Q & A and direct from Baseball America.

http://www.thegoodphight.com/story/2008/1/8/124656/6119

News flash: there ain't too much happening with the Phillies right now. The team avoided arbitration with Jayson Werth on Monday, signing the outfielder to a $1.7 million contract with performance bonuses for 2008. And they evidently signed two guys named Cory Willey (lefty pitcher) and Angel Negron (first baseman), according to Baseball America by way of Beerleaguer. Otherwise, Pat Gillick seems deep into his winter nap.

Given that it's probably his last one, though, it isn't too soon to think about who the next Phillies general manager might be. Our unhappy hypothesis is that Ruben Amaro, Jr., the assistant GM who's proven much more able a company shill than he was in uniform, will complete his apprenticeship with Gillick and secure the job at the conclusion of the 2008 season, when Gillick's contract expires and he eases into full-time retirement. After all, the notoriously insular Phillies went outside the organization to bring in Gillick; no way they'll do so again, right?

Still, another big name among GMs is going to come open after this season, and the team would be remiss not to at least think about making an offer. I refer to Yankees general manager Brian Cashman, who's been less than subtle in implying that he's not enjoying life under Hank "Little Big Stein" Steinbrenner in New York.


Now, Cashman's complaint against Little Big Stein seems to be that he no longer has the "full authority to run the entire program" stipulated in the contract he signed with George "Big Stein" Steinbrenner after the 2005 season. So depending on exactly what that means, he might not want to run the risk of the same kind of interference at the hands of David Montgomery, Bill Giles, Dallas Green and whoever else is involved with Phillies decision-making. (Please, reporters, throw us a frickin' bone here--I still want to know who pulled the trigger on the Abreu Abomination of mid-2006.) That's one potential snag, and another is that the Phillies surely won't have the sort of budget structure in which Cashman has built an unbroken streak of Yankee playoff teams.

But what I find ironic about Cashman and how he's perceived is that the same bloated payrolls that critics once alleged made it impossible for him to get burned by his mistakes now largely obscure the best work he's done. Following the Yankees' 2003 World Series loss to Florida and shocking ALCS defeat at the hands of Boston a year later, Cashman saw an aging roster and a largely depleted farm system. Cashman made a few additions of the type Big Stein had demanded since the '70s, bringing in the likes of Randy Johnson and, um, Carl Pavano--but his focus was on rebuilding a farm system that Baseball America had ranked 27th in early 2004 and 24th before the 2005 season. A year later, that ranking had jumped to 17th, and an assessment by Baseball Prospectus a year after that put the Yankees at 4th of the 30 MLB teams. BP's Kevin Goldstein wrote in December, "After years of sitting near the bottom of the organizational rankings due to some drafts that border on reprehensible, the Yankees have begun to place more focus and priority on the draft, and the results have come quickly. Their bounty of young pitching is the envy of baseball..."

While the easy thing to do would have been to keep buying high on trade targets and free agents, Cashman took on Big Stein and won a commitment to reload (not rebuild) through player development. His last few drafts have been excellent, and the philosophy that informs them--spend relatively more on draft picks and international signings rather than spend exponentially more on free agents at or past their prime--is exactly what the Phillies will need to leverage the peaks of their superstar core.

Loyalty's nice. Winning is much better--or so I understand. Let's hope the Phillies are at least open to the possibility of bringing in a GM who knows how to build and sustain a durable winner

Re: Dreaming on Cashman

"Loyalty's nice. Winning is much better . . . ." Are you new to the Philadelphia sports world?

by David Cohen on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 01:22:36 PM EDT
[ Reply to This ]


Re: Dreaming on Cashman

Hey, it's a season of hope.

by dajafi on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 01:32:57 PM EDT
[ Parent | Reply to This ]


Re: Dreaming on Cashman

You know... looking at Amaro's career stats... at least he knew how to take a walk. If he could hit for average worth a lick he would have had a good OBP.

by Homer on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 01:38:11 PM EDT
[ Reply to This ]


Re: Dreaming on Cashman

I have to admit, I had the exact same reaction when I was looking at that page to link it. Was very surprised to see his walk rate as good as it was. I remember him as a sort of proto-Perez/Nunez hitter (though Abe in '06 drew his walks too, I guess) with a bit more power.

by dajafi on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 01:40:18 PM EDT
[ Parent | Reply to This ]


Re: Dreaming on Cashman

Maybe he isn't as clueless to the value of not making outs as we are lead to believe?

by Homer on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 04:14:21 PM EDT
[ Parent | Reply to This ]


Re: Dreaming on Cashman

Maybe. There's at least one guy out there whose opinion I respect--he comments here occasionally--who believes that the Phillies as an organization are far, far more saber-conscious than they'll generally admit to being. He's also the most sanguine of anyone I've engaged on the question about Amaro taking over.

by dajafi on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 05:28:09 PM EDT
[ Parent | Reply to This ]


Re: Dreaming on Cashman

Like you said.. generally they are saber conscious... nothing explains Eaton though.

Amaro is relatively young (42), played with the On Base happy 93' team (seeing how valuable it is first hand)... The more I think about it... the less scared I get of him being the general manager. The only part I really fear is as being a good old boy member of the Phillies family he might not stand up to the owners for major decisions and just go with what they want.

by Homer on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 12:34:37 AM EDT
[ Parent | Reply to This ]


Re: Dreaming on Cashman

Let's hope the Phillies are at least open to the possibility of bringing in a GM who knows how to build and sustain a durable winner.

^ ....wasn't this Gillick? Or did he not build and sustain durable winners in Toronto, Baltimore, and Seattle before he came here?

by das411 on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 12:16:18 AM EDT
[ Reply to This ]


Re: Dreaming on Cashman

Didn't all those teams collapse after he left them? The Jays and Mariners played under .400 ball the year after he left and a solid 3 years before .500 ball was reached again. The .481 record the O's put up after he left there was the best they have put up. Seems like he leaves teams in rebuilding mode when he goes.

by Homer on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 12:31:03 AM EDT
[ Parent | Reply to This ]

http://riveraveblues.com/

For some reason or another, a small but vocal crew of baseball fans led by this man do not like Brian Cashman with a vengeance.

Some critics think he’s overrated and that the talent-evaluators working for him deserve more credit; others see postseason berths in every year of his ten-year reign as GM as indicative of the fact that he’s not good enough. He can’t build a bullpen; he can’t build a bench. You know the drill.

Well, outside of New York, the Cashman vultures are gearing up for what many, rightly, consider to be the steal of the century. When Brian Cashman, who many not seem to like the new Yankees organizational power structure all that much, leaves New York, Philadelphia will be ready to with open arms. Or at least the fans in Philly will be waiting.

Nothing is more indicative of this philosophy and outside view of Brian Cashman better than this post from The Good Phight. Take a look:

But what I find ironic about Cashman and how he’s perceived is that the same bloated payrolls that critics once alleged made it impossible for him to get burned by his mistakes now largely obscure the best work he’s done. Following the Yankees’ 2003 World Series loss to Florida and shocking ALCS defeat at the hands of Boston a year later, Cashman saw an aging roster and a largely depleted farm system. Cashman made a few additions of the type Big Stein had demanded since the ’70s, bringing in the likes of Randy Johnson and, um, Carl Pavano–but his focus was on rebuilding a farm system that Baseball America had ranked 27th in early 2004 and 24th before the 2005 season. A year later, that ranking had jumped to 17th, and an assessment by Baseball Prospectus a year after that put the Yankees at 4th of the 30 MLB teams. BP’s Kevin Goldstein wrote in December, “After years of sitting near the bottom of the organizational rankings due to some drafts that border on reprehensible, the Yankees have begun to place more focus and priority on the draft, and the results have come quickly. Their bounty of young pitching is the envy of baseball…”

That is, in essence, the praise that I have for Brian Cashman, and I would probably go one step further and give him a pass on the Carl Pavano deal. At the time, Pavano was a highly sought-after commodity. The Mets, Red Sox and Tigers were all showing various degrees of interest, and the Yanks got him at something of a bargain rate. Who knew that he would utterly break down and make fewer than 20 starts over three years? That was a great signing then; it just looks terrible in hindsight.

But the Good Phight’s point is one that is often overlooked, and it certainly relates to what Tommy said earlier. For much of the early 2000s, the Yankees were puttering along with no farm system. A series of poor drafts and few big-ticket international signings had left the system depleted, and the George Steinbrenner win-now-before-I-forget-it attitude led the Yanks to acquire pieces, such as Raul Mondesi, that never should have been in New York.

When Cashman made his power play, he and his people really turned things around. The Yankees are still big spenders; they can sign that big free agent — A-Rod, anyone? — when they have to, but they’ve built up an organization that is in the top five of all Minor League systems. They’ve got the chips to use when the time and returns are right, and they’re developing a core group of kids who are well on their way to becoming the next set of homegrown Yankee greats.

I believe that losing Cashman would not be a good move for the Yankee organization. Through thick and thin, Cashman has sustained Yankee success. He did it while facing constant pressure from a Boss who meddled too much in baseball affairs, and he did it by building up the farm when the Boss finally backed off. I’d hate to see the Steinbrenner brothers push him out, and Hank and Hal would be wise to heed a fan base and ownership in Philadelphia who could use a GM with Cashman’s ability to construct a top-notch Big League club while building up the farm for the future.

steve (different one) says:
January 9th, 2008 at 10:03 am (Reply)

yes, George personally signed Sheffield, but don’t let facts ruin a good rant.

also, Bartolo Colon? hilarious.

Colon was an absolutely disastrous signing for Anahaim. he got $51M for 4 years. in 3 of the 4 years, he had an ERA over 5.00. he was a complete and utter bust. 1 good year in 4 seasons for $51M.

only someone with an agenda would place passing on Colon on the “Con” side of Cashman’s ledger. any objective analysis would credit Cashman with that decision.
1.
Pfistyunc says:
January 9th, 2008 at 10:26 am (Reply)

You forgot two things: he stole a Cy Young award and also had the worst haircut in the history of baseball.
13.
Bill Porter says:
January 9th, 2008 at 10:28 am (Reply)

I wish the Kinderstien would observe the old maxim “If it ain’t broke don’t fix it” and leave Ca$h alone. He arrived at an an organizational agreement in 2005 that has resulted in the rejuvenation of the organization. Squeezing him out the door now would be the height of idiocy; mismanagement at its worst. I have no desire to go back to the pre ‘94 days or the 2001 - 2005 era of wanton mindless gluttony. Ca$h has the the entire organization on the verge of capturing a formula and model that will ensure it remains competitive indefinitely. How could they turn their back on that? The Stiens ought to be kissing his ass not greasing the skids for his departure.
14.
Bill Porter says:
January 9th, 2008 at 10:42 am (Reply)

Oh and by the way Lombardi is simply running after Ca$h for the attention. He has advertised subscription advertising on his space. (12/27/2007) He needs traffic to sell it. What better way to create traffic than to buck the trend and trash a successful and popular GM. I don’t place comments at his site because I wont register to do so and help him out with his effort. He either needs a dog or a girl friend or both to occupy his time and distract him from this Ca$h campaign. (double entendre intended) In any event he should knock it off because he is looking pretty juvenile and pathetic in carrying it on.
15.
Jeff says:
January 9th, 2008 at 10:53 am (Reply)

I would put Colon and a CY young ahead of Brown and his broken back. I don’t think the Contract was a good one as he did break down but to the degree of not having 20 20 hindsight missing him while going for Brown was a bad decision.
If you guys want to blam GMs for contracts that don’t pan out than go all the way and lets get on Cash for Povano RJ and the rest. I don’t do that because you are trying to evaluate on decision making. And in some cases Cash has made the wrong move.
Wait it was George… is that the argument? Looks like Cash only takes orders so I don’t know what you are so in love with. The great negotiated contracts he gives? I think 20 mil for a couple months of Clemens was a bargain. Yep and Posada and Mariano were resigned for pennies on the dollar. Damond blew him right out of Boston - worth it? Farnsworth? The list could go on and on. He pays players to come here or stay here like we are the Royals. If we could get a GM that could negotiate a contract we would be so much better off.

http://www.bostonherald.com/sports/baseball/red_sox/view.bg?articleid=1064862#articleFull


As Brian Cashman walked out of Fenway Park [map]’s EMC Club yesterday, the New York Yankees general manager offered a final message.

“Right now,” said Cashman, “all is quiet.”

But when it comes to the Yankees and a potential trade for Minnesota Twins ace Johan Santana, comments from both Cashman and the team’s senior vice president, Hank Steinbrenner, suggest serenity is anything but the norm these days.

On Friday, Steinbrenner told the Associated Press: “Nothing is really decided at this point. I’m still leaning toward doing it. There’s others leaning not to do it. There are some others that are leaning to do it also. Disagreements within the organization. Nothing major, but just different opinions. I’ve changed my opinion a couple times.”

Steinbrenner also touched up the dynamic between himself and Cashman.

“I always told him, ‘I’m going to make the final decisions because when you’re the owner you should,’ ” Steinbrenner said. “He is the general manager, and he has the right to talk me out of it and he has talked me out of some things.”

Yesterday, Cashman, in town to support the annual Hot Stove, Cool Music charitable event put on by Red Sox [team stats] general manager Theo Epstein and twin brother Paul’s Foundation to be Named Later, offered insight into how decisions are currently being made within the Yankees organization.

“The dynamics are changing with us,” said Cashman, while serving on a panel discussion that also included Toronto Blue Jays GM J.P. Ricciardi, Red Sox adviser Bill James, agent Scott Boras, Hall of Fame writer Peter Gammons and Theo Epstein. “When I signed up with this current three-year deal, and this is the last year of it, it was with full authority to run the entire program. George (Steinbrenner, the Yankees’ owner) had given me that. But things have changed in this third year now with the emergence of Hal and Hank Steinbrenner and that started this winter.

“I’ll be honest, I’m learning as I go along, too. But it is different. But the one thing is that I’ve been with this family, the Steinbrenner family, for well over 20 years, so I’m focused fully on doing everything I can to assist them in their emergence now as decision makers. But it is definitely different than it has been the last two years.”

Listening to Cashman and Epstein, it sounded as though the priority was to focus on the development of the here and the now of their organizations’ younger players, rather than Santana.

“There’s a lot going on around baseball,” Epstein said. “We’ve reached a point with our situation, with most of the world championship club back and a burgeoning farm system which was just rated second in all of baseball by (Baseball America), we feel we can improve by letting our young players play. We don’t have desperate holes that we have to go out and fill at any cost.

“We can pick and choose what makes sense for us rather than being desperately in the market place.”

Cashman reiterated that this time of year typically isn’t reserved for slotting in big pieces of the puzzle, although, as he points out, the Yankees in past years made trades for Alex Rodriguez and Roger Clemens well into the offseason.

“I can only tell you I know where we’re at, but I can’t speak for (the Twins) because they have more information,” said Cashman regarding the Santana situation. “They know what they want and they know what’s on the table.”

Not so fast

Despite the perception that the delay in a trade involving Santana might be holding up other moves, such as finding a fourth outfielder if center fielder Coco Crisp [stats] is dealt to Minnesota or elsewhere, Epstein said that isn’t the case.

And this is a good point from another board about how Hanks is tampering again by openly talking about the length of contract he would give a player on another team's roster.

"(Hank) has now essentially said how long a contract he's willing to give Santana as well as that he's willing to bid more than anyone else for his services. This is undeniably tampering.

The fact that Selig is going to do nothing about a significant rules violation that impacts the integrity of the game (but apparently approves of Francona being checked by the fashion police during games) is infuriating, but unsurprising. "

Of course, Bud Selig is asleep again. Selig has always let the Steinbrenners (George, now Hank) get away with talking about players on other team's rosters that a Steinbrenner covets for Pinstripes

And this is a good point from another board about how Hanks is tampering again by openly talking about the length of contract he would give a player on another team's roster.

"(Hank) has now essentially said how long a contract he's willing to give Santana as well as that he's willing to bid more than anyone else for his services. This is undeniably tampering.

The fact that Selig is going to do nothing about a significant rules violation that impacts the integrity of the game (but apparently approves of Francona being checked by the fashion police during games) is infuriating, but unsurprising. "

Of course, Bud Selig is asleep again. Selig has always let the Steinbrenners (George, now Hank) get away with talking about players on other team's rosters that a Steinbrenner covets for Pinstripes

http://insider.espn.go.com/espn/blog/index?name=neyer_rob

People do take the Hall of Fame personally.

I don't. It does not concern me, personally, whether or not Bert Blyleven is in the Hall of Fame. Sure, it's unfair that he's not, and I suppose his life might be marginally better if he were elected.

But I don't feel sorry for Circle Me Bert or Alan Trammell or Ron Santo. OK, I do feel sorry for Santo because he keeps losing body parts. And for some reason I feel a little bit sorry for Tim Raines, too. But I think I'll get over it. I don't have a big heart, so I have to conserve my sympathies.

No, what fascinates me about the Hall of Fame is not the product, but the process. It's not that interesting watching superstars like Cal Ripken and Tony Gwynn saunter into the Coop as soon as they're eligible. What's interesting is how guys like Gary Carter and Ryne Sandberg spend years on the string before finally making it. Or how a guy like Jim Rice goes from 137 votes in 1995 to 392 votes in 2008.

Here are the six Hall of Fame candidates who garnered support from more than 30 percent of the voters this time around. For each player, the first row represents their percentage in each of the last three elections. The second row is the actual vote totals.

Player 2006 2007 2008
Goose Gossage 64.6 71.2 85.8
336 388 466
Jim Rice 64.8 63.5 72.2
337 346 392
Andre Dawson 61.0 56.7 65.9
317 309 358
Bert Blyleven 53.3 47.7 61.9
277 260 336
Lee Smith 45.0 39.8 43.3
234 217 235
Jack Morris 41.2 37.1 42.9
214 202 233

As you can see, progress is neither inexorable nor inevitable. Jack Morris and Lee Smith are basically holding steady, while Blyleven and Andre Dawson were down, then up. What's most striking when you look at the year-to-year results -- and I can tell you, this drives radio guys nuts -- is how many voters change their opinions about particular players.

Look at Gossage. Roughly 130 voters changed their minds in two years. Seems like a lot, doesn't it? But that's not even the half of it. When Gossage was first eligible in 2000, he got 166 votes. In seven years he picked up 200 additional votes. Granted, things have changed. Eight years ago, there were only two relief pitchers in the Hall of Fame, so you can understand how the voters might not have known exactly what to do with Gossage. When it comes to a Hall of Fame candidate, better safe than sorry, because once they're in, you can't take them out.

And frankly, sometimes the voters change their minds as the years progress. Aside from Gossage, the biggest mover here is Blyleven, who's picked up 59 votes in the last two years. But again, that's not the half of it. Not nearly. When Blyleven debuted on the ballot in 1998, he got 83 votes. He's picked up nearly 250 votes in 10 years.

How does that happen, exactly? Could someone explain that to me? The standards for starting pitchers certainly couldn't have changed much since 1998. Blyleven statistics certainly haven't changed much. He was actually stuck around 17 percent for three years, but began moving up in 2001 and, with the exception of last year's bizarre hiccup, hasn't stopped since.

You want to know how it happens? I have a theory. I think that your typical voter -- we'll call him Joe Voter -- doesn't do much research at all. When a player appears on the ballot for the first time, Joe Voter asks himself one simple question: "Does everybody say this guy's a Hall of Famer?" If the answer is yes, he votes for him. Otherwise, he doesn't (unless Joe Voter liked the player personally).

Thus, Joe Voter misses a great number of Hall of Fame-quality players the first time around. Facts can be powerful things, though. Especially when they're easy to understand. In 1989, when Fergie Jenkins first appeared on the ballot, he managed to draw support from only 52 percent of the voters. But you know, Fergie Jenkins won 284 games and five times he finished in the top five in Cy Young balloting. Two years after garnering only 234 votes, Jenkins got 334 votes and squeaked into the Hall with 75.4 percent support.

Did Jenkins win any more games in those two years? Did he show up on anyone's Cy Young ballot, or strike out more batters? No, he did not. He was exactly as worthy a Hall of Fame candidate in 1989 as in 1991, and today it's hard to imagine Cooperstown without him. If you were to hold a special election today, Jenkins would get well over 90 percent of the vote. Yet even when he did get elected, he was spurned by 109 voters.

Here's another, more extreme example: In 1979, shortstop Luis Aparicio first appeared on the ballot. He got 120 votes, or 28 percent. The next year he got 124 votes, and the next year he dropped all the way down to 48 votes! Aparicio got fewer votes than Roger Maris, Harvey Kuenn, Elston Howard, Thurman Munson and Ted Kluszewski. I mean, I know he was a great hitter, but Teddy Kluszewski? Aparicio got roughly a third as many votes that year as fellow shortstop Maury Wills (like everybody else here, still not in the Hall).

How did that happen? I don't know. What I do know is that Aparicio's support grew massively in each of the next three years, and in 1984 he cruised into the Hall with 84.6 percent of the vote. How did that happen? Again I don't know.

But again, it's clear to me that a great number of voters simply didn't do much work when Aparicio first appeared on the ballot, and were later convinced by those who did. And Little Looie is just one example; if you've got the time I can cite dozens more.

I'm not sure this is necessarily a bad thing. I suppose it's good that voters are cautious. Still, if you really look at the history of the voting, you do have to wonder how many Hall of Fame voters actually think for themselves, and how many instead just chill out in the echo chamber. Waiting for further guidance

http://community.foxsports.com/blogs/birk/2008/01/08/AL_East_Moves_to_Make


It’s been a while since I posted anything here. In fact, we were talking about the MVP award back then. In the mean time, a lot has happened on the transaction front. I’ve caught myself up, and now, I’d like to offer my opinions on what each team should do going forward. We’ll start with the AL East.

Baltimore Orioles – The Miguel Tejada trade signified that they were entering full-scale rebuilding mode, and given the state of their team and those of their division rivals, this should have been done years ago. With the Red Sox set up so well for the next few years, the Yankees not far behind, and the Rays on the way up, the Orioles probably need to set a target data of 2011, which means that 2B Brian Roberts and LHP Erik Bedard make great trade chips right now. When midseason rolls around and teams are looking for bullpen help, the O’s should come to the table with Danny Baez, Jamie Walker, and Chad Bradford. Of course, all of these trade dumps need to be made with rebuilding the farm system as the goal.

Boston Red Sox – As mentioned above, the Red Sox are set up really well for the next few years. Jason Varitek and Curt Schilling are the only starters that are guaranteed free agents before the end of the 2010 season. Of course, Manny Ramirez can be granted free agency either of the next two offseasons. The Red Sox hold club options for 2009 and 2010 at $20M each. Given the dollar amount, I’d suggest looking into signing Manny to an extension, but he is coming off a pretty mediocre 2007. Let him prove he’s still got the power in 2008. If you can’t reach an extension next offseason, exercise the first $20M option (is a one-year $20M deal really that risky anymore?). Repeat.

New York Yankees – Coming off last season, there was quite a bit of uncertainty with the Yankees. Alex Rodriguez, Jorge Posada, Mariano Rivera, Andy Pettitte, and Roger Clemens were all free agents. Four were re-signed, and Yankees’ fans nationwide gave out a collective sigh of relief. The Yankees are set up for another postseason run in 2008, but they might want to call up the Orioles and see if any of their relievers are currently available. In preparation for the future, Jason Giambi, Bobby Abreu, Pettitte, Mike Mussina, and Carl Pavano are free agents after the season. Maybe Abreu (and Pavano?) warrant extension talk right now, but given their ages, I’d be willing to hold off until next offseason.

Tampa Bay Rays – Do I think they’re ready to compete for a playoff spot in 2008? No, but 2009 might not be out of the question. Most of their position players arrived last year, and 3B Evan Longoria will be joining them this spring, and the rest of their rotation should be joining them soon. For now, sit tight, watch the youngsters, and get excited for the future.

Toronto Blue Jays – Toronto is one of a few MLB teams where I just look at their roster and go, “What’s going on here? Could they get any more middle-of-the-pack? Where are the impact players?” Coming back down to earth, Troy Glaus, Vernon Wells, and Alex Rios do all have the ability to make an impact on offense, but Glaus has injury questions and Wells completely fell apart last year. Roy Halladay and A.J. Burnett can make an impact in the rotation, but they have each had their injury concerns in the past. The real question comes down to this: “When you’re projected for third in the division, have no large holes to fill to make up the ground, and have several (not young) guys under contract for a few more years, what do you do?” I think it’s hard to say “blow the whole thing up” when you’re this close. The only sure-fire way I see to improve the team for 2008 is to find the largest (and easiest) hole to fill and get a star-caliber player. I think that means replacing Matt Stairs, Reed Johnson, and Adam Lind in left with someone. Jason Bay wasn’t a star last year, but he’s a guy worth taking a chance on in this situation (he’s also Canadian if that means anything to MLB’s Canadian Representative). I’m not sure who they give up for him, but the only other option for a star-caliber LF is that 43-year old HR king involved in a criminal trial.
I'll be back either tomorrow or Thursday with the AL Central.