Hot Stove: MLB Offseason Thread

[bigbean24]

Twins sign Ryan Doumit, 1 year $3 million.

http://espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/7251423/2011-free-agency-ryan-doumit-agrees-minnesota-twins-one-year-3-million

Finally the Twins have a decent backup catcher!

[mania]

Kind of a weird fit there, unless the Twins are really pessimistic about either Mauer or Morneau, because otherwise, I assume Doumit would DH most of the time. He can also play right field, but... you really don't want him to play right field.

[pmoehrin]

Kind of a weird fit there, unless the Twins are really pessimistic about either Mauer or Morneau, because otherwise, I assume Doumit would DH most of the time. He can also play right field, but... you really don't want him to play right field.

I think Twins are going to use Mauer similar to what the Rangers are doing with Napoli. Catch 50 or so games, play first 50 or so games and DH the rest of the time.

As for Morneau he still has two years left on his deal, but I would approach the situation like he's not even going to be there at this point. If you get him back its a bonus but you should not be do or die with him at first base at this point.

[lordsketor]

Justin Verlander wins the 2011 AL MVP.

[BigBubba]

Who the hell puts Bautista ninth and Ellsbury tenth on their ballot?

[McCall]

Who the hell puts Bautista ninth and Ellsbury tenth on their ballot?

Probably Keith Law. The guy's an idiot when it comes to award voting... or saying words.

[mania]

First of all, Evan Grant is an idiot. Please don't think his sycophancy for "the Face of the Franchise" is indicative of Rangers fans.

Secondly... Welcome to Arlington, Joe Nathan. Welcome to the rotation, Neftali Feliz.

[pmoehrin]

First of all, Evan Grant is an idiot. Please don't think his sycophancy for "the Face of the Franchise" is indicative of Rangers fans.

Secondly... Welcome to Arlington, Joe Nathan. Welcome to the rotation, Neftali Feliz.

So much for moving Mike Adams to the closers role as well who I think is a better option then both Nathan and Feliz as the closer. I can't see him spending another year as a setup man either. He's too good to be kept in that role. His ERA hasn't been over 2 since '08.

[DarkJourney]

A's stadium situation finally coming to a head:

Mark Purdy: A's and San Jose heading to final inning

By Mark Purdy

Mercury News Columnist

At long last, the A's ballpark drama -- which has lasted more seasons than Barry Zito's contract with the Giants and been just as agonizing to watch -- could be entering its final inning.

We've been fooled before. But this time, a resolution seems more real. Fans of the A's in both Oakland and San Jose should know the fate of their team's future home before spring training begins.

Can the A's relocate to the South Bay? The timetable for a definitive answer is mid-January, according to multiple reliable sources.

Here are the latest developments, all significant:

Two weeks ago, Major League Baseball commissioner Bud Selig and members of his so-called "Blue Ribbon Panel" met with A's executives in Arizona to address San Jose's ballpark plan. The city of Oakland's latest proposal was never discussed. The A's were requested to increase the San Jose park's seating capacity from a proposed 32,000 to at least 36,000. This would require no additional property acquisition, just a reconfiguration within the existing footprint. Lew Wolff, the A's owner, agreed to do so.

Selig has scheduled a meeting with the Giants sometime in the next few weeks to discuss the team's ongoing dispute with the A's over territorial rights to the South Bay. This move was first reported by the Fox Sports website and has been neither denied nor confirmed by the Giants and Selig's office. So it's almost surely happening.

At an owners meeting last week in Milwaukee, the Giants' plan for team president Larry Baer to take operating control of the franchise was unanimously approved by owners. The A's could have held up Baer's confirmation by enlisting seven other owners to thwart the necessary 75 percent approval. Instead, Wolff voted in Baer's favor after Selig recommended a "yes" vote. It is unclear if Selig, in return, asked Baer to be more open-minded about the territorial rights to San Jose. But that's a possibility.

An agreement between owners and players to extend their collective bargaining agreement through 2016, plus the seeming resolution of the Los Angeles Dodgers mess, has cleared Selig's plate to deal with the A's ballpark situation. Matters probably will come to a head at an owners meeting in Phoenix scheduled for Jan. 11-12.

That timetable also would mesh with San Jose's ability to place a ballpark referendum on the ballot next spring. Any ballpark proposal must by ordinance be approved by city voters. The mechanics of that process call for an 88-day advance notice of any special election, which would mean roughly a mid-April public vote. In 2010 when mayor Chuck Reed wanted to rush along a ballpark referendum, he was dissuaded from doing so by MLB, which promised to help pay for any such special election in the future.

The Fox Sports website also reported an alternate resolution to the ballpark quandary that would call for MLB to purchase the A's from Wolff, then assemble a stadium deal in Oakland before reselling the club -- or failing to get an Oakland deal done, MLB could move the team. However, baseball insiders say that Selig has never mentioned such a scenario to the A's or even to any others in his immediate circle. So it's uncertain where this "plan" originated. The Giants' first choice, of course, would be for the A's to leave the market entirely -- and if MLB owns the team when that happens, it could take the fall as the "bad guy" instead of Wolff.

You can examine all of the above bullet points and draw your own conclusions. But at the very least, the machinery is grinding with a little more purpose and energy. Wolff, reached by telephone in New York, was certainly eager to get on with it. He was also his usual circumspect self in terms of offering opinions about what might happen.

Wolff was most concerned, actually, about the notion that he and co-owner John Fisher might be asked to sell the team back to MLB for any reason.

"There's been absolutely no discussion with me about anything close to that," Wolff said. "We would certainly object to selling the team -- to anybody. That's not why we are in it."

Meanwhile, Reed said that he can't fathom how MLB would be able to pull together a ballpark deal in Oakland, where Wolff spent millions in pursuit of options that failed.

"I've seen the economics of a stadium deal in Oakland, and it won't work," Reed told this newspaper. "They don't have the fan base, for starters, which is one of the reasons the A's want to move. They also don't have the money and the land."

At the Giants' offices, Baer could not be reached for comment Monday. However, Giants spokeswoman Staci Slaughter said that she does not expect the Giants' position on territorial rights to change, saying, "We have had that position from when Peter Magowan was the president and managing general partner, and it will remain the same with Larry as well."

We'll have to see if Selig can wrestle away that position. Make no mistake, this is strictly about the Giants' ownership and protecting its investment -- and nothing else. Baer has a legitimate business stance in that regard. But do his team's fans really care how much money Baer and his fellow owners profit whenever they cash in on their shares?

It's pretty simple to understand what's happening. Keeping the A's out of San Jose would be an excellent outcome for the Giants. But is that an excellent outcome for all Bay Area baseball fans (who benefit from two healthy franchises) or an excellent outcome for MLB's overall landscape? No.

Baer and his fellow Giants owners are certainly allowed to put their own financial interests ahead of the game's best interests. But only if MLB permits them to do so. San Jose voters -- not the Giants -- deserve the right to decide if a ballpark should be built in the South Bay. Within two months, if Selig does the right thing, that will be the next step.

[dfwabel]

A's stadium situation finally coming to a head:

Mark Purdy: A's and San Jose heading to final inning

By Mark Purdy

Mercury News Columnist

At long last, the A's ballpark drama -- which has lasted more seasons than Barry Zito's contract with the Giants and been just as agonizing to watch -- could be entering its final inning.

We've been fooled before. But this time, a resolution seems more real. Fans of the A's in both Oakland and San Jose should know the fate of their team's future home before spring training begins.

Can the A's relocate to the South Bay? The timetable for a definitive answer is mid-January, according to multiple reliable sources.

Here are the latest developments, all significant:

Two weeks ago, Major League Baseball commissioner Bud Selig and members of his so-called "Blue Ribbon Panel" met with A's executives in Arizona to address San Jose's ballpark plan. The city of Oakland's latest proposal was never discussed. The A's were requested to increase the San Jose park's seating capacity from a proposed 32,000 to at least 36,000. This would require no additional property acquisition, just a reconfiguration within the existing footprint. Lew Wolff, the A's owner, agreed to do so.

Selig has scheduled a meeting with the Giants sometime in the next few weeks to discuss the team's ongoing dispute with the A's over territorial rights to the South Bay. This move was first reported by the Fox Sports website and has been neither denied nor confirmed by the Giants and Selig's office. So it's almost surely happening.

At an owners meeting last week in Milwaukee, the Giants' plan for team president Larry Baer to take operating control of the franchise was unanimously approved by owners. The A's could have held up Baer's confirmation by enlisting seven other owners to thwart the necessary 75 percent approval. Instead, Wolff voted in Baer's favor after Selig recommended a "yes" vote. It is unclear if Selig, in return, asked Baer to be more open-minded about the territorial rights to San Jose. But that's a possibility.

An agreement between owners and players to extend their collective bargaining agreement through 2016, plus the seeming resolution of the Los Angeles Dodgers mess, has cleared Selig's plate to deal with the A's ballpark situation. Matters probably will come to a head at an owners meeting in Phoenix scheduled for Jan. 11-12.

That timetable also would mesh with San Jose's ability to place a ballpark referendum on the ballot next spring. Any ballpark proposal must by ordinance be approved by city voters. The mechanics of that process call for an 88-day advance notice of any special election, which would mean roughly a mid-April public vote. In 2010 when mayor Chuck Reed wanted to rush along a ballpark referendum, he was dissuaded from doing so by MLB, which promised to help pay for any such special election in the future.

The Fox Sports website also reported an alternate resolution to the ballpark quandary that would call for MLB to purchase the A's from Wolff, then assemble a stadium deal in Oakland before reselling the club -- or failing to get an Oakland deal done, MLB could move the team. However, baseball insiders say that Selig has never mentioned such a scenario to the A's or even to any others in his immediate circle. So it's uncertain where this "plan" originated. The Giants' first choice, of course, would be for the A's to leave the market entirely -- and if MLB owns the team when that happens, it could take the fall as the "bad guy" instead of Wolff.

You can examine all of the above bullet points and draw your own conclusions. But at the very least, the machinery is grinding with a little more purpose and energy. Wolff, reached by telephone in New York, was certainly eager to get on with it. He was also his usual circumspect self in terms of offering opinions about what might happen.

Wolff was most concerned, actually, about the notion that he and co-owner John Fisher might be asked to sell the team back to MLB for any reason.

"There's been absolutely no discussion with me about anything close to that," Wolff said. "We would certainly object to selling the team -- to anybody. That's not why we are in it."

Meanwhile, Reed said that he can't fathom how MLB would be able to pull together a ballpark deal in Oakland, where Wolff spent millions in pursuit of options that failed.

"I've seen the economics of a stadium deal in Oakland, and it won't work," Reed told this newspaper. "They don't have the fan base, for starters, which is one of the reasons the A's want to move. They also don't have the money and the land."

At the Giants' offices, Baer could not be reached for comment Monday. However, Giants spokeswoman Staci Slaughter said that she does not expect the Giants' position on territorial rights to change, saying, "We have had that position from when Peter Magowan was the president and managing general partner, and it will remain the same with Larry as well."

We'll have to see if Selig can wrestle away that position. Make no mistake, this is strictly about the Giants' ownership and protecting its investment -- and nothing else. Baer has a legitimate business stance in that regard. But do his team's fans really care how much money Baer and his fellow owners profit whenever they cash in on their shares?

It's pretty simple to understand what's happening. Keeping the A's out of San Jose would be an excellent outcome for the Giants. But is that an excellent outcome for all Bay Area baseball fans (who benefit from two healthy franchises) or an excellent outcome for MLB's overall landscape? No.

Baer and his fellow Giants owners are certainly allowed to put their own financial interests ahead of the game's best interests. But only if MLB permits them to do so. San Jose voters -- not the Giants -- deserve the right to decide if a ballpark should be built in the South Bay. Within two months, if Selig does the right thing, that will be the next step.

Sadly, Purdy just ripped off a Ken Rosenthal story 48 hours earlier.

[Dexter Morgan]

Any reason why they don;t build a new ballpark right next to the one they currently play in? Other than parking would be a nightmare for a few seasons, just like it was at the Meadowlands for the Jets and Giants while MetLife Stadium was being built.

EDIT: Forgot about the Raiders, the A's obviously would like a baseball only ball park.

[DarkJourney]

The night life around the coliseum is exactly that great. Mostly industrial and a Denny's.

[epper]

This new CBA is very, very, very bad for baseball. Elite 2-sport amateur athletes will never choose to play baseball again.

[DarkJourney]

-

[mania]

This new CBA is very, very, very bad for baseball. Elite 2-sport amateur athletes will never choose to play baseball again.

Very much this. It also kills scouting internationally.

[Jigga]

This new CBA is very, very, very bad for baseball. Elite 2-sport amateur athletes will never choose to play baseball again.

Care to explain why? I haven't been following the baseball labor talks. Help a brotha out.

[mania]

They put a cap, with penalties for breaking in, on bonuses spent on draft picks and international free agents.

The problem is that the cap is obscenely low. If it's as reported, 20 teams spent more than the highest penalty (2 forfeited first round picks) last season.

[TFoA]

They put a cap, with penalties for breaking in, on bonuses spent on draft picks and international free agents.

The problem is that the cap is obscenely low. If it's as reported, 20 teams spent more than the highest penalty (2 forfeited first round picks) last season.

Oh God, they botched this one. I see what you guys are talking about now.

[epper]

This new CBA is very, very, very bad for baseball. Elite 2-sport amateur athletes will never choose to play baseball again.

Care to explain why? I haven't been following the baseball labor talks. Help a brotha out.

SB Nation's baseball blog explains it better than I can:

Many analysts with knowledge of and experience with the amateur draft strongly opposed hard-slotting, for three key reasons. First, players cost substantially less in the early part of their careers, even when their talent exceeds those of veterans. Limiting amateur bonuses increases that disparity further, without justification. Second, hard slotting penalizes teams -- particularly those in the rebuilding process -- that allocate resources away from veterans toward younger and more talented players. And third, it increased the likelihood that highly-regarded two-sport athletes would choose the other sport over baseball because the other sport offered more guaranteed money.

An oft-used example against hard-slotting is Minnesota Twins catcher Joe Mauer, who was a high-school National Player of the Year in football and baseball. Mauer turned down a scholarship to play football at Florida State to enter baseball's amateur draft. He was selected second in the 2001 draft and received a $5.15 million signing bonus, the highest in history at the time. Would Mauer and others like him choose baseball with hard slotting in place? Many scouts and draft experts believe they would not, thus reducing the overall talent level in baseball.

Full breakdown of the CBA here.

[FiddySicks]

Um, Mauer was picked first...