditto for Rios' improvement. The sharpest changes are the declines by Catalanotto and Hillenbrand (-.103 and -.050, respectively), and the improvement for Adams (+.049).

2006 PrOPS Jays top five: Overbay, .831; Wells, .793; Adams, .756; Koskie, .748; Hill, .746.

You count this as a positive? I mean, sure it made sense to acquire Millar, but the way it was done smacked of amateurism and lack of preparation as far as I'm concerned.

Look, we all go overboad and say things that we don't mean from time to time.

That's certainly one way of looking at it.

Epstein tried to acquire Millar first before the Marlins sold him to Chinuchi. Marlins turned down his offer because they figured they could get more cash from Chinuchi.

However, the Marlins needed Millar's permission to send him to Japan, and that there was some question about them misleading Millar about how much interest there was from other MLB teams in acquiring him. Hence, the waiver claim.

The biggest risk Epstein took in exploiting the loophole was being blackballed by his fellow GM's for breaking the gentleman's rule governing player sales to Japan. However, it looks like everyone got over that pretty fast.

This sounds like the requisite GM posturing, just to keep the asking price for Batista up. And if so, you can't blame Ricciardi for acting that way. I'm sure that given Batista's anticipated diminished role on the 2006 staff (70 low leverage relief innings) and his much higher potential utility on another team (160-180 starting innings) that he's going to get moved.

Hell, Brian Cashman keeps going on about Bubba Crosby being a viable alternative for CF when no one on the planet believes him. He might as well be talking about John Fogerty (put him in coach, he's ready to play center field).

I'd never heard of this before, it certainly changes the picture. My apologies to Theo.

Now you'll tell me how Millar isn't actually bush league for reneging on his contract with Chinuchi, and giving some bogus line about not feeling safe in Japan.

I'm going to use this comment to segway into another sport ..

There's been a lot of talk about the NFL Colts possibly going 16-0 this year. However, now that they have home field locked up, many people think they may be vulnerable since they should be resting players for the playoffs (as DepecheJay would say "the point is to win the Super Bowl").

One of the talking heads on the week-end brought up another viewpoint though. To paraphrase "One team wins a championship every year, but NO team has ever gone 16-0, and doing that would guarantee their place in history".

At first I thought it was a stupid statement, but the more I think about it, the more I agree. What do you guys think, do you risk your starters (and possible Super Bowl) for the record?

Look, we all go overboad and say things that we don't mean from time to time.

Leigh's right. What Kenny did was one thing, but Theo Epstein's taking a second-place team and being able to turn it into a second-place team was an outstanding piece of GM work. No wonder the Red Sox felt that couldn't do without him.

Andre Ethier is a pretty fine outfield prospect.

I'm presuming that this isn't the singer for local garage rockers The Deadly Snakes, but who'da thunk that there would be two Andre Ethiers out there?

You're on, Green! Although I must admit... I'd be better doing the jazz side. Still, I think I can hold my own.

Point of a sports franchise, from fan's perspective, is to "bring glory". Best way to bring glory is normally thought to be to win the championship. This is an exception though, IMO.

Are we talking about which GM has made better decisions, or which GM's decisions have returned the best results? Because they are totally different questions, and as Craig points out here, they have different answers.

Why do I get the impression that I am the only one here who thinks that that World Series was a fluke? The following four OBPs appeared in the ChiSox' everyday lineup in 2005: .308, .303, .301, .311 (Pierzynski, Uribe, Crede and Everett). The three starters with the most innings pitched struck out 5.7, 5.8 and 4.7 batters per nine innings and somehow these three lottery winners managed to post ERAs of 3.12, 3.87 and 3.50 (Buehrle, Garcia and Garland). The team won eight more games than it ought to have (pythag.); finished 35-19 in one-run games; had fewer 'third order wins' (BP) than New York, Boston, Cleveland, Oakland, LA of Anaheim, and Texas. The White Sox were a middle of the pack AL team that needed extremely good fortune to make the playoffs - much less win them - and I don't see why we should be congratulating Kenny Williams for that.

Besides, he knew Sirotka was hurt.

A four game World Series represents roughly 2.5% (4/162) of an MLB regular season. The Superbowl represents 6.3% (1/16) of an NFL regular season.

Everyone knew Sirotka was hurt. Everyone but Gord Ash, apparently.

Even on Pythag, they went 91-71. And they were perfectly built for the playoffs, a pitching and defense team that could handle the better pitchers because they weren't afraid to fall behind in the count. Yeah, I think aggressiveness works better against better pitchers.

They had only 1964 baserunners, sure, but their opponents had 1903 baserunners, and despite that they still turned a high number of double plays. And they out-homered their opponents by 33.

There wasn't a team in baseball that was singificantly better than the White Sox, except the Cardinals. Were they destined to win? No, but they had as much right to as anyone else. They *dominated* those playoffs, right!?

If the White Sox win was a fluke, 80% or more of WS titles are flukes.

86.9, Mike G. Less than Cleveland (97.6), New York (93.9), Oakland (91.2), Boston (91.1), LA of Anaheim (88.3), and Texas (87.2).

Craig, I guess we'll just have to disagree. All of the objective evidence that I can find indicates that the White Sox were very lucky to even make the playoffs. They were lucky to post the run differential that they did, and they were lucky to translate that serendipitous run differential into the record that they did.

Those adjusted standing show that they were the seventh best team in the AL. Hell, I'm willing to kick out Texas on a subjective basis and call the ChiSox the sixth best team in the AL last year. How does the sixth best team in the AL winning the World Series not qualify as a fluke? Which part do you not agree with, Craig? Are you saying that Chicago was better than the sixth or seventh best team in the AL (in which case I'd like for you to direct me to some research about the shortcomings of AEQR, AEQRA, and Adjusted Standings)? Or are you saying that this team was so well-built for the playoffs that, once they lucked-out and got every single bounce all damn season in order to make the playoffs, they had a good chance of doing well in the playoffs?

This isn't intended to be hostile. I'm just frustrated because there must be something that I just don't 'get' or see. From my vantage point, it was an unquestionable fluke that they even made the playoffs, but there are some opinions to the contrary here from people that I know to have great baseball judgment.

Fair enough; I was probably tougher on Buehrle than was justified. He is a pitcher who relies very much on defence, and he pitched in front of a very good one in Chicago. He did drop his walks and homeruns in 2005. Kudos to Buehrle and mea culpa for the overstatement.

I can tell you that I most certainly do not agree that third order wins are a better barometer then actual wins and losses.

I disagree, Jim. Pythag and third order have their deficiencies, as Mike G. notes above, but are much 'truer' than actual wins and losses. If the Yankees and Blue Jays got together to play eleven games on a neutral field and the Jays won 5 of those games by scores of 17-1, 15-2, 23-5, 12-0, and 8-2, and the Yankees won 6 of those games by scores of 1-0, 10-9, 4-3, 7-6, 2-1, and 5-4, would you say that the Yankees were better because they won more of the games?

Baseball games are more then [sic]the sums of their parts.

I agree completely. In the end, the team that scored the most runs in the game, won the game. When looking back at things accomplished, like the Sox' run in 2005, it is perfectly acceptable to praise teams, players and management for winning. Whether you want to consider them the 'best' team in 2005 is more of a semantic question than an analytic one. A strong argument can be made that the end - winning a World Series - is the sole criteria by which we define 'best'.

The problem, though, is that if you wish to view baseball through a critical lens, you have to let your definitions drift beyond the results-based ones that are so comfortable and intuitive. We have to concentrate on the process and realize that the outcomes (winning and losing) are still at the mercy of probability. The better the process, the better the probability of positive outcomes. When looking to predict future outcomes, processes are a better predictor than past outcomes.

There is a bit a problem here, of course. Most of what we view at processes are outcomes of subprocesses. For example: doubles are a process, runs batted in are an outcome; so, doubles are better indicator of future rbi than are past rbi. But hitting doubles is not an original process -it is also the product of an outcome. One process that leads to doubles is ball trajectory and speed, which then becomes a better predictor of doubles than doubles themselves. But then ball trajectory and speed are outcomes too, having resulted from the processes of biomechanical and muscular body movement in the swing. The further you dig, the better chance you have of predicting future RBI.

Wins and losses are outcomes, and when you look to them as proof of the correctness of the process that produced them, you are overlooking the role of probability and the chance that you were just lucky. Looking at pythag and third order records instead helps to avoid such oversights.

I would tend to agree as well, Mike D., if Jim had used that line of reasoning to indicate that pythag is not perfect. What he actually wrote, though, was that this argument justifies the use of actual record in lieu of pythag, which is a much stronger conclusion than the evidence is capable of indicating. That is, the criticisms of pythag carry some validity, but it is still a heck of a lot better than obtuse wins and losses.

Just want to say that I agree completely with this sentiment. Just because one is based on process and the other is based on outcome doesnt necessarily make the process one "better". If the process itself is flawed it could very well be worse.

Certainly the White Sox did win, no question about it. I hate to get Clintonian on you, but much of our debate hinges on what "matters" means. Chicago won last year, Cleveland and Oakland were the 'best' teams in the AL... which of those "matters" is pretty subjective.

At any rate, Jim, I love discussions like these and I thank you for putting up with me.

It seems that ex-Jay Tony Batista has signed with Minnesota.

Anyone see his charging the mound episode last year in Japan?

The Yankees. 3OW would say also the Angels, but while I am unpersuaded by that it can't be ignored that they don't seem to be addressing their weaknesses.

If you mean worse by number of wins, I think the Red Sox would also be a reasonable expectation to get worse, though they seem to have stanched the blood flow and have made steps to better themselves.