I need help here.  There are two offers for Santana being talked about.  The Yankees are offering Hughes and Melky Cabrera plus another prospect.  The Red Sox are offering Lester, Coco, ss prospect Lowrie and another prospect.

What I don't understand is why the Twins may think the Red Sox offer is better than the Yankees.  In my opinion, Hughes is much better than Lester.  Lester is a nice prospect, but Hughes is going to be an ace in two years.  Coco and Cabrera seem close enough, even though Cabrera hasn't proven himself as much as Coco has.  The difference between those two cannot be a deal breaker, can it?  Are the other prospects that Boston is offering that much better.  Because if you give me the choice of Hughes of Lester, I cannot imagine taking Lester.  

But maybe I'm off base here.

Jason Bay has been mentioned as a trade target a bunch of times here.  Is it just me, or should we be worried about trading with the Pirates with Huntington as their GM?  Not worried like "they will take advantage of us" way.  But since he will know a lot about our system and prospects, the chances of the trading partner picking off a great prospect become more likely. I know that you trade to fill your own needs, but it is nice to "win" a trade as well, right?

Really, I'd like to restrict all future trades to Seattle.

Everyone is talking about big market teams as the only potential suitors for ARod.  Only the Cubs, Dodgers, Angels, etc.

I am thinking the complete opposite way.  Each year, the Pirates pocket $20 million or more in revenue sharing funds.  Revenue sharing is based on local revenue, and a team like Pittsburgh may not be able to increase its local revenue that significantly in the next say five years.  Specifically, Pittsburgh isn't going to draw much more than they have with a new stadium, and are not going to significantly expand local TV and radio contracts.  (Admittedly, I haven't studied this like Forbes Magazine, but it is not an outrageous assumption.  In 2001, according to Forbes, the Pirates local media income was $3.86 per capita, within shouting distance of the average of $4.35.  It's not like there is a big untapped market in Pittsburgh.)   So there may be a reasonable expectation that the local revenues may not go up too much, and that the revenue sharing will stay the same or increase over the next few years.

Now, one of the problems with revenue sharing is that teams like the Pirates, Royals, Brewers and Devil Rays put the money into their pockets (all of these teams are annually among the "most profitable", whatever that means).  So what if the Pirates sign ARod for 8 years/$228 million?  $28.5 million a year is their revenue sharing plus a replacement level player.  

There are a number of things that work with something like this:

 ARod just might go, since he's in it for the money and a lower stress environment.

 It would help baseball (i.e. Bud and the Union would be all for it), because now you wouldn't have all of us complaining about small market teams taking revenue sharing and running.  So the revenue sharing money gets put back into circulation as player salaries, which the Union would love.

 It would be paying the Yankees best player with their own money.  How fun is that?

Game of Shadows: Barry Bonds, BALCO, and the Steroids Scandal that Rocked Professional Sports

By Mark Fainaru-Wada and Lance Williams

I just finished reading "Game of Shadows."  Interesting read.  There is an awful lot of evidence in there, and it all points in one direction.  

I think one of the fascinating, yet under-reported parts of the book is the trouble that the US Anti Doping Agency (USADA) got squeezed before the 2004 Olympics.  

I am awfully curious to see what George Mitchell does.  Even if MLB has no authority to subpoena records, I bet a lot of the evidence could just "show up" on Bud's doorstep if he asked the right way.

I think all of the discussion about the Crisp/Marte deal brings up a bigger point.  In this current baseball economics, small and medium market teams need a constant influx of cheaper talent to sustain their success.  Even if you discard most of the Moneyball sabermetrics, you have to say that developing players and trading them when they get expensive, like the A's do, is the best way to ensure long-term success (as opposed to the go for broke, rebuild and hope that you can get to the top again).  It appears that the Tribe believes this.  So we are going to face more situations where we trade a good player for prospects.  And you have to give up someone good to get good players back.  

I want to be the first one to talk about the next big deal.  Let me look into the future...

Date:  January, 2009

I am in favor of the proposed trade that would send Travis Hafner, X (a useful player that the Tribe is slightly overpaying, like a RP we received in a trade or our current stopgap in LF or 2B), and Y (a AAA pitching prospect with a low ceiling) for the LA/Anaheim/Beverly Hills/LaBrea Angels' top OF prospect, a scrappy middle IF and a hot AA arm.

Let me give you the reasons why I like this trade.  Sure it is risky, but the Tribe should pull the trigger.  Everyone believes that the OF prospect will be an All-Star.  BA has him rated in their top 5 prospects for the second year in a row.  And John Sickles actually drools at the mere mention of his name.  At age 20, he set records for slugging percentage in AAA.  His control of the strike zone is tremendous, with a 3.0 BB/K rate.  He projects as a good defensive RF, with a plus arm and good speed.  In 60 AB's in the bigs, he hit only .200, but with 7HR, 4 2B and 1 3B.  He has two years before he becomes arbitration eligible, so he will be paid below market for the near future.

From the Tribe's side, Hafner has been a little nicked up the last two years.  He has averaged just below 130 games per year.  While this is not bad, we all know that sluggers can decline rapidly in their mid 30's.  Also, the Tribe has a handful of good 1B/DH prospects.  While they may only replace 80% of Pronk's production, they will make only 10% of his salary.  

During the Tribes rapid ascension from 2004-2006, they reached contracts with a great core of players.  Now Sizemore, Peralta, Martinez, Lee and Sabathia could be free agents within a short window.  Add to that closer Bear Bay (who knew?) and Cy Young winner Adam Miller, both of whom have not been signed to extensions, and will become free agents in 2009, and you can see it will be impossible to keep this team together.  C.C.'s new agent, Scott Boras, has already said that C.C. is one of a handful of "landmark free agents, who demand contracts over a decade and stock options from the team."  No one honestly believes that a pitcher will get a 14 year contract.  But Boras did get Detroit to give J.D. Drew a 12 year-$234 million deal, despite the Tigers being the only team interested in Drew.  The Tribe needs to get some young, inexpensive talent mixed in with their roster.  Even though none of these guys are paid more than they produce, the cumulative effect of these contracts still pushes the Tribe's payroll into the upper levels of league.  

I do not favor acquiring Jim Thome to play DH.  Thome only played in 81 games for the Cubs last year, hitting .235/.388/.375 (the guy could post a good OBP from a wheelchair.  Unfortunately, with his back condition, he might have to).

GM Shapiro told ESPN:  "It is unprecedented to trade a cornerstone from a two-time world series champion.  But LA/Anaheim/Beverly Hills/Compton/Orange County made us an offer too good to refuse."

Really, I understand that everyone loves Hafner.  But I think after the Crisp for Marte, last year's All-Star starter at 3B, and Westbrook for Gomes deals, and getting 14 wins out of a 315 pound David Wells for the league minimum, everyone has to finally give Shapiro the benefit of the doubt.