ESPN MLB

SportsUntapped.com looks at Brian Giles and sees an old man who should shift his attentions to pickleball (one of my favorite sports, by the way):

Generally in the game of baseball, when men are pushing 40, it becomes time to hang up the cleats and take up golfing, fishing, or pickleball down in Florida. It’s difficult to accept the natural progression of creaky bones, bad backs and sore knees, but it is what it is. They get older, stiffer, and have difficulty competing with all the scrappy 21-year-old up-and-comers.

Such is not the case with Brian Giles. In fact, he’s pretty sure he can still hit and field a baseball at the big league level.

The veteran 39-year-old outfielder has inked a minor league contract with the Los Angeles Dodgers, who invited him to big league camp. Giles, a career .291 hitter, batted just .191 over 61 games last season with the San Diego Padres before landing on the disabled list with a bruised right knee.

Well, it wasn't exactly bruised, it was arthritic, which seems to me an entirely different thing. And while it's true Giles just turned 39, and wasn't any good at 38, it's also true that he was outstanding at 37.

Here's a bit more from ESPN, with some facts and whatnot:

With Reed Johnson penciled in as the Dodgers' fourth outfielder behind Manny Ramirez, Matt Kemp and Andre Ethier, Dodgers general manager Ned Colletti said Giles will mostly be used as a left-handed bat off the bench.

"We didn't sign him to play the outfield. We signed him to come off the bench and hit," Colletti told ESPNLosAngeles.com. "Is he going to play some? Probably. But we aren't going into this with the idea of him playing 100 or 120 games. We have four outfielders already. If somebody gets hurt and we need him to play a little bit, we'll see where we are at that point.''

Sources told ESPN The Magazine senior writer Buster Olney that if Giles makes the Dodgers, he will earn $550,000 in major league salary, with another $200,000 in possible performance bonuses. If he doesn't make the team at the end of spring training, he can ask for his release.

Let's assume for the moment that Giles is reasonably healthy. Will there be a single left-handed hitter an opposing manager would rather not see on the bench in the late innings of a close game?

I suspect there's a real good chance that Giles' knee just won't hold up this spring, and that we've seen the last of him. Which will cost the Dodgers almost nothing. But if the knee is good and he gives the Dodgers 150 plate appearances as their fifth outfielder and pinch hitter deluxe, he'll be a bargain.

Why didn't the Dodgers offer arbitration to Randy Wolf? Frank McCourt address this question and many, many more in Jon Weisman's wide-ranging interview.

"I think that the downside wouldn't have been horrible," McCourt said, "because he's a very good pitcher, and he pitched very well for us and he was a model citizen. From the area, really classy young man and so forth. But the judgment was made, and again, judgments are judgments. They're not perfect. No one has a crystal ball.

"I, by the way, can see both sides of this debate, very, very clearly. To me this is one really good baseball debate, in terms of 'Do you or don't you.' I think, like I was saying before, what would have happened (if we had offered arbitration), maybe Randy Wolf knows, but I don't. And I don't think the downside would have been bad for the organization, because he's a good pitcher and a good guy, but I think that the judgment was made that we (could) do even better for the club."

That decision will certainly be tested, as will the one with Hudson. The second baseman's signing last week of a one-year, $5 million contract with Minnesota might have vindicated the Dodgers' decision on him, since Hudson could potentially have earned twice that amount in salary arbitration, based on the typical raise awarded to an arbitration-eligible player who earned $8 million the year before.

The roughly $5 million the Dodgers saved can help make up for the lost draft picks had Hudson refused arbitration -- after all, the chances of a low first-round pick earning back the team's investment in him, plus $5 million, aren't all that high -- while the combination of Blake DeWitt, Jamey Carroll and Ronnie Belliard could come close to approximating Hudson's 2010 value, while saving another $2.5 million or so.

Arbitration for veteran players is a losing proposition for the club, because the player will be paid for what he's done (and earned) rather than what he'll do (and should earn). There was a time, not so long ago, when clubs would offer arbitration to essentially anybody who could play reasonably well, regardless of the ultimate cost.

Those days are gone.

If Orlando Hudson wound up getting $5 million but he'd have cost the Dodgers $10 million, doesn't that mean they would have overpaid by $5 million. Well, that depends on how you look at it. Maybe he'll actually be worth $8 million, in which case they would have been overpaying by only $10 million. Or he might actually be worth $10 million.

Wolf who presumably would have been in line for at least $8 million and probably more in arbitration, and wound up signing with the Brewers for three years and $30 million. The Dodgers probably miscalculated here, because if Wolf's agent knew a contract like that was out there, they probably wouldn't have accepted arbitration and the Dodgers would have picked up a couple of draft picks, essentially for free.

But that's what McCourt means by "judgments." In the case of Hudson the Dodgers' judgment was probably correct; in the case of Wolf it probably wasn't. The trick is to avoid a one-size-fits-all mindset, but could a group of reasonable people have known that Wolf would get 30 million and Hudson only five?

I don't know. I do look at the Dodgers' roster and see only a few question marks:

1. Will James Loney hit like a first baseman is supposed to?
2. Will Joe Torre find a gem among all those second base candidates?
3. Who will be the Dodgers' No. 5 starter?

Yes, there would be just one question mark if the Dodgers had ponied up for Wolf and Hudson, and the Dodgers would be the clear favorites to win the West (again). But if McCourt really is plowing all that Wolf/Hudson money into the future, the departure of those two short time Dodgers will be hardly remembered.

Ah, what qualifies for a headline in February:

Broadcaster Gary Cohen may be able to proclaim, "It's outta here!" a little more often in 2010. And David Wright may not be as inclined to frustratingly fling his Great Gazoo helmet, or whatever protective wear he uses, during the upcoming season.

The height of Citi Field's center-field wall will be sliced in half, making the ballpark more homer-friendly, the Daily News has learned.

Last season, the wall measured 16 feet in front of the sparsely used Home Run Apple. Now, with the second level of padding being removed, it will measure eight feet in the middle of the outfield.

--snip--

Regardless, the Mets' 2009 power outage wasn't exclusively a Citi Field phenomenon. They ranked last in the majors in road homers last season with 46. Pittsburgh had the second-fewest with 50. The Yankees and Phillies, who play in hitter-friendly ballparks, also ranked Nos. 1 and 2 in road homers with 116 and 108, respectively.

Meanwhile, an average of 1.60 homers per game were hit at Citi Field last season, more than at five other NL ballparks - San Diego (1.59), San Francisco (1.59), Los Angeles (1.57), Atlanta (1.52) and St. Louis (1.48).

Consider this a sop, but a welcome sop. No, it's not going to add enough home runs that you'll notice. We're talking about just a small section of a long wall. But a few disgruntled Mets might notice. Or think they notice, which is most of the battle. What we might actually notice is a few stolen homers, as it's a lot easier to snag a big fly that's eight feet, one inch high than one that's 16 feet, one inch. Considering that a stolen homer is one of the two or three most exciting plays in the game, I consider this change more fan-friendly than Met-friendly.

And since I care a lot more about the fans than about the Mets, this is good news indeed on a dark February day.

Hey, it's only a distraction if you let it distract you. From the New York Post:

When Brian Cashman looks at Derek Jeter, Mariano Rivera and Joe Girardi, the Yankees’ GM paints his shortstop, closer and manager with the same brush.

And with spring training opening next week in Tampa, Cashman has no plans to stray from his plan of not negotiating with them.

All three contracts are in the final year.

“I don’t think you can separate one from the other,” Cashman explained. “I am not saying they are the same, but the questions will come, ‘If you did one, why didn’t you do the other?’ If this was Kansas City, it would be different -- but it’s not.”

--snip--

While it’s almost impossible to think Rivera and Jeter will ever wear another uniform, they likely won’t accept pay cuts. Rivera could take it year to year, but Jeter, who with 2,747 hits has an outside chance at 4,000, will be looking for multiple years. Some believe he should make at least what Alex Rodriguez earns a year ($27.5 million).

“Everybody signed those contracts and there is a lot of money being made and people are comfortable,” said Cashman, who is signed through 2011 and never lobbied for an extension when he was in the final year of a deal.

It's not impossible for me to think about Rivera or Jeter wearing another uniform, because I can't read their minds. Rivera is 40 years old. I expect him to pitch brilliantly at 40 because he pitched brilliantly at 39. But what if he doesn't? What if the Yankees want him back in 2011 anyway, but as a setup man and for significantly less money than he's been making? It's easy for us to say that Rivera would rather take a pay cut to pitch for the Yankees -- or perhaps not pitch at all -- than to wear some other uniform, but can we know that's true? Can Rivera know that's true, before he's forced to make that decision?

With veterans, it's almost always better for the team to wait, because an old player's value can (almost) only go down. I think it's preposterous to suggest that Jeter should make "at least what Rodriguez earns," considering that Jeter will be 36 when he gets his next deal. I mean, it's not my money and the Yankees can pay Jeter whatever they like. But one of the things that's characterized Cashman's tenure -- particularly since becoming relatively unfettered -- is his unwillingness to spend money just to spend money, or because someone says he's supposed to.

Expiring contracts are a problem only when the parties make it a distraction. I don't believe that's going to happen here. Because as Cashman says, money's being made, people are comfortable and a lot of games are being won.

All's well that ends well:

The widely used baseball term "sabermetrics" will not be trademarked, and will instead remain in the public domain.

The marketing firm that tried to trademark it, Deep Focus Inc., withdrew its application Wednesday following opposition from the Society of American Baseball Research, according to a joint statement posted on SABR.org on Monday.

--snip--

Most Major League teams currently use sabermetrically derived statistics as part of their player evaluations, and players, team executives, the media and fans alike frequently use the term.

In addition, "sabermetrics" has expanded as a generic term to describe the application of mathematical and statistical reasoning to a problem -- a method that has been taught at colleges such as Columbia University, Bowling Green State University, the United States Military Academy and others, according to the release.

An odd thing about "sabermetrics" (the word) -- when Bill James coined it some 30 years ago, it was with the idea of honoring SABR, an organization which was then just a few years old. But a significant percentage of SABR members -- maybe a majority, maybe not -- isn't particularly interested in sabermetrics (the pursuit). Bill, I think, has publicly wished that he had come up with something else, so that all his fellow SABR members wouldn't be tarred with the same brush.

But it's out there, and it's not going away. Some teams shy away from "sabermetrics" (the word) because (yeah) it sounds geeky, so they'll go with something like "objective analysis" or "analytics" or "quants" or whatever. Me, though? I usually stick with sabermetrics. Not to honor my fellow SABR members, but rather to honor Bill James, who's done so much for me and for baseball.

I apologize for the lateness of this week's Mendozas, but I felt sort of hung-over this morning. Which was odd, since I barely watched -- and hardly drank during -- the game yesterday ...

* MLB Trade Rumors unveils the Unsigned All-Star Team, and aside from Johnny Damon, it's not a particularly impressive group. Mike Jacobs makes Honorable Mention.

* Is it time for a completely new box score? Dave Allen thinks so. And however much nostalgia we might have for the old box score -- which has been essentially the same for a century, if not in data then certainly style -- something different that reflects our times is inevitable.

* In another entry in this winter's wonderful series of primers, appearing in different places, on various sabermetric tools, Viva El Birdos goes into great depth on Wins Above Replacement. Don't be late to the party!

* Dodgers Blog is right: Dan Evans was two general managers ago, but he deserves a great deal of credit for the Dodgers' recent success.

* We went over this last fall at least twice, but Crashburn Alley collects everything in a box and wraps a pretty bow around it: fundamentally there was no real difference between the Cole Hamels of 2008 and the Cole Hamels of 2009. Which means it really isn't so difficult to guess what he'll do in 2010.

* FanGraphs just got even better (and here's Tangotiger having some fun with them.)

* As I mentioned recently, it looks like Portland, Oregon -- very nearly the biggest market in the country without Major League Baseball -- is about to lose its Triple-A franchise. What's next? If one man has his way, the Class-A Portland Homers. ¡Ay caramba!

* OK, so it's both amusing and entertaining to mock the forthcoming Bud Selig statue -- maybe they'll use this pose? Such a statue is also perfectly appropriate, considering that without Selig the Brewers as we know them might not exist.

Remember a couple of Julys ago, when the Pirates traded a couple of veterans to the Yankees and got four prospects in return? The plum was Jose Tabata, who was then struggling in Double-A but was just 19 and had impressed scouts since signing with the Yankees at 16.

Or not:

The Pirates are not publicly disputing Tabata's age, and yet ...

"All of the documentation he has used to obtain his visa from the U.S. government and his passport from the Venezuelan government indicates his reported age is accurate," Huntington said in an e-mail to the Tribune-Review. "Apart from unfounded speculation, there is nothing to indicate his age any different than reported. My point is that while we have reason to doubt his reported age, it is a non-issue to us."

Even if Tabata should have three or four more candles on his birthday cake, he's still considered a top prospect. But how good he is, to a degree, does depend on his age.

Huntington is whistling past the graveyard.

According to his passport, Tabata turned 21 last August. At the time, he was playing for Triple-A Indianapolis. He wasn't playing particularly well, but well enough for a newly minted 21-year-old. If he turned 23 or 24, though? Well then he's just another prospect who might or might not wind up with an everyday job someday.

Considering that the Pirates can't win without young players both cheap and good, and that Tabata was supposedly one of the youngest and the best of their young players, the notion that Tabata's age doesn't matter just isn't supportable. What the Pirates are trying to do, can be done. But the margin for error is exceptionally small. And trading for a 20-year-old who's actually 23 -- if that's what the Pirates did in 2008 -- was an error. Oh, and it would make what I wrote here look pretty silly.

As usual, Cameron's dead right:

When people talk about teams that have had good offseasons, the usual names that come up are the Seattle Mariners, the Boston Red Sox, and people that hate the New York Mets. For all of them, this has been a productive winter full of good news. But there’s a new contender in the mix for best offseason in baseball: the Minnesota Twins.They were able to retain Carl Pavano on a one year deal, solidifying their starting rotation. They picked up J.J. Hardy on the cheap to solve their shortstop problem. They added Jim Thome as a bat off the bench and to provide depth at DH, and by extension, the corner outfield spots. And they’re reportedly on the verge of signing Joe Mauer to a long term contract that will keep him in Minnesota for the rest of his career, or most of it, anyway.

They capped their winter yesterday by signing Orlando Hudson to play second base, getting him for the bargain rate of just $5 million.

Forget about Mauer for a moment.

Retaining Pavano, trading for Hardy, and signing Jim Thome and Orlando Hudson ... individually, you're talking about four players who won't come within a mile of a Cy Young or MVP ballot next October. In the aggregate, though? It's hard to imagine how the Twins could have done much better, short of signing Johnny Damon to replace Delmon Young.

Over the years, I've been complimentary about the Twins' drafting and player development but often critical of their personnel decisions at the top level. This time around, though?

It started last summer when they looked past Carl Pavano's 5.37 ERA and ugly injury history, and he pitched exceptionally well in his dozen starts (and then again against the Yankees in the playoffs). Pavano might not pitch as well again, and considering the market this winter, $7 million might be a little much for one season. But I like the thought.

Hardy was obviously undervalued, and so was Hudson. Suddenly the Twins seem to get it, and in their new ballpark might be in a position to rule their division for a few years.

Nick Piecoro reports the Diamondbacks and Mark Reynolds might be working on a contract extension, and Piecoro comes up with some reasonable numbers:

It seems reasonable to forecast him to make $500,000 in 2010, $6.5 million in 2011 and, say, $9 million in 2012, a total of $16 million.When doing long-term, pre-arbitration deals, players give a discount for the security of the guaranteed money, so how about a three-year deal in the $14 million-$15 million range?

It would make sense for the Diamondbacks because they would be protecting themselves financially against Reynolds hitting 40 home runs in each of the next two years and having to pay through the nose in arbitration.

It would make sense for Reynolds because, as a 16th-round draft pick, he has yet to get that set-for-life deal and he can look at Conor Jackson for proof that unexpected things can get you off-track. Plus, if Reynolds does continue to post 40-homer seasons, he still has 2013 to cash in via arbitration and then could really make the big bucks as a free agent after that season.

As Craig points out, Reynolds is a grown man: "He's a great player, but he's old for a guy who still hasn't reached arbitration -- he turns 27 this season -- so he's never going to have a chance at a shoot-the-moon free agency."

He'll be almost 30 when he's eligible for free agency, and we've seen what teams these days think about sub-superstars in their early 30s. And make no mistake: Reynolds is merely a star. Yes, he did superstar-like things last year. But that was the first time, and there's a decent chance he won't do them again. Also, in two or three years he's probably going to be marginal as a third baseman, and will wind up at first. In other words, he's exactly the sort of player you employ while he's (relatively) cheap and quite good, after which you let someone else pay the freight for his decline years.

Today's links were manufactured in a facility that also processes journalism ...

* What's the difference between a great start and a lousy start? I mean, aside from the numbers? You might be surprised by how hard it is to answer that question.

* I didn't link to the beginning of this story because I wanted to find out how much money the scabs lose every day, but now that it's become a thing, you can go back and start at the beginning if you want.

* Phil Birnbaum looks at English football and wonders if maybe the Yankees winning every year is just fine for American baseball.

* Congratulations to Tangotiger. Tough competition, and a richly deserved honor.

* Does spring training matter? If you believe Crashburn Alley (and I usually do), remarkably little.

* Great question from Big League Stew's 'Duk: If you were on "Jeopardy" and the last question was about baseball, would you bet everything even if you didn't have to? I would. But I'm afraid I would have brain-cramped and run out of time on Question 3.

* "Meet the Mess! Meet the Mess! Step right up, and greet ..."

* Yes, Robinson Cano has failed in the clutch. But as TYU notes, the real trick is figuring out if he'll continue to fail in the clutch. And if the answer is "no" -- sorry, no spoilers -- then everyone can stop worrying about it right now.

* Hey, this must be great news for my old employers. It's been almost 14 years, but a lot of my friends still work there. My hat's off to them.

* Video of the Week: You already know that Ichiro Suzuki throws lasers. Seriously, though ... he literally throws lasers.

Over at Nick's Twins Blog, Nick isn't shy about his affection for Orlando Hudson, perhaps the best player who's still looking for a job and a salary commensurate with his considerable talents. Why the Twins?

The lineup is well constructed but clearly lacking one key piece: a hitter who can slide into the No. 2 spot between Denard Span and Joe Mauer to provide the bat-handling capabilities that Ron Gardenhire requires of a player in that role while also providing enough offensive production to merit such a high spot in the batting order. Hudson, a switch-hitter with a .282/.357/.431 career hitting line (which he basically matched last year), reaches base enough to be an asset in the two-hole and sprinkles in some power as well. Additionally, he was used in the small-ball capacity more than ever with the Dodgers last year, setting a career high with nine sacrifice hits.

--snip--

Adding Hudson is almost a no-brainer from a competitive standpoint, so really this all comes down to dollars and cents. The Twins have stretched their budget thin already and Joe Christensen opined earlier this week that the Twins would not spend even $3 million on the second baseman.

With all due respect to both Nick and the Twins' lineup, I'm not sure that "well constructed" is an accurate description. Sure, they're solid at No. 1 (Span) and No. 3 (Mauer), not to mention No. 4 (Justin Morneau). Jason Kubel can hit, Michael Cuddyer can fill a slot, and I've got high hopes for J.J. Hardy, too.

But that's only six. That still leaves second base -- currently occupied by Nick Punto -- but also third base (Brendan Harris) and left field (Delmon Young). The Twins don't need to find a second baseman/ No. 2 hitter. They need to find at least one player who will significantly improve one of those three positions.

Now, you probably know that I think Kubel should take over for Young in left field, with Jim Thome taking over as the Twins' DH. So that's one position right there, and a Twins fan can just have a little faith.

But why not fix another one? I don't see any good third basemen floating around right now, but Orlando Hudson would be a huge improvement over Nick Punto and his 73 career OPS+.

Actually, that's not true. But Hudson's worth an extra one or two wins, and one or two wins is worth at least $3 million in the upper reaches of the American League Central. Consider: in three of the last four seasons, the Twins either won or lost the division title by exactly one game.

So why are the Giants and Tim Lincecum so far apart? Andrew Baggarly thinks it's about more than trying to save a few (million) bucks:

We all know that Magowan’s replacement, Bill Neukom, has positioned himself for a major battle over preventing MLB from overturning the Giants’ claim to the South Bay. Last year, the Giants even bought a portion of the Single-A club in town. (And have you noticed the San Jose Giants are even switching uniforms to look more like the parent club next season?) The Giants have been murkily tied to efforts from the San Francisco City Attorney’s office and a local coalition in San Jose to prevent the A’s from relocating, too.

The reasons for the bunker mentality are well known. The Giants attract a significant percentage of their corporate sponsorships, season-ticket and suite sales, ballpark advertising revenue, etc., from companies in Silicon Valley. Their ownership group is a who’s’ who of the tech sector. It’s part of their identity as well as their bottom line. They simply cannot afford to let the A’s cut into their interests in Santa Clara County.

And what’s the only way their territorial rights can be overturned? A three-quarters vote of the 30 major league owners, who’ll basically do whatever Commissioner Bud Selig tells them to do.

How does Lincecum and his arbitration status enter the equation? It’s simple. The No.1 way to tick off baseball’s owners is to establish a new salary threshhold. And Lincecum has a very good chance to clear Ryan Howard’s $10 million bar for a first-year arbitration player.

I don't want to argue with Baggarly's logic, so instead I'll argue with the (presumed) Giants' logic ...

They filed at $8 million; Lincecum filed at $13 million. Let's assume for a moment that the Giants' figure is artificially low. Doesn't that increase the chance that Lincecum will clear the $10 million bar? If the Giants had filed at $9 million or $10 million, wouldn't they have a better chance of winning the case?

Or maybe the Giants didn't figure this thing would go to arbitration (most of them don't). Maybe they figured they could file at $8 million and Lincecum would file at $10-$11 million and they'd settle around the mid-point, which would have been shy of the Ryan Howard Bar.

This all seems a little complicated, though, doesn't it?

My guess is the Giants just filed the wrong number. It happens.

Is Justin Verlander worth $80 million over five years? I'll leave that question to my intellectual betters, but this bit caught my eye:

Detroit's decision to keep Verlander with a long-term deal backs up the franchise's claim that it is

still committed to spending money to stay competitive.

The Tigers traded popular outfielder Curtis Granderson and All-Star pitcher Edwin Jackson for younger,

cheaper players. They also let second baseman Placido Polanco along with relievers Fernando Rodney and

Brandon Lyon leave in free agency.

Detroit did, though, instill some hope for this season when it landed closer Jose Valverde with a $14

million, two-year deal.

Even if the Tigers are done reshaping their roster, they'll be able to appease at least some fans by

keeping Verlander under contract for at least five more years. With the new deal, they won't risk

losing him in free agency after the 2011 season.

The story today is what this means for the Tigers.

What it means for the Tigers is they'll probably enjoy one of the best pitchers in the league for another five years, at least. I don't know that I would read a lot more into it, though. This isn't as much about the Tigers' commitment to winning as it's about the Tigers knowing well that a year or two from now, they'll have more money than they can reasonably spend.

Consider: Jeremy Bonderman, Dontrelle Willis, and Nate Robertson will "earn" $34.5 million this season. All three come off the books after the season. Meanwhile, Carlos Guillen will make $13 million in 2011, his last season under contract. And Magglio Ordonez ... well, that's complicated. If the Tigers limit his playing time this season -- as they obviously should have done last season -- they'll pay him $18 million and say goodbye. If Jim Leyland writes ORDONEZ in the lineup every day, they'll be on the hook for another $15 million in 2011.

Either way, the Tigers will shed an immense amount of payroll obligations over the next couple of years. They'll still have to pay Miguel Cabrera -- $126 million through 2015 -- and now Verlander, but otherwise the Tigers don't have any significant future obligations. Thanks to a relative paucity of farm products, there aren't any more young players who will command big contracts until Max Scherzer and Rick Porcello put in a few big years.

So, if not Verlander, then who? There simply aren't going to be a great number of high-priced free agents hitting the market over the next few winters.

Which is why Verlander's new deal is bad news for more than just the Tigers' American League Central rivals. This growing trend of teams locking up their young players into their late 20s or even into their early 30s is bad news for (among others) the New York Yankees, too.

Remember when everyone just knew that Joe Mauer would eventually become a Yankee? Well, if it happens, Mauer will probably be 38 years old. If the Rays want, they can retain Evan Longoria's services until he's 31. One of these years, the Yankees might actually entertain the possibility of a new shortstop ... but, oops! Hanley Ramirez is locked up until he's 31, too!

Here's a rough list of the best free agents who might be available next winter:

1. Cliff Lee
2. Josh Beckett
3. Carl Crawford
4. Victor Martinez
5. Javier Vazquez
6. Carlos Pena
7. J.J. Hardy
8. Adam Dunn

Each of those men has his charms, but most also have some limitations and perhaps half will be re-signed by their current teams before hitting the market. I don't have the 2011 list, which I'm sure will include some impressive fellows. But the world of baseball talent simply isn't what it used to be. The rich teams can't just sit and wait for the talent to fall into their laps. Or rather, they can wait, but that talent just isn't what it used to be. Sure, it's still there; Crawford's going to be a real plum next winter. But there just isn't enough to go around.

In his long tenure as the Tigers' general manager, Dave Dombrowski hasn't once taken a player to arbitration. As Bob Ballard writes, this might not be a good thing:

The panel has to choose between either the player or the club’s figure -- they cannot select any other amount. The club will argue that the player is not worthy of the player’s figure which could damage the relationship between the player and team in the upcoming season.

So you might think it is a good thing Dombrowski has not gone to arbitration with any Tiger player. Well, yes and no. Yes, most of the players he signs are to one year contracts which minimizes long-term risk. But for a couple of players, Dombrowski has signed them to multi-year contract extensions and unfortunately, they have not lived up to expectations. The worst offender of this group is Dontrelle Willis.

--snip--

Maybe if Dombrowski had waited and not signed both Willis and Robertson to contract extensions, he would have not been forced to trade away Curtis Granderson. He might have been able to give more consideration to signing free agent outfielder Johnny Damon as the Tigers desperately need a left handed hitter. Until then, we just have to hope Bonderman, Willis and/or Robertson can rebound and live up to their potential for the Tigers to contend in the AL Central. The Tigers have no other choice.

Consider: thanks to long-term contracts rather than arbitration, this year the Tigers will pay $34.5 million to Bonderman, Willis, and Robertson ... who combined for three wins last year.

Willis apparently is a lost cause, with Robertson not far behind (sorry, fellas). Bonderman's supposed to be "healthy" but it's fair to wonder since he hasn't pitched effectively since 2007.

Anyway, the point isn't that the Tigers are going to throw away a lot of money this season. That's old news. I don't even think the point is that Dombrowski should be more willing to go all the way in the arbitration process. These days, very few cases are actually heard by an arbitrator.

What Dombrowski needs to find is that happy middle ground between all the effort (and sometimes pain) of an arbitration hearing, and committing $10 million per season to pitchers who haven't earned it. Maybe he'll get his chance in a few years with Rick Porcello.

So we don't have to, Wezen-Ball's Larry Granillo ranks baseball's best statues, by ballpark. Larry says the Pirates have the best statues, and that's even without the forthcoming Mazeroski statue. I've been there, and I think he's right.

Of the 30 franchises, only 20 feature statues depicting actual players. And the Orioles' only statue is Babe Ruth, who didn't actually play for the franchise (of course the Babe was born in Baltimore and did play for the minor-league Orioles in 1914). Four stadiums have generic sort of players, with the Rockies sporting the best of those.

So six teams -- the Rays, Twins, A's, Mets, Marlins, and Dodgers -- don't have statues, and six more are without statues for their own players. One of those is the Mariners, and someone on Twitter wondered which pose the M's should someday use for Ichiro. The obvious answer is something like this, with Ichiro already heading toward first base as bat meets ball.

That's too easy, though, isn't it? Ichiro hits and he bunts and he runs and he fields and he throws. If the Mariners ever decide to erect a monument to Ichiro, they should do something different. They should come up with the first manga-influenced sculpture, or perhaps a hologram that materializes when someone's within 10 feet, and changes poses every five seconds.

Of course, Ichiro probably won't be the first statue to appear outside Safeco Field. He'll have to get in line behind Ken Griffey Jr. and perhaps Edgar Martinez, right? Particularly if Edgar winds up in the Hall of Fame.

With that in mind, let's run through the other candidates for the statue-less ballparks.

What are the criteria? First, I think we're looking for a great player, either a Hall of Famer or just short (and yes, I'm happy to make an exception for home-town guys like Willie Horton and Frank White). And second, when you think of a player, you should think of this franchise (and yes, I'm happy to make exceptions for Ruth in Baltimore and Hank Aaron in Milwaukee). Can the Angels commission a Nolan Ryan statue? Sure. But he won a lot of games for the Astros and Rangers, too (and he's got a statue in Arlington). Can the Diamondbacks erect a bronze version of Randy Johnson? Sure. He won four (straight!) Cy Youngs as a Diamondback. But he won more games as a Mariner.

Here are my top candidates, after just a bit of research:

Orioles - Cal Ripken (why hasn't this happened already?)
Mets - Tom Seaver (ditto)
Twins - Kirby Puckett, Rod Carew, and someday probably Joe Mauer
Dodgers - Sandy Koufax, Sandy Koufax, and Sandy Koufax
Rockies - Todd Helton
Blue Jays - Dave Stieb (yeah, it's a stretch)
Rays - Carl Crawford if they lock him up (and Evan Longoria if they don't)
Marlins - Hanley Ramirez if they lock him up
Athletics - Rickey and Reggie both candidates, but played a lot for other teams
Angels - Garret Anderson? Tim Salmon?? Brian Downing???
Diamondbacks - Randy Johnson, but only if they're desperate

Anyway, most of that's in the distant future. If you leave this discussion with anything, let's try to break someday with the bronze paradigm. Artists are doing amazing things these days with lasers.

Update: My omission of Harmon Killebrew is inexcusable.

Update II: There's already a Ripken statue at Camden Yards. Sort of. Eddie Murray, too. I sorta like these, if only because they're unique (as far as I know). But it's odd that you can't see an image of Ripken outside the ballpark.