Posted 4:50 PM by Sean
Here's a useful curative for those tired of hearing people yap about how much better baseball was in bygone times.

Posted 9:12 AM by Sean
The Angels sign Eric Owens to a one-year deal. Owens is basically a journeyman outfielder, who will partially fill the backup role that Orlando Palmiero had last year. The major differences are that Owens is right-handed, is used to playing close to full-time, has a moderately worse average and OPS, and much better speed.

Terms of the deal weren't indicated in the story. Owens made $2,000,000 last year and Palmiero made $1,000,000, but of course the Angels may very well have signed Owens for less than Palmiero would have been awarded if he'd been offered arbitration. Owens should be a decent addition - he won't be death at the plate, and his speed (in addition to 26 steals, he also had 25 infield hits last year) will fit in nicely with the small-ball ethic of Mike Scioscia. He'll be a good option as a late-inning baserunner, particularly if Alfredo Almezega isn't ready for the big club yet.

Before he's completely forgotten, though, I want to say one thing about Orlando Palmiero. After the games of August 13, 2002, the Angels were 71-48. The A's were 69-51, and had just won the first of what would turn out to be twenty consecutive victories. The Mariners were 73-46 and in first place. August 13, 2002 was also the last game Tim Salmon would play for the Angels until September 5 - an off day for the A's, but their streak would end on September 6.

In previous years, losing a key player like Salmon in the heat of a three-way pennant race would have been a disaster. Such things have happened with frightening regularity to the Angels; if you're reading these words I probably don't have to remind you of the specifics. But this year, Orlando Palmiero calmly stepped in for Salmon and went 19-for-50 (.380) over that stretch. On the morning of September 5, the A's were 88-51. The Mariners were 81-58. And the Angels were 84-54. Now, of course everyone on the team deserves credit for playing through Salmon's injury. But if one person can be said to have broken the "Angel curse," Orlando Palmiero has as good a case as anyone. So long, O-Pal: I wish you luck, I wish you fortune, and I wish you in the National League.

Posted 9:45 AM by Sean
With the addition of Cuban defector Jose Contreras ($32M over four years) to the pitching staff, and Japanese all-star Hideki Matsui ($21M over three years) to the lineup, the Yankees now have a $140 million dollar payroll for 2003. That's one-four-zero, zero-zero-zero, zero-zero-zero dollars, or well over twice the payroll of the Angels' 2002 world championship team. Actually, folks seem to disagree about the payroll - this New York Times story puts the number at $158M, and likely to grow to about $168M when they sign Clemens. The ESPN story puts the Yankees' luxury tax liability at about $7.5M.

Does Steinbrenner care about the luxury tax? It would seem not. Brian Cashman, the Yankees' GM, is quoted by ESPN as saying "The mindset is still for me to reduce payroll. Obviously, when the opportunities to sign Hideki Matsui or Jose Contreras presented themselves, it was time for us to make decisions, to move now and continue to work on cutting the payroll down the line.'' This explains Steinbrenner's physique; it's the same philosophy he applies to dieting. "The mindset is still for me to reduce fat. Obviously, when the opportunities to eat the cherry-cheese danish or the extra-crispy bucket from KFC presented themsevles, it was time for me to make decisions, to eat now and continue to work on cutting the calories down the line."

Ironically, Steinbrenner is one of the very few (if not the only) owners in the game to have the, uh, luxury of ignoring the tax, since his team has a huge built-in advantage in terms of popularity, the payoff for decades of dominance. So his TV deals are much more lucrative, his brand marketing is easier, and, as was the case with Contreras, he has a leg up on signing the most desirable free agents. The money being equal (and sometimes even if its not), free agents prefer the Yankees because they know they'll have a chance to win in New York. Occasionally, you'll find someone who offers a tepid defense of Steinbrenner along the lines of "well, he may be loathsome, but at least he spends the money necessary to improve his team." Bullshit. Steinbrenner spends money on the Yankees because he knows that a mediocre team won't cut it in New York - he's got so much money tied up in them that even a couple of seasons in which they're out of contention would collapse the whole thing like the proverbial house of cards. Admiring Steinbrenner for his willingness to spend money is like buying your local used car lot manager a beer for keeping the cars so shiny.

But the Yankees won't win forever - no team does. And when the collapse comes, complete with an apoplectic, desperate Steinbrenner, it will be epic, thunderous, and very, very entertaining.

Posted 2:03 PM by Sean
Looks like Santa left a turd in the Angels' stocking: Brad Fullmer was released last Friday. Perhaps more troubling, Stoneman is quoted as saying a couple of fairly stupid things, such as indicating that Fullmer is one of a half-dozen interchangeable guys available on the free agent market, and that he wasn't part of the "core" of the team. Now, keep in mind that the Angels might actually still sign Fullmer as a free agent, and released him primarily so that they wouldn't have to go to arbitration and risk having to pay him $5 million next year. So suppose they do managed to sign him as a free agent - makes for a nice, chummy clubhouse, huh? And who, exactly, is in this magical "core?" Do they have their own special lockers?

Anyway, apart from Fullmer, the guys mentioned in the article as possible left-handed DH for the Angels include Robert Fick, David Ortiz, Reggie Sanders, Frank Catalanotto, and Jose Cruz Jr. Let's look at what they've done against right-handers in the past three years, starting with our baseline, Fullmer:

Age-------AB-------AVG------OBP----SLG--------K----BB-----HR--------$
27--------1158----.302------.362----.546-----145---91------60------3.75M

(sorry about the crappy table formatting)

Now, everybody else on the list is also either 27 or 28, with one exception, so let's get him out of the way first:

REGGIE SANDERS
Age-----AB--------AVG----OBP------SLG------K-----BB----HR---------$
35-------964------.243----.312------.447-----254---83-----43------1.75M

Sanders would obviously be a substantial step down in every category except price, and his higher age indicates an increased propensity for further statistical decline and/or injury. He's also got a reputation as being death in the clubhouse. In other words, NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO...

EVERYBODY ELSE
---------------------Age------AB-----AVG-------OBP-------SLG-----K------BB----HR-------$
Fick----------------28-------842-----.271-----.336-------.457----127----82-----32----1.15M
Ortiz---------------27-------848-----.264-----.349-------.472----173---116----38-----0.95M
Catalanotto------28-------866-----.307-----.378-------.480----103----83----24-----2.475M
Cruz Jr.-----------28------1204-----.248-----.322-------.489----297--133----67-----3.7M

Looking at the numbers, it becomes clear that Fullmer costs more than the rest of these guys because he's flat-out played better. And, while just about everyone in the AL has a decent DH already, we now have to hope that the Angels don't have to get into a bidding war to re-acquire him, and that he can ignore Stoneman's boneheaded remarks if they do get him back.

Among the other candidates, it's hard to see the Angels shelling out for Cruz when they could get Fullmer, so he's probably out. Fick is slightly worse and slightly more expensive than Ortiz, so unless Ortiz is snapped up somewhere else, Fick's out of the running. Catalanotto hits better for average than does Ortiz, but Ortiz has a decided advantage in home runs and is substantially cheaper. So I'd guess that if Fullmer doesn't come back, Ortiz would be the next-best thing.

Posted 4:19 PM by Sean
After more than two glorious months, I got my first spam on the purgatoryonline@yahoo.com address. Two pieces, actually, including a breathily conspiratorial note in German that someone I know very well is dying to contact me for live online chat, but doesn't have the courage to contact me directly. Apparently, all I have to do is download their chatting software to find out who it is. Gee, how can I lose?

Anyway, I'll be offline doing the nog n' presents thing for the next few days, so no more updates until Thursday. In the meantime, have a merry Christmas, happy Hanukkah, kwazy Kwanzaa, or whatever you celebrate.

Posted 10:45 AM by Sean
The Angels may release Brad Fullmer rather than risk arbitration. This would be a mistake. Fullmer's the first DH they've had in a long time who was (a) content to be a DH and (b) reasonably good at it. They might be able to get David Ortiz, who was released by the Twins, to take Fullmer's spot, but I don't think I'm totally sold on Ortiz - they're the same age, but Fullmer's played a lot more games and seems to have established himself as a more reliable hitter (hence the $2 million difference in their salaries, I guess).

Posted 10:27 AM by Sean
Benji Gil re-signed for one year. Not much to say about that except "good." Again, though, it'll be interesting to see what happens throughout the year, with two second basement who both want to play full-time.

Posted 2:18 PM by Sean
Judge Kevin McCarthy has ruled that Barry Bonds's 73rd home run ball of 2001 should be sold, with the proceeds split evenly between Alex Popov (who initially caught the ball) and Patrick Hayashi (who ended up with possession after the ball came loose from Popov's glove in the ensuing melee). Personally, I didn't give a rat's ass which of them ended up with the ball. Two things about this story did catch my eye, though:

1. According to the story, "the judge made a point of saying that if he awarded the ball solely to Hayashi, it could send the wrong message to fans about civility in the stands." So the proper message is that being a brutal thug will only get you half a fortune?

2. Why not cut the ball in half? And not for some neo-Solomonic attempt to determine which of the two truly cares about the ball, either. I'd bet that the two halves of that ball would be worth more than the undivided ball, plus we'd get to look forward to some bozo with more money than sense eventually "reuniting" the pieces.

Posted 3:01 PM by Sean
The Braves reload. Likely 2003 rotation: Greg Maddux, Mike Hampton, Paul Byrd, Russ Ortiz, Kevin Millwood. Anybody previously arguing that the Mets or Phillies should be favored to win the East, please report to Joe's Bird-on-a-Bun for your complimentary helping of crow.

Posted 9:29 AM by Sean
Bad news for Cubs fans: the Cubs are suing the owners of the rooftop bleachers overlooking Wrigley Field.

If you've never been to Wrigley Field, or never seen a picture, or never talked to anyone at all who's got a vague notion of what baseball might be, part of Wrigley's unique atmosphere comes from the fact that there are thirteen buildings across Waveland and Sheffield Avenues that sell rooftop seats overlooking the game. They're generally rented out to parties at about $100 per person. They're unbelievably crappy seats - far worse than the worst upper deck, corner-of-right-field, crane-your-neck-and-squint seats - but of course at Wrigley watching the game is, shall we say, not paramount in the minds of some people. You can see some typical views from a Sheffield Avenue rooftop here, and a page that includes photos of the Sheffield and Waveland rooftops here. What started out as an informal, tailgate-style atmosphere on the rooftops has, over the years, become a fairly lucrative business for the owners, who have spent quite a bit of money installing professional-looking bleachers (in a couple of cases, they're even double-decked).

Now, the Cubs are looking to expand the bleachers (the ones inside Wrigley Field), a move that will block the view from some of the rooftops. This has touched of a good old-fashioned Chicago political streetfight, with the rooftop owners and the City seeking to have Wrigley declared an "historical landmark," which would greatly complicate the bleacher expansion project, as changes to landmarks have to meet various stringent requirements to ensure that whatever makes the structure "historical" remains in place. So now, after months of negotiations, the Cubs have apparently decided that they're not nearly loathed enough, so they're suing the rooftop owners.

The legal rationale here seems laughable. The Cubs are making two arguments: first, that the owners are providing stealing their product by providing seats to the game, and second, that they're infringing on the Cubs' copyright by showing the game on television so the folks on the rooftops can watch replays. Now, I didn't go to no fancy-pants law school, but even I can see some pretty big problems with these charges. First, I suspect they Cubs are going to have to do some serious 'splaining as to why, if this is such a grievous injury, they ignored it for decades. Second, someone should explain to them that their second argument undercuts their first - I mean, if the people watching the game from the rooftops need televisions to see the action properly, how the hell can you claim that they're seeing the same thing that people inside the stadium are seeing?

The larger issue, however, is that the rooftop bleachers actually enhance the atmosphere inside Wrigley Field. They're an utterly distinctive feature - no other ballpark in the majors has anything nearly as extensive. Along with the ivy, the hand-operated scoreboard, and the tradition of throwing back home run balls hit by the opposing team, the rooftop bleachers are what make Wrigley unique. Visitors coming to the park for the first time are always impressed and always find it funny. And Lord knows that Wrigley Field needs as much off-the-field fun as it can get, because the product on the field surely stinks to high heaven, most years. I can't believe that the Cubs' management doesn't realize that the only reason they consistently draw well is Wrigley Field - take the Cubs and put them in, say, Comiskey Park on the South Side of Chicago and their attendance would be cut 50% if they were lucky. If I were the Tribune Company (which owns the Cubs), I'd be thanking God every day that my team got to play in what will soon be the only truly historic park in the major leagues, and the last thing I'd want to do is screw around with the things that make it special. Because once you start getting rid of that stuff, the fans might get bored enough to watch the game. And when that happens...God help them.

Posted 2:10 PM by Sean
So I saw an episode of "She Spies," the show on which some of the Angels will be appearing, this weekend. It's actually pretty funny - it comes across like a spoof of stupid undercover cop/detective shows. The writing's pretty good, and the humor is bizarre enough that you don't know what to expect ten minutes ahead of time. The first scene of the episode had the three beautiful ex-cons who now secretly work for the FBI hanging in chains while interrogated by an evil mad scientist:

EVIL MAD SCIENTIST: I'll ask you one last time - who do you work for?

BEAUTIFUL EX-CON #2: And I'll tell you one last time - yo' mama!

EVIL MAD SCIENTIST (puzzled): Yo-Yo Ma? You work for the cellist?

Okay, so it's not The Kids in the Hall. It's still better than I thought it would be.

Posted 2:49 PM by Sean
Here's a pretty interesting article at Reason Online arguing - kind of - in defense of steroids in baseball. Not a position you see taken every day.

Posted 2:32 PM by Sean
Darin Erstad set records for consecutive errorless chances by an AL outfielder and no one realized it. Figures.

Posted 1:37 PM by Sean
The Angels are raising their ticket prices, from a median of $16.88 to a median of $21.28. That's still only the 17th-highest median in the majors. They'll also be experimenting with "variable pricing," i.e. tying price to demand, next year.

Posted 9:29 AM by Sean
Hi! Do you hate money? Want to exchange it for something incredibly ugly? Have I got a link for you!

Posted 9:13 AM by Sean
When did this turn into the Pete Rose blog? Anyway, John Dowd, who conducted the official investigation into Rose's gambling 13 years ago, now says that he believes Rose bet against the Reds during the time he was their manager, an allegation that has never before been made. Dowd indicates that he thinks that a more extended investigation would have found evidence to support that claim.

This seems to me to be appallingly irresponsible of Dowd. Look, either he's got evidence or he doesn't. If he does, tell us about it and let us be the judges of what it does or does not tend to prove. If he doesn't, he has absolutely no business speculating in public about what he thinks might have been found - it's ridiculously prejudicial and utterly useless from a decision-making standpoint. Dowd's a lawyer. He should know this.

Furthermore, the article seems to imply that the "evidence" we're talking about is that Rose never bet on the Reds when two particular pitchers started (the only one mentioned by name is Mario Soto). But there's a huge difference between not betting on particular pitchers to win and actually betting against your team. Maybe Rose thought those guys weren't very good, and didn't want to lose money on them. Or, granted, maybe he was betting against his team on those days. But "maybe" ain't nearly good enough, because if it is shown that Rose bet against the Reds, I don't think there's any penance he could do that would suffice to make up for it - betting against your team carries with it the presumption that you've tried to lose the game, and there's no coming back from that.

So if Dowd has real evidence, let's see it. Right now, he just looks like an ass.

Posted 9:06 AM by Sean
5) What is the worst transgression in baseball?

19.7% Betting on baseball games
20.5% Failing to hustle
31.7% Using cocaine
28.1% Using steroids

Total Votes: 48,546

This is just pig-ignorant. For once, Rob Neyer and I are more or less in agreement. The question of whether or not Pete Rose bet on baseball games, or even whether or not he should be reinstated, can be argued. But anyone who thinks that "failing to hustle" is the worst transgression in baseball needs some more time in the womb. You're not done baking yet.

Posted 9:22 AM by Sean
Pete Rose and Bud Selig have met to discuss Rose's possible reinstatement. We'll see. Realistically, the ball is entirely in Rose's court. If he admits to betting on baseball, it's a pretty good bet that he'll eventually be reinstated. If he doesn't admit to betting on baseball, it's a certainty that he won't.

One minor point about the article's second paragraph: "The sources said nothing has been agreed to at this point -- including whether or not Rose will be reinstated or regain eligibility for Hall of Fame induction." Major League Baseball actually has no control over who does or does not get into the Hall of Fame. The Hall is run by a private foundation (the National Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum, Inc.), and members are selected by those members of the Baseball Writers' Association of America who have been active for at least ten years. Presently, the Hall does not consider persons on MLB's ineligible list as being eligible for induction, but that's strictly their call--not MLB's, let alone Selig's. Technically, the effect of lifting the ban would, in fact, be to restore his eligibility for the Hall of Fame (although see below), but the implication that Selig has any real control over that is false.

Ironically, however, just as Rose may be moving towards removing one hurdle to his induction, another is on the horizon. The rules indicate that, in order to appear on the BWAA ballot, a player must have played at some point in the last 20 seasons. Rose's last year was 1986, meaning that he'd have to be reinstated within the next three years to be eligible for election. Of course, if blows that deadline, he'd still be elected by the Veterans' Committee, but given the contempt with which that particular body is looked upon by a lot of baseball fans, I'd guess Rose would vastly prefer election by the BWAA.

Posted 11:35 AM by Sean
“People ask me what I do in winter when there's no baseball. I'll tell you what I do. I stare out the window and wait for spring.” - Rogers Hornsby

It turns out that winning the World Series for the first time is good for an extra three weeks or so before I go into baseball withdrawal. Look, I know a lot of people get off on analyzing trades and off-the-field developments, and I also know that the winter meetings are getting under way. But let me tell you something - I've always been deeply suspicious of people who spend any substantial chunk of time thinking about the business of baseball. In the winter, there's not much else to think about, but dissecting the biggest blockbuster deal ever made is still a piss-poor second to watching the Marlins play the Devil Rays when they're both seventy games out of first place. This is why kids stand in their back yards, whacking balls over the fence and circling imaginary bases to imaginary cheers, instead of sitting in their rooms, slamming down imaginary phones and gleefully announcing the imaginary acquisition of a utility infielder.

Which is also the reason that I don't see the attraction of rotisserie baseball. Or "fantasy" baseball, or whatever they're calling it now. I mean, I understand the urge to compete, and I understand being a baseball fan, but rotisserie baseball seems to combine these two in the most superficial way possible. At its core, rotisserie baseball is more about spotting trends and making business deals than it is about knowing or enjoying baseball, and if you're going to compete at spotting trends and making business deals, why the hell wouldn't you just play the stock market and make yourself some money while you're at it? If you want to really combine baseball and competition, it seems to me that there are better alternatives.

Of course, virtually all of my friends are in rotisserie leagues, and they're generally smarter than I am. So it's probably just me being obtuse.

Posted 3:53 PM by Sean
A big thanks to All-Baseball.com for the link. That's twice that this has been identified as the Anaheim Angels weblog to read. At least until someone else starts one.

Posted 3:44 PM by Sean
The Angels' tentative 2003 schedule is posted here, although I believe they're moving opening day back to Sunday, April 29, so that they can be on ESPN in prime time. Looking at the schedule, two things hit me immediately: (1) it's a total meat grinder for the first month and a half. They start in the West, of course, so they'll have six apiece with the Mariners, A's, and Rangers, then their next twenty-four games are against the Red Sox, Yankees, Indians, and Blue Jays. I don't think the Indians will be all that good, but the Blue Jays are definitely a team to watch out for next year. (2) We did all right on the intraleague draw. The Angels will be playing the NL East except for the Braves (plus two series with the Dodgers, of course), and they'll have the Mets and the Phillies at home, while traveling to Montreal and Florida.

Oh, and one other thing - one of those delightful scheduling vagaries that are commonplace now that everyone plays an unbalanced schedule - the Angels don't play Detroit at all until August 15. As bizarre as that kind of thing is, I think the advantage of playing more games in your division is far more important.

Posted 3:31 PM by Sean
The Mariners sign Jamie Moyer to a three-year deal. When it's done, Moyer will be forty-three years old.

Posted 12:25 PM by Sean
Remember when Phil Nevin hit .228 in 75 games for the Angels? In 1998? Well, Nevin just put the kibosh on a deal that would have sent him from the Padres to the Reds in a straight-up deal for Ken Griffey Jr. Baseball, she is strange, no?

Posted 11:11 AM by Sean
Uh-oh. The Angels broke the Commissioner's Trophy. Actually, considering how it's configured, I'm amazed those pennants don't get snapped off every time there's a celebration. This time, six of them came loose. It's being repaired.

Posted 11:05 AM by Sean
Wow, Disney is raising the Angels' payroll from $62 million to $84 million? It's Bizzarro World! The article also includes a list of who's eligible for arbitration this year, and who's signed through what season.

Posted 9:36 AM by Sean
Okay, so Tom Glavine signs with the Mets, which, along with Thome going to the Phillies, prompts Rob Neyer to declare that the Braves' run of division titles is over. Me, I'll believe it when I see it. With the departure of Glavine, John Smoltz becomes the last player on the Braves' roster to have been there since 1991, the year they began their domination, meaning that the front office has managed to turn over nearly every single spot and still win. That's unbelievable, and enough to give the Braves the benefit of the doubt until someone proves otherwise on the field.

Meanwhile, Peter Gammons lists the potential free agents in 2003 and 2004. Not only do the Angels have no everyday players on the free agent market this year, they don't have any until 2004. So two years from now we have to worry about Troy Percival, Troy Glaus, and Garret Anderson. Percival will be 36, and hopefully Frankie Rodriguez will be ready by then anyway. Glaus and Anderson we'll have to see about. Of course, thinking that far ahead is a fool's game to the extent that there are so many potential intervening factors, but it's nice to have that security of not having to worry about losing pieces of the puzzle (except to injury or diminished skills, which are themselves enough to worry about).

One other thing I've been meaning to mention: when the 2003 season starts, Mike Scioscia will become only the second manager in Angels' history to have held that position on opening day for four years in a row. The first was Bill Rigney, their first manager, who helmed the Halos from 1961 to 1969. He'll also be the longest-tenured manager in the AL West, which is a pretty strange thought.

Posted 5:11 PM by Sean
So the Yankees' idea of a "youth movement" is to go after Bartolo Colon, who will be thirty years old in May. What will they do next, scour the Negro Leauges?

Seriously, Colon's a good pitcher and all, but the fact that he's a spring chicken compared to the rest of the Yankee starters says volumes about how much they're going to have to do to fix that rotation in the next couple of years.

Posted 9:07 AM by Sean
Darin Erstad needs hand surgery, but is expected to be fully recovered by the start of spring training. Sounds pretty routine. And apparently Mike Scioscia was going to go to med school if the whole baseball thing didn't work out - "He's hurt a bunch of different parts of his body before, so this is no different," he said.

Posted 1:37 PM by Sean
This story from the Associated Press, this column by Jayson Stark, and this other column by Jayson Stark bring back some memories. Essentially, all three describe how the Phillies made Thome feel wanted, so now there's lots and lots of love between them, so of course he'll be a great clubhouse presence and just what the youngsters in Philadelphia need to jell into a contender. To be honest, I don't care all that much what happens - if anything, I'm pulling for them slightly, if for no other reason than to make the NL East exciting - but damned if all this isn't eerily reminiscent of when the Angels signed Mo Vaughn. Mo, of course, is now persona non grata (more like persona maladicta, actually) in Anaheim, but when he was first signed it was tremendous - the Angels' first big free-agent signing since Reggie Jackson (just like this is the Phils' first since Pete Rose), a showing by ownership that they were willing to spend cash to build a winner, etc. All of the same things they're saying about Thome were said about Vaughn. To repeat: I wish Thome and the Phillies luck; it's just funny how things can change so quickly.

Posted 4:34 PM by Sean
The A's trade Billy Koch to the White Sox, and get Keith Foulke in the deal (there are other players, plus cash considerations, involved, but right now I'm just interested in the closers). Looking at their 2002 performances against the Angels, Koch had 7 saves, a .220 batting average against, and a 1.64 ERA with 9 strikeouts in 11 innings. Foulke only pitched 4.2 innings against Anaheim, allowing a .333 average against and a 3.86 ERA while striking out three and saving none (but not blowing any, either). Overall, Koch has been the more consistent closer, but Foulke has shown some talent and may improve. Just on the face of it, though, this is a good deal for the Angels, who won't have to deal with Koch nearly as often - both because he moves out of their division, and because they're not likely to enter the ninth trailing the White Sox as often as they will against the A's.

Posted 1:43 PM by Sean
Hey, thanks to John at TwinsGeek for linking to me, and welcome to those who've come here from there. If you haven't seen TwinsGeek, check it out - I want Purgatory Online to be like that when it grows up. Thanks also to Doug for letting me know about TwinsGeek in the first place.

For folks just visiting for the first time, I try to post at least once a day. Most of the posts are bite-sized, but occasionally I'll post something longer (like my post about going to Game 7 of the Series this year, or watching the Game 6 comeback, both of which are archived). Thanks for visiting!

Posted 9:17 AM by Sean
Scott Spiezio, David Eckstein, and Adam Kennedy will be making guest appearances on an as-yet-unscheduled episode of She Spies, one of those really awful-looking independent shows you always see ads for during afternoon baseball games. They're playing members of a World Series championship team who moonlight as emergency medical technicians in the off-season. The show itself looks like a Charlie's Angels knock-off, isn't affiliated with a network (it's supposedly on in Dallas at midnight on Saturdays on NBC, but is on various other networks at various other times elsewhere), and is obviously pretty stupid. But it stars Natasha Henstridge! Why was I not informed of this before?

Posted 9:05 AM by Sean
You know, when I first saw this I ignored it, despite (probably because of) how completely stupid it was. But now, more than a month after the end of the World Series, ESPN's MLB page still has the following quote from Joe Morgan at the bottom:

"All the intentional walks ruined the World Series for me as well as for Barry Bonds. I asked him if he was having fun because of all the walks and he said he really wasn't. It's just a shame. (Former Astros manager Larry) Dierker started that process last year and everyone built on it. It's a black eye on baseball. I don't know how you can change it though. There is no way you can control it really. It's one of the shortcomings of the game."

Forgive us, Joe. We didn't know that the point of baseball was to provide fun for Barry Bonds. We were unaware that the team with the best single player was supposed to win. We were ignorant, O Maestro, of God's divine plan to bring you amusement.

Posted 4:35 PM by Sean
The Phillies give Jim Thome a six-year contract worth $85 million, with an option for a seventh year (the article doesn't say whose option, but implies it's the team's). This after signing David Bell for four years, and continuing to chase Tom Glavine. I know they want to build momentum going into their new ballpark in 2004, but what's going to happen to this team in three years when they have Bell and Thome, both of whome will be in their mid-thirties, and Glavine, who will be almost forty, gobbling up that much of their payroll?

Posted 4:27 PM by Sean
Doug Miller, who reports on the Angels for MLB.com, has an offseason column called "Miller's Mailbag" that has some interesting tidbits, among them the fact that the winning player's World Series share was $229,351 this year. Miller also thinks that Frankie Rodriguez will continue in the role of set-up man to Troy Percival, rather than being given a starting slot.

Given that this is a guy employed by MLB, writing on the MLB website, I don't know how much faith to put in what he says about certain things. Most of the time he seems pretty reasonable, but then there's this answer to a fan wanting to know if money concerns are going to be a factor in the clubhouse next year:

"The Angels are a unique team because they don't let any outside influences or non-baseball-related thoughts enter their minds once they get to the park to prepare for and play games. Don't expect that to change any time soon, especially with Mike Scioscia at the helm. The players understand that the money issues will take care of themselves. They'll arrive for Spring Training and get back to the business of defending a championship. They realize how fortunate they are to have the team makeup they've built, and they won't sacrifice that for petty concerns."

Look, I'd love to believe the Angels are above all of those "petty concerns," and in all honesty I think they really are pretty focused on baseball. But these days teams are lucky to have two or three guys who don't worry about what they're paid, let alone twenty-five. This doesn't make them bad people, just people. It's going to make Scioscia's job more interesting, that's for sure.

Posted 9:11 AM by Sean
Here's a list of people on this year's Hall of Fame ballot. Slow year. I'd vote for Lee Smith, and maybe Eddie Murray, but that's probably it. When I have a little more time, I'll write about the Hall some more - it's a pretty interesting subject, and my life's ambition is to one day be the head librarian there.