Where will A-Rod land?

[TheKilo]

My vote is for the Dodgers. Makes a lot of sense.

[bobby jr]

I know this idea isn't popular in Boston, but I think the Red Sox should make a play for A-Rod. Lowell is popular but can he really be counted on to put on those type of numbers again, and he is no spring chicken.

 

A-Rod and the Green Monster would be a good match, I can imagine the type of stats he would run up with that short left field in Boston.

[BSN07]

If Arod shuts up and just plays and doesn't cause too many issues in the clubhouse then if they sign him they sign him.

[Mr Crunchy]

id take him in a minute

[VA Sox Fan]

id take him in a minute

 

 

That's b/c you are retarded.

[Jayhawk Bill]

id take him in a minute

Hold on, just a minute now...

 

The price for A-Rod is, last I checked, highest bidder or first team to offer 10/330. Whether or not that's worthwhile depends upon a few things:

 

1) What is the discount rate for the out years of the contract? Normally when I play around with contract values I leave that stuff out, because contracts are usually 2-4 years long, not 8-10 years long. Superstar contracts are different, and there are several factors pointing to a possible return to significant inflation rates. Here's a quick run of the net present value of a 10-year, $33 million per annum contract, all payments on January 1 (for simplicity), at five different discount rates:

 

$278MM	4.0%
$239MM	8.0%
$209MM	12.0%
$185MM	16.0%
$166MM	20.0%

 

Remember that post I made where it looked as if A-Rod were worth about $211 million over the next ten years? If you believe that there'll be 12% annual inflation in the MLB world, then it makes sense to sign a 10/330 contract for A-Rod, because $209 million (the value of cash outflow) is less than $211 million (the estimated value of A-Rod's productivity).

 

What's going on with the price of oil? Will the subprime lending crisis devalue the dollar? Will face-value ticket prices in Fenway rise to match the prices that scalpers are getting? If the answers to these questions suggest an inflation rate of 12% or more around Fenway Park, sign A-Rod.

 

2) Do you want to Go For It Now? If Boston signs A-Rod and essentially does nothing else, here's your 2008 Boston Red Sox:

 

2B Pedroia

1B Youkilis

DH Ortiz

3B Rodriguez

LF Ramirez

RF Drew

C Varitek

SS Lugo

CF Ellsbury

 

LF/CF Crisp

OF Kielty

C Mirabelli or Cash or Kottaras

SS/2B Cora

 

SP Beckett

SP Matsuzaka

SP Buchholz

SP Schilling

SP Lester

SP Wakefield

 

CL Papelbon

SU Okajima

RP Delcarmen

RP (Choose three more from 40-man, except for Gagne)

 

The odds of winning a World Series are, on average, 3.33% for each team each season. This move uses what could be the last season for Schilling or Wakefield, the last Red Sox season for Manny, the last contract season for Tek, and plugs the absolute best player in MLB smack into the middle of the lineup. That gives us a chance significantly better than 3.33% to win another World Series--maybe, without exaggeration, as high as 20-30% for one perfect year. The hangover could last for years, but there may never again in our lifetimes be the chance to make such a move as this, the syzygy of a World Championship, an MVP HOF-caliber free agent, and a perfect opportunity to put that man into the team. Three World Series wins in five years would make this generation of Boston Red Sox more than a mini-dynasty: it would start putting them into a league with the early 70's A's, and the deadball era Red Sox and A's, behind only the best Yankees squads for greatest team ever. Four World Series wins in, say, eight years in a 30-team structure and a three-tiered playoff format would be achieveable, and that would put Boston on a par with the Yankees' best showing. The payback period might be the last half-decade of A-Rod's contract, but what a ride it could be.

 

3) Who is the real Alex Rodriguez?

 

Discounting his early cups of coffee, here's A-Rod's career:

Age     Year      BA      OBA     SLG
20	1996	0.358	0.414	0.631
21	1997	0.300	0.350	0.496
22	1998	0.310	0.360	0.560
23	1999	0.285	0.357	0.586
24	2000	0.316	0.420	0.606
25	2001	0.318	0.399	0.622
26	2002	0.300	0.392	0.623
27	2003	0.298	0.396	0.600
28	2004	0.286	0.375	0.512
29	2005	0.321	0.421	0.610
30	2006	0.290	0.392	0.523
31	2007	0.314	0.422	0.645

 

Let's focus on that last column, SLG.

 

A-Rod came up full-time at age 20. He was practically unstoppable--pitchers didn't yet know his weaknesses. By his sophomore year, they'd found something, and his SLG dropped to .496. From there through age 27 we've got a typical HOF player career curve, peaking at .622 and .623 at ages 25 and 26. (Hall of Famers often peak young, because they start in MLB so young that they're no longer developing skills at age 27, while average players are still learning a bit in their late 20's to offset the early decline of their talent.)

 

Then what?

 

Look, I believe that A-Rod's age 29 season, 2005, fits just fine. On either side of it, though, we have what looks like either injury or inadequate attention to his game. Worst, his contract year was the best season of his career: I don't know whether to call it a fluke, the result of a slacker finally paying attention, or selective subtle use of PEDs. I do know that most HOF-caliber players who peaked in their 30's were later alleged to have been juicing; I also know that a fairly rigorous testing program is now in place in MLB.

 

The recent wide fluctuations in A-Rod's performance trouble me.

 

***

 

Would I take A-Rod at 10/300 or so? I don't know. I wouldn't criticize the move were Boston to sign him, but I'd sure want to see how things worked out over a period of years before applauding the move too loudly.

[ORS]

I'm glad to see you introduced some NPV consideration into yesterday's valuation of his performance projection per PECOTA. These things aren't linear, and there's absolutely no way teams perform their valuations without this important data.

 

So, it appears an important aspect to the valuation will be baseball's revenues growth rate. A quick down and dirty rule of 70 suggests it's at about 10% (doubled revenues from 2000 to 2007). A mere 2% shy of our goal, if we believe in PECOTA. In my estimation, no calcs just observed PECOTAs vs actual performance, PECOTA is very conservative and pessimistic. I think it overvalues the impact of age on elite players who typically outperform their PECOTA projections after age 32 or so. I think this has something to do with a large majority of the players not being elite, and the impact of age on their game fudging the age factor for those that are elite. That said, I'm also uncomfortable assuming we will see the same growth we saw over the last 7 years. It could happen, but record growth isn't usually sustainable.

 

I, like you, think this could go either way. If they sign him, I won't complain. If they bring Lowell back, I'll be happy too, because while Lowell may have more immediate risk, I think the magnitude of total risk is much smaller.

[das11209]

For some reason - I think we have a better chance of signing A-Rod than Lowell. Lowell's value is as high now as it could ever be - and the Yankees will do anything to take him out from Red Sox radar. From my experience with the Sox FO - they will not overpay for anyone - and they have been right so far(Pedro, Damon) etc.

 

I will be sick if we get neither of them.

[BoSox21]

For some reason - I think we have a better chance of signing A-Rod than Lowell.

 

From my experience with the Sox FO - they will not overpay for anyone -

 

Unless you mean they never overpay to keep guys, you contradicted yourself. Whoever gets A-Rod WILL overpay for him.

[das11209]

Unless you mean they never overpay to keep guys' date=' you contradicted yourself. Whoever gets A-Rod WILL overpay for him.[/quote']

 

Let me put it this way. Sox FO may overpay for someone who is not in the team(Drew, Lugo) but they will not overpay for someone who is seeking an extension. I am not sure A-Rod will actually get the kind of money he and Boras are hoping for and I do not think he cares that much. I think he opted out because he hates the guts of NY. Lowell on the otherhand is likely to get HUGE offer from a mystery team that just lost their third baseman that will be hard for him to refuse for financial reasons.

 

Hopefully that makes it more clear. I do not think we have a good chance to land A-Rod btw. Most likely scenario is we will land neither of them.

[BoSox21]

Aside from A-Rod and Lowell, there are no good third basemen hitting the market this off-season so that alone will drive up the price on them. And no one really knows where Lowell's head is at, whether he likes it here enough to sign a two-year deal because everyone thinks he'll get four years whereever he goes and that completely goes against the FO's philosophy of keeping players past the age of 35 (unless it's a special case like Varitek).

 

I think Lowell will stay and A-Rod will land in Anaheim

[Jayhawk Bill]

I'm glad to see you introduced some NPV consideration into yesterday's valuation of his performance projection per PECOTA. These things aren't linear, and there's absolutely no way teams perform their valuations without this important data.

 

 

So, it appears an important aspect to the valuation will be baseball's revenues growth rate. A quick down and dirty rule of 70 suggests it's at about 10% (doubled revenues from 2000 to 2007). A mere 2% shy of our goal, if we believe in PECOTA.

 

True, but in an environment of 3% annual inflation and 2-4 year contracts, it doesn't make much difference. MLB has enjoyed a period of excellent revenue growth, with revenues this year more than 10% over 2006's (Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Oct 19, 2007), but gambling that MLB revenue growth will continue to outpace inflation may be risky.

 

That said, I'm also uncomfortable assuming we will see the same growth we saw over the last 7 years. It could happen, but record growth isn't usually sustainable.

 

 

In my estimation, no calcs just observed PECOTAs vs actual performance, PECOTA is very conservative and pessimistic. I think it overvalues the impact of age on elite players who typically outperform their PECOTA projections after age 32 or so. I think this has something to do with a large majority of the players not being elite, and the impact of age on their game fudging the age factor for those that are elite.

 

PECOTA bases its projections for each player on 20 closest "comparable players." Here are A-Rod's "comparable players" for 2007, along with the appropriate year and similarity score*

 

1 Ken Boyer 1963 37

2 Eddie Mathews 1963 36

3 Kirk Gibson 1989 36

4 Ryan Klesko 2003 32

5 Dale Murphy 1988 31

6 Dwight Evans 1983 30

7 Dave Winfield 1983 29

8 Larry Hisle 1979 29

9 Gil Hodges 1956 29

10 Jeff Bagwell 2000 28

11 Sal Bando 1976 27

12 Tony Perez 1974 27

13 Fred McGriff 1995 26

14 Stan Lopata 1957 24

15 Bob Allison 1966 24

16 Tim Salmon 2000 21

17 Donn Clendenon 1967 21

18 Cliff Floyd 2004 21

19 Carlos Delgado 2004 21

20 Boog Powell 1973 20

 

*Similarity Score is a relative measure of a player's comparability. Its scale is very different from the Bill James similarity scores; a score of 100 is assigned to a perfect comparable, while a score of 0 represents a player who is meaningfully similar. Players can and frequently do receive negative similarity scores, and they are dropped from the analysis. A score above 50 indicates that a player is substantially comparable, and scores in excess of 70 are very unusual. The comparable player observations are weighted based on their similarity score in constructing a forecast.

 

Ken Boyer???

 

Well, check the similarity scores: they're not too high, because there are few A-Rods. Furthermore, PECOTA looks back three years, not over complete careers, and several of the players listed were power-speed guys with strong peaks around age 30 who tailed off rapidly thereafter.

 

But there are some HOF-caliber players there, too, and they tailed off pretty fast. Eddie Mathews does seem to be a good comparable: he lost 50 OBP points permanently at age 32, and he retired right after his age 36 season. Jeff Bagwell had a similar double peak as a batter to A-Rod's, and he was gone before age 38. Dave Winfield played very well through age 40 and played until age 43, except for injury time, but he stands out from this group.

 

I'd have to agree that PECOTA may be pessimistic, but I wanted to point out the collapse of some of his comparable players.

 

Let's take another approach: let's look at Baseball Reference comparable players by age. BR looks at entire careers and biases results more strongly by position. Who do they pick?

 

Ken Griffey Jr. (793)

Mel Ott (784) *

Hank Aaron (765) *

Frank Robinson (748) *

Jimmie Foxx (739) *

Mickey Mantle (721) *

Eddie Mathews (706) *

Vladimir Guerrero (671)

Rogers Hornsby (651) *

Johnny Bench (647) *

* Hall of Fame

 

Johnny Bench pops up because catcher is considered defensively demanding by BR, so much so that few players cross over between catcher and the next-toughest position, shortstop. He's not a good comparable. Neither, IMO, is Jimmie Foxx (C/1B ) or Mickey Mantle (CH3CH2OH). Vlad Guerrero is still active and still at A-Rod's age, disqualifying him. The other six could be considered comparable.

 

Only three of those six, Hank Aaron, Frank Robinson and Rogers Hornsby, stayed active for nine or more years. Hornsby won an MVP at age 33, but his performance collapsed precipitously after that season--he should've retired, just as Mathews and Ott did. Ken Griffey Jr. was plagued by injuries through his thirties. Frank Robinson contended for two MVP Awards, earned four All Star spots, and played six more HOF-caliber seasons.

 

Hank Aaron, of course, moved from Hall of Famer to legend in those years of his career. He contended for three MVP Awards; he went to ten straight All Star Games.

 

I'll buy into your hesitance to accept PECOTA, but I look at BR comparables and I see one chance in six of increasing injuries (Griffey), one chance in six of another great half-decade and an adequate five other years (Robinson), three chances in six of a five-to-seven-year decline leaving A-Rod below replacement level (Hornsby, Mathews, Ott), and only one chance in six of his doing what many of us are thinking that he'll do: challenge the records of Ruth, Aaron and Bonds.

 

And just one more thing: if there were a category for comparable players by personality, A-Rod would not be a close comparable to Henry Aaron.

 

 

I, like you, think this could go either way. If they sign him, I won't complain. If they bring Lowell back, I'll be happy too, because while Lowell may have more immediate risk, I think the magnitude of total risk is much smaller.

 

We concur. :thumbsup:

 

*****************************************************************

 

For some reason - I think we have a better chance of signing A-Rod than Lowell. Lowell's value is as high now as it could ever be - and the Yankees will do anything to take him out from Red Sox radar. From my experience with the Sox FO - they will not overpay for anyone - and they have been right so far(Pedro, Damon) etc.

 

I think that you raise a good point.

 

I will be sick if we get neither of them.

 

But here I disagree with you. Kevin Youkilis plays a good third base, and Chris Carter is an MLB-caliber hitter. If the money saved on A-Rod goes to land Johan Santana (or comparable talent) instead, the Red Sox will still be an improved team next year.

[bobby jr]

I don't know if A-Rod is juicing or not, who knows about anyone these days. But I believe that some HOF players naturally have some of their best years after age 30. Aaron had some of his best career years in his mid to late 30's. At age 37 he hit .327 with 47 HR's.

[das11209]

 

I think Lowell will stay and A-Rod will land in Anaheim

 

I think that's the best scenario for lot of sox fans. I have more thoughts on this. Yankee FO kinda took a slap in the face with A-Rod fiasco. Best way for Cashman to get the fans excited is to 'pull a damon' which means steal the Yankee farm boy Lowell from their AL east rival - whatever it takes.

 

Another part of the argument is the apathy some sox fans have with A-Rod because of some history. Have you guys watched last night's game where Laker fans booed Kobe and then cheered him when he scored 45 points? A-Rod can turn that around quicker if he hits a home run in his first at bat as Sox.

[das11209]

Reds exercised option on Adam Dunn - that can't be good news for us.

[TheKilo]

Man, I'm loving JB's posts. Can you say why you're so high on Chris Carter? I'm wondering why he hasn't gotten his shot before. Is it because of the ballpark he hit in in the minors?

[Jayhawk Bill]

I don't know if A-Rod is juicing or not' date=' who knows about anyone these days. But I believe that some HOF players naturally have some of their best years after age 30. Aaron had some of his best career years in his mid to late 30's. At age 37 he hit .327 with 47 HR's.[/quote']

 

True, but a couple of things had changed for Aaron:

 

1) Many of what should've been Aaron's best years were played in the "Second Deadball Era" from 1962 to 1968. Pitchers had so great an advantage that they had to change the rules. Everybody started hitting better thereafter, and the season you cite is 1971, right after the change.

 

2) Let's compare Aaron's best season from his youth, 1959, with his 1971 season that you cite.

 

SLG:

 

1959 .636

1971 .669

 

Multi-year Park Factor:

 

1959 92

1971 106

 

Aaron moved from pitcher-friendly County Stadium to hitter-friendly Fulton County Stadium in 1966, the biggest reason for his late-career surge in home runs. He jumped from 56 home runs his last two years in Milwaukee to 83 home runs his first two years in Atlanta. But let's adjust those slugging percentages for Park Factor, assuming neutral conditions on the road:

 

1959: .662

1971: .650

 

Aaron's peak moves back to his youth.

 

If we're looking just at home runs, the split is even more dramatic: Aaron hit 31 of his 47 home runs at home that year. His team hit 96 home runs in Atlanta and 57 on the road.

 

***

 

The guy who broke out at age 31 before A-Rod was Willie McCovey. The reason, though, was the year. In 1969, when McCovey won MVP, the rules had been changed to favor batters and expansion had diluted pitching talent. McCovey destroyed several teams, including the Expos and the Padres, posting an OBP of .453 to go with his .320 batting average, 45 home runs, and 126 RBI. McCovey didn't use steroids, and he didn't change home ballpark, but circumstances did change for him.

 

I'm open to feedback, but I can't find any other HOF-caliber hitter who peaked in their 30's without an extraordinary change in Park Factor or significant allegations of PED use...except, now, maybe A-Rod.

[Jayhawk Bill]

Can you say why you're so high on Chris Carter? I'm wondering why he hasn't gotten his shot before. Is it because of the ballpark he hit in in the minors?

 

Keeping it brief because it's a tangent, here's the deal:

 

1) Against RHP he's a Red Sox-caliber and Red Sox-type hitter. Against LHP he's mediocre: overall he's MLB-caliber as a hitter, but he's better suited to a platoon role.

 

2) Carter is bad defensively at first base.

 

3) Arizona had Conor Jackson at first base, backed up by Tony Clark. I hear that they're pretty good.

 

Tucson is a PCL team, so offense can be inflated, but the recent PF isn't extraordinary. From Minor League Splits:

 

Tucson Sidewinders H 1.09 2B 1.03 HR 0.81 BB 0.97 K 0.84

 

Tucson has had Park Factors as high as the 1.10 area in the past.

[bobby jr]

True, but a couple of things had changed for Aaron:

 

1) Many of what should've been Aaron's best years were played in the "Second Deadball Era" from 1962 to 1968. Pitchers had so great an advantage that they had to change the rules. Everybody started hitting better thereafter, and the season you cite is 1971, right after the change.

 

2) Let's compare Aaron's best season from his youth, 1959, with his 1971 season that you cite.

 

SLG:

 

1959 .636

1971 .669

 

Multi-year Park Factor:

 

1959 92

1971 106

 

Aaron moved from pitcher-friendly County Stadium to hitter-friendly Fulton County Stadium in 1966, the biggest reason for his late-career surge in home runs. He jumped from 56 home runs his last two years in Milwaukee to 83 home runs his first two years in Atlanta. But let's adjust those slugging percentages for Park Factor, assuming neutral conditions on the road:

 

1959: .662

1971: .650

 

Aaron's peak moves back to his youth.

 

If we're looking just at home runs, the split is even more dramatic: Aaron hit 31 of his 47 home runs at home that year. His team hit 96 home runs in Atlanta and 57 on the road.

 

***

 

The guy who broke out at age 31 before A-Rod was Willie McCovey. The reason, though, was the year. In 1969, when McCovey won MVP, the rules had been changed to favor batters and expansion had diluted pitching talent. McCovey destroyed several teams, including the Expos and the Padres, posting an OBP of .453 to go with his .320 batting average, 45 home runs, and 126 RBI. McCovey didn't use steroids, and he didn't change home ballpark, but circumstances did change for him.

 

I'm open to feedback, but I can't find any other HOF-caliber hitter who peaked in their 30's without an extraordinary change in Park Factor or significant allegations of PED use...except, now, maybe A-Rod.

 

Very interesting and well researched. I was not aware that so many of Aaron's HR's came at home in '73. You are also on target about his youth being spent in the 2nd "dead ball era" I remember "The Year of the Pitcher" 1968 nobody was hitting that year. This would help explain why Aaron was better after the mound was lowered, etc, in his later years.

 

Two more examples of HOF players who were "good when they were old", what about Carlton Fisk, HOF catcher, he had 37 HR at age 37 while playing for the White Sox, and his youth was spent in Boston with the short left field wall, where presumably he should have hit more HR. And he didn't start his career until the 2nd dead ball era was over.

 

Or Willie Stargell who won the NL MVP at age 39, in 1979.

 

That being said, I am very suspicious about players today who are good into their late 30's and 40's, and that includes certain pitchers. In Canseco's book he said one indication a pitcher was on the juice was when he became better at an age when pitchers historically were washed up.

 

Getting back to A-Rod, I think it's funny that the Yankees have this high and mighty attitude, like how dare he turn their offer down, doesnt' he know that being a Yankee is the essence of greatness, etc. Hank Steinbrenner has come across as being rather arrogant, he needs to get some public relations advice.

[CrespoBlows]

Reds exercised option on Adam Dunn - that can't be good news for us.

 

That was a no-brainer. He's still a trade candiate.

[Mr Crunchy]

adam dunn belongs on the charlestown townies inter city league...

the aaron thing is interesting

not as many spanish,no asians and no 5.2 ip per starter back then

of course many years he hit with the high mound where nobody could crack .300 but his legacy is more of consistancy than spectacular

although you can assume that 755 dings had to excite someone

the perini corp moved the braves out of boston the year aaron signed.

too bad

back then they couldve gone head to head with the sox with ernie banks warren spahn and johnny saine....they bailed,nono never watched another game of baseball again with passion and the nl was gone forever from here

[Jayhawk Bill]

Very interesting and well researched. I was not aware that so many of Aaron's HR's came at home in '73. You are also on target about his youth being spent in the 2nd "dead ball era" I remember "The Year of the Pitcher" 1968 nobody was hitting that year. This would help explain why Aaron was better after the mound was lowered, etc, in his later years.

 

Two more examples of HOF players who were "good when they were old", what about Carlton Fisk, HOF catcher, he had 37 HR at age 37 while playing for the White Sox, and his youth was spent in Boston with the short left field wall, where presumably he should have hit more HR. And he didn't start his career until the 2nd dead ball era was over.

 

Or Willie Stargell who won the NL MVP at age 39, in 1979.

 

That being said, I am very suspicious about players today who are good into their late 30's and 40's, and that includes certain pitchers. In Canseco's book he said one indication a pitcher was on the juice was when he became better at an age when pitchers historically were washed up.

 

Getting back to A-Rod, I think it's funny that the Yankees have this high and mighty attitude, like how dare he turn their offer down, doesnt' he know that being a Yankee is the essence of greatness, etc. Hank Steinbrenner has come across as being rather arrogant, he needs to get some public relations advice.

 

 

First, too kind. Thank you.

 

Second, let's look at Fisk and Stargell. If you look at Fisk's best seasons by WARP1, his 37-home run 1985 would rank sixth: overall, it was nowhere near his best. That was 1977; his second best year was 1972. The peak appears to be in 1976-78 by WARP1, at ages 28-30. That's a little late, but not unusual for a catcher.

 

Looking deeper at Fisk's 1985, his BABIP was just .213 for the season. That's astoundingly low: here are the averages for various types of balls in play (Source: Fangraphs)

 

Line Drive .716

Ground Ball .236

Fly Ball .167

 

The average MLB BABIP is around .300. Most MLB players hit about 16-18% line drives, and that gets you an overall BABIP of around .120 from those few at bats alone. Let's look at it a different way: if Fisk got home runs on 12% of his fly balls (about MLB average) then he hit fly balls in 308 of 462 times he put balls into play or out of the park, suggesting that 271 of his 425 balls in play might've been fly balls. Getting a .167 BABIP on the 64% of your balls in play that were fly balls would go a long way to explaining your miserable BABIP of .213.

 

Maybe Carlton Fisk just gave up on line drives and started trying to hit home runs.

 

Regarding Willie Stargell, by WARP1 the 1979 MVP season was his twelfth-best. It does look as if he, too, hit his peak from ages 31 to 33, but his home ballpark became an extraordinary pitcher's park for a brief moment in 1969 and 1970. Check the Pirates' home and away splits for home runs those years:

 

      Home  Away
1969   41    78
1970   43    87

 

Combine the Second Deadball Era with the Three Rivers' Stadium Deadball Era, take those away, and suddenly Willie Stargell is 31 before he got a chance to show his stuff.

 

As an aside, Stargell was the sixth-best player on his own team by WARP1 in 1979:

 

OMAR MORENO	8.0
DAVE PARKER	8.0
PHIL GARNER	7.7
KENT TEKULVE	7.1
TIM FOLI	5.5
WILLIE STARGELL	5.2

 

They talk about Jeter's "intangibles:" Derek Jeter didn't hold a candle to Stargell on the "intangibles" front.

 

***

 

Yes, I'm suspicious of many players who peak in their 30's regarding steroid use, position players and pitchers alike. The rapid declines of several of those players only aggravate suspicions.

[Mr Crunchy]

willie stargell was a man amongst boys

that pirate team competed for a long time against some pretty good nl teams and in 79 1/2 the team was wired on coke

john candelaria was a big game pitcher if i recall and kent tekulve pitched 355 innings out of the pen that year..all underhanded

[YAZMAN]

willie stargell was a man amongst boys

that pirate team competed for a long time against some pretty good nl teams and in 79 1/2 the team was wired on coke

john candelaria was a big game pitcher if i recall and kent tekulve pitched 355 innings out of the pen that year..all underhanded

 

We Are Family, baby!

[bobby jr]

willie stargell was a man amongst boys

that pirate team competed for a long time against some pretty good nl teams and in 79 1/2 the team was wired on coke

john candelaria was a big game pitcher if i recall and kent tekulve pitched 355 innings out of the pen that year..all underhanded

 

Tell me about it. The Pirates beat the Orioles in seven games with that stupid song playing in the background "We are Family" by Sister Sledge. Stargell beat us in game seven with a HR off McGregor. (That was a great year for the O's until the World Series.

Wild Bill Hagy used to lead cheers in Memorial Stadium and spell out ORIOLES with his body. He passed away earlier this year) .

[nateg]

I'm thinking Tigers or Cubs. I voted tigers. If he's smart he'd join the already powerful offense of the tigers.

[BoSox21]

I'm thinking Tigers or Cubs. I voted tigers. If he's smart he'd join the already powerful offense of the tigers.

 

Except the Tigers have come out and basically said they aren't interested.

[rician blast]

If the Sox sign ARod, to me, as of this moment, they will have:

 

Jumped the Shark

 

http://www.jonmetzler.com/blog/wp-content/Fonzie_jumps_the_shark.PNG

 

Sorry, maybe there's something wrong with me, but I don't want this embarrassment of riches associated with the Red Sox. I don't want them to become the "new evil empire". I feel like there'll be a stigma attached to any team for whom Mr. Rod plays, and I'm not comfortable with him bringing that to Boston.

 

Would I root for him? yes. Would I maybe even like the guy at some point? could be, maybe in the right situation he could break out of his type-cast character and be perceived in a better light.

 

My gut tells me we don't want this guy folks, regardless of his obvious on-the-field talents.

[TheKilo]

RB, hate to break it to you, but they already have with s*** like "President of RSN" and "Sox Appeal."

[das11209]

Sorry, maybe there's something wrong with me, but I don't want this embarrassment of riches associated with the Red Sox.

My gut tells me we don't want this guy folks, regardless of his obvious on-the-field talents.

 

So what kind of guys are Drew and Lugo?

 

Like it or not - we are the Yankees now - only more successful.