ORS

Of course, that would be a PR disaster for the mega-agent. Imagine if people started thinking he couldn't do better than the acceptance of arbitration for his clients.

And the better team, IMO. I also agree that USC should play the SEC Champ should Oklahoma fall to Mizzou. For that to happen, they'll have to jump them in the Harris and USA Today polls. Right now, Texas holds about a 6% lead in the Harris and Coaches' polls. They are up 21% in the computer average. It will be strange if two teams flip flop in the BCS while both are idle. EDIT: Since they are idle, the computer averages won't change (not much at least). If you assume the percentages in the other two are fairly consistent for the slot, then you can approximate what the rankings would have to be (assuming equal amounts gained in each). To wipe out the 21%, they need a 22% gain in the other two, 11% each. Assuming USC gets ranked #2, about 91%, then Texas will have to fall to #6 (#5 is about 84%, #6 is about 75%). I don't see that happening. Can you put 5 teams ahead of Texas if Oklahoma loses?

Yeah, they really did. In a perfect world, they'll go on to play UF, as I think those two teams are clearly the best two week in week out. Anything can happen with in-state rivalry games on tap and then neutral site conference championships, but that's the matchup I want to see most.

Why would it? This WBC thing is a Selig creation. The league would never approve a deal keeping players out of this competition.

It's going to be tough for them to keep everone around because there aren't that many people coming off the payroll with large contracts in the next 3-4 years. Sure, I think they get it done easily if they make only minor moves in free agency and trade, but any big spending in those areas probably puts an incumbent on the chopping block. Papelbon, Youkilis, Pedroia, and Lester all made the league minimum last year and will all be making in excess of $10M if they hit the market in 3-4 years. Bay is still young and worth keeping around, but it will cost them. Beckett, with another good season, is probably due a raise. I think a big splash in free agency probably squeezes one of these guys out, which isn't the end of the world, but it is interesting. EDIT: And Wake will retire at some point in the near future. Replacing his consistently league average innings will cost them about $6M more marginally. Every little bit adds up.

I'm with you there, Rician. I think the lone solid argument against signing Teixeira has nothing to do with Mike Lowell. The issue of concern should be the fact that the core of this team is all underpriced right now, but won't be in 3-4 years. Who do they see as the must keep guys? They won't be able to afford them all. Just won't happen, not unless guys start signing extensions with a little home town discount thrown in right now. Does their vision of the core moving forward include Mark Teixeira? We don't know, but it will be interesting if he is to see who gets left out when they start making offers to keep these guys around.

This "diminished returns" is the market though. A look at $/VORP reveals that each incremental marginal gain comes at increasing cost. You aren't going to get an 8 WARP player for twice what a 4 WARP player costs on the market. The higher the level of performance, the more scarcity comes into play. Furthermore, you are downplaying the gain. The 4 year weighted average for Teixeira vs. Lowell is 9.2 to 6.6. This is with Teixeira entering his prime (just came off a 10 WARP season), and Lowell well past his going into the year with a potentially debilitating injury. I went to 4 years to include Lowell's abyssmal 2005 (2.3 WARP) to offset his fantasyland 2007 (8.7 WARP). The gap is approaching 3 wins, and I'd bet it exceeds it this year.

Is there any evidence that this actually happens? I see people say the MLBPA won't let a player turn down a huge offer all the time, and I can't think of a single example where there weren't other factors that played a bigger role. As long as the contractual language and obligation is in accordance with the latest CBA, the MLBPA only has the power of suggestion when a player is determining what offer he prefers. If he signs, it's because he wants the money, or to face the challenge of winning in NY, or whatever. Consideration of the MLBPA will be a minor contributor to his decision.

Yeah, I just noticed that in the balloting. Anyone know how to get a hold of the individual writer's ballots? You have to have a serious agenda to keep him out of your top-10. Here's a link to the ballot results. http://www.baseballwriters.org/awards/2008/2008_AL_mvp.html

Ok, so there are two different definitions, which suggests there is some ambiguity in the current meaning of the term. What is your point when Jacko has essentially conceded his understanding of the word's meaning is the one with the sudden component?

A coup is a highly successful, unexpected, clever act. For the the Yankees to acquire the best two pitchers on the market by throwing gobs of cash at them is neither unexpected nor clever. Find another word. As for them getting Burnett, 5/80 is a lot of juice for a guy who gets his mail forwarded to the training room.

You mean TTU, right? If Oklahoma loses to OSU after beating TTU, then they are out, they have 2 losses. The tie then becomes TTU and Texas, and TTU wins from the head to head. Of course, before they play the winner of 'Bama / UF, they'd have to beat Mizzou, which they've done already but I wouldn't call an auto-win. And this assumes nothing happens to 'Bama and Florida in their remaining rivalry games on 11/29, which could open the door for USC, who won't even win their conference. Play a f'ckn tournament already.

What's the tie breaker in the Big XII South? If the Sooners beat the Raiders and everyone finishes the year clean, then you'd have 3 teams with one loss where Texas beat Oklahoma, Oklahoma beat TTU, and TTU beat Texas. What do they do, rock, paper, scissors? EDIT: Here's the procedure for 3 teams tied at the top of a Big XII division 1. The records of the three teams will be compared against each other 2. The records of the three teams will be compared within their division 3. The records of the three teams will be compared against the next highest placed teams in their division in order of fi nish (4, 5 and 6) 4. The records of the three teams will be compared against all common conference opponents; 5. The highest ranked team in the fi rst Bowl Championship Series Poll following the completion of Big 12 regular season conference play shall be the representative 6. The team with the best overall winning percentage [excluding exempted games] shall be the representative 7. The representative will be chosen by draw. It looks like it will get to step 5, where the BCS poll decides the winner. Speaking of which, aren't steps 6 and 7 useless if that is the case? Does the BCS poll ever result in a tie? It will be interesting to see what happens if this occurs. TTU will probably be out just due to the timing (loss came later in the season) and Oklahoma leapfrogging them. Texas may stand a chance if they completely wipe the field with A&M on Thanksgiving day, earning some style points for the computers (Oklahoma beat them 66-28). http://www.big12sports.com/ViewArticle.dbml?ATCLID=1546006&DB_OEM_ID=10410

Yeah, even though it wasn't really him due to that ball being massively underthrown, I like the Hall acquisition. They can be pretty aggressive with Hall, Carlos Rodgers, and Smoot playing the corners. Despite Campbell's progress, he's still the master of the 5 yd dump on 3rd and 7.

I thought at the beginning of the year it was, "he hasn't started since HS so he's not even adequate"? He's certainly that, and he's certainly trending the right way. The next 6 weeks will be more revealing than the bluster on both sides here.

Here's what I don't like about the "Manny would have made a difference" crowd's argument. It's always about how he would have made a difference in game 7. What it fails to address is the fact that we don't know if there is a game 7 with Manny. We don't even know if there is an October. The team responded and played some of the best baseball of the season right after he got sent out of town. I can't discount that as coincidental given the reports about their meetings prior to the trade, nor can I disregard the possibility of the opposite happening and them not making the playoffs if he's kept around.

I'll only abuse you when Cashman decides Kennedy deserves another look before they trade him for an established star. Which should happen in the next week or so.

They aren't 3 or 4 years from being any good. They are a frontline starter and a power bat away from being a contender in their division. Once you get in, it's anybody's game in October. The move for Peavy fits a need rather well.

Does that make it OK?