Pay 8 million for a guy who may or maybe not ever see the major leagues?

Changing the save rule would cost closers money. Right now they have a very popular cushy stat that they can pile up numbers with and cash in. Given how much impact the save rule has on strategy (managers usually bring closers in at the exact moment it becomes a "save situation" -- rarely earlier, rarely later), I would think any change to the rule would be a pretty monumental deal.

While I know you enjoy ranting about the big market teams, the Royals this year spent
- $5 million to Reggie Sanders
- $11 million Mike Sweeney
- $2-3 million on Jason La Rue
- $4 million Mark Grudzelanik(sp)
- $1.75 million on Emil Brown

All of those funds (or the vast majority of them) could have been allocated elsewhere. Instead, the team chose to take on proven mediocrity instead of the chance of being successful. Given a small market team has less opportunity to acquire top level talent (ie, they have to develop it), they have to take more risks - and they have the money to do it. The Royals are getting somewhere in the region of $30 million in revenue sharing, and like the Pirates, are one of the most profitable franchises in baseball. If they owner chooses not to invest in the product, why on earth should I feel sorry for them when they fail to make the effort necessary?

I never, ever want baseball to follow the lead of the NFL - at all.

Bingo. 5-7 years ago, we were told that Detroit was a small market team in the doldrums. the amateur draft is the cheapest way to buy high-level talent. Would one prefer today to pay $7 million to Dotel (which the Royals agreed to with incentives) or $7 million to Porcello?

I get what you're driving at, but I was happy as a baseball observer to see the Royals in the mix and trying to make things happen. Out of necessity, they went the "throw prospects out there" route and got burned year after year, and then watched as those prospects, now developed, were poached by big market teams. I think it's a good thing to see the Royals trying to improve the present quality of the squad, even if just to the level of mediocrity, because it tells me they're trying.

And they seem to have done well with Meche, so it's not like it's all money poorly spent. Also, aren't you stretching things a bit throwing out LaRue and Brown? Those salary amounts are chicken scratch even for the Royals. No matter where those guys play in the majors, they probably end up without that sorta money.

Considering the Royals still have guys like Gordon, Buck, Grienke and Dejesus around, it's not like they just threw away all their playing time to "mediocre veterans".

Why'd they draft the guy if they didn't intend to pay 8m for him? It's not like they couldn't see it coming. I mean, yeah, I know you have to draft someone, but don't take a Boras client if you don't want to pay Boras prices.

I dunno - they are paying LaRue and Brown the cost of veteran mediocrity, or 4A talent - the minimum salary in baseball is 300K. The difference in replacing those two with standard 4A players would not be significant. Isn't it better for the Royals to spend t hat $6 million trying to sign a few of the prospects that drop instead of spending it on another 33 year from whom nothing but mediocrity is viable?

If the Royals are runnin gtheir organization right, one won't necessarily affect the other. They should have a budget for both, and within the limits of those budgets, they should do what they want. I don't view the issue as a "do I spend this money on Jason LaRue or a top prospect", I view it as, "should we put more into prospect development contracts or major league contracts"? And I can't really fault them going with the latter (especially considering they have gone with the former a lot in recent history and it hasn't gotten them anywhere).

Once again "the money can be spent elsewhere" debate. Man, I've wasted about a million words on this over the years on this board so these may not be the most eloquent as it just gets tired. One of the talk show guys here in town laments that Royals fans (not casual but actual) are perhaps the most savvy in the game with regards to the collective bargaining agreement because we've heard it all, so here's round 47 or whatever we're at.

1) The Royals are *NOT* one of the most profitable franchises in baseball. Yes, some other teams pocket their profit sharing money. The Royals did it in 2005 when it looked like they had no chance to compete and made roughly $20M. They have also lost $10M in 2004 and $20M last year. Kansas City, as a market, just doesn't generate tons of revenue. It should be enough to baseball and would be if there was a fair CBA. But there's not and it isn't. David Glass is not rolling in money from owning the Royals. The value of the team has increased about $120M during his watch but it's not as if one can pocket that money if you're trying to sell.

2) "they have to take more risks"- You can't just manage a team like a text-based sim. You can't just tell your fans every single year that we're going to blow it up, go with quad A players across the diamond and hope some pan out. Somewhere in that lineup, you need some above average players- league replacement across the board has to equate to, what, 60 wins? We have heard the "youth movement" mantra in KC for 10 years now, ever since I've been in town. And sometimes they fail, see the 2000 team: great offense, but just not enough pitching. But, when you're constrained by the budget, there goes your window of opportunity and it's shut for another few years with your peak being mid 70's in wins.

3) Let's look at the players you mentioned. They fall into 3 categories:

A: Waste of Space- Jason LaRue and Emil Brown- yes, could have been replaced with quad A players easily; More importantly, LaRue is actually blocking Phillips from getting playing time and has a criminally low VORP this year (incidentally, there was a great entry at royalsreview about that yesterday). It has been argued that he was who pushed Buck this year and while Buck has a horrible batting average, his power numbers are up and he's actually useful. Emil was a quad-A guy and the Royals gave him playing time and he put up decent stats. Why they paid him arby money is beyond me and he should have been made to walk. The Royals didn't really have anyone ready to start but they should have let Costa or Gathright take some sub at bats as they both project out at 4th OF types. I guess those moves looked good on paper to someone but I don't get it.

B: Above replacement level veterans- Reggie Sanders and Mark Grudzelanek. Speaking of risks, there's Reggie Sanders- above average bat, decling fielding, oh, and injury history. This is a "risk". Sure, in hindsight, it didn't work out. If he had a good year and had been flipped at the deadline for a good prospect ala Dotel, it would have been a good signing. Same with Grudzalenek. Grudz isn't blocking anyone because the Royals don't have a 2B in the system anywhere, really. Got a gold glove last year so he helps out the pitching- there is value in that which a replacement level player won't give you.

Lastly, the mythical "replacement level player" is great in theory but you have to find the ones who can hack it in the majors. There's a reason why they are in AAA- they can't make it in the bigs. We've lived through the Calvin Pickering experiment, for instance. Projected out to a 30 VORP, hit .148, looked completely overmatched, and got sent back to AAA. The Royals have actually gotten lucky and had 2 in the last few years that were worth something in Raul Ibanez and Emil Brown. But there's a reason why Emil is AAA fodder, decent bat, can't catch a cold. It's the same story with most of these guys.

C: Mike Sweeney- It's always the same argument. Small market teams pocket the money and they shouldn't waste money. Well, back when the Royals had Damon, Dye, Beltran, and Sweeney- he was the one who took money and stayed in KC. It looked like a good deal at the time- below market for his value, coming off a and a win for KC. However, he's had horrible injury history and it just didn't work out. In 20/20 hindsight, of course, it looks awful.

Thankfully, I think the team is more on the right track with Dayton Moore than Allard Baird. I think Baird would actually be ok as a GM of a larger market team but he spent so many deals and trades trying to fit square pegs in round holes here. He was never very good with trades (tho Beltran for Teahen/Buck/Wood doesn't look too bad these days) to begin with- pretty good judge of talent but an awful poker player and constrained by the fact that he was always in danger of losing his players.

He is building from the inside, drastically increasing the scouting budget and number of scouts as well as completely reorganizing the front office for development guys. That is the type of money that's well spent.


Yes, yes, it's a great idea to give larger market teams an inherent advantage because they are in a big city. God forbid the league be fair. Because, at it's core, that's all this is: We like the big markets to have an infinite window of opportunity whereas the smaller teams can only get good for a finite amount of time before they have to build back up.

I don't know whether pissing away $7M on one player who has a low chance of being an impact major league player really is money well spent. Mercifully, the Royals signed Moustakas and it "only" took $4M. Now, if the Royals had caved and given $5M, that's $1M you can't spend elsewhere so that's why these games get played.

SI

So was Jose Offerman in the field for that Royals debacle last night?

Selig says disciplining Giambi would be 'unnecessary'
 

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2977294


Start cutting those checks Barry!

Cubs sign Zambrano
 

ESPN is reporting that the Cubs have signed Carlos Zambrano to an extension. 5 year $90 mil.

Tigers are calling up top prospect Cameron Maybin.

http://detroit.tigers.mlb.com/news/a...=.jsp&c_id=det

Big risk. Long-term deals for pitchers are inherently risky, and there are some reasons to be worried about Zambrano - his slow start this season, his lower strikeout rate, his downward trend in groundball percentage. If he stays at or close to his current performance level for 4 of the 5 years I'd say this deal was good for the Cubs. But if he starts losing effectiveness is a major way and/or gets hurt for 1+ of those 5 years, it's not going to look so good.

Not sure what I'd have done in Hendry's shoes - you look at the market precedent (especially following the Zito signing) and it's clear that signing an upper-tier pitcher (even if it's just on reputation as was the case with Zito) is a very expensive proposition. You can say "let him walk", take the compensation draft pick and spend that money elsewhere, but it's still an advantage to have a true #1/#2 level starter.

I think the ChiSox did better for themselves with the Beuhrle deal.

Yeah, Zambrano took at least $50M less than what he would gotten on the open market. All and all, Brian Sabean was a bloody idiot for giving big money to a guy who isn't close to being the pitcher the other 2 are.

Wow, think Zambrano be paid ~28M a year?

Sorry, I think Zambrano would have gotten at least 7/140, and probably more. Unlike Zito, Zambrano is actually a great pitcher - and he's only 26, so you're paying for what should be peak value on an already amazing pitcher. Now, his workload and abuse at the hands of Dusty Baker is a cause for concern, but in a market where Suppan gets $40M, Zito gets $120 million, Zambrano would have ended up at 7/155 or whereabouts (IMO). Now clearly, he may still make some of that money up, so my 50M is somewhat unfair, but I think its fairly clear he left a significant chunk of change on the table.

Brandon Webb is now up to 40 scoreless innings.

For perhaps the first and only time, I could not agree with you more.

And he has done it again. 2 hit shutout.

That's just disgusting in this era... what's Herscheiser's record, anyways?

Hershiser went 59.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/pi...&t=p&year=1988

What's amazing to me here is that Hershiser pitched five straight complete game shutouts, and would've had a sixth with any run support from his teammates. Instead, he pitched the 10th inning to get the record.

Webb...

http://www.baseball-reference.com/pi...&t=p&year=2007

He's got 3 straight shutouts, but he had two games where he came out after 7 with no runs allowed. If he pitches two more complete game shutouts and then gets the record in his third start, I'll tip my cap to him. If he has another pansy-ass 7 IP start, I'm gonna mentally asterisk his ass. ;)

Webb is amazing - In this day and age, I think he may be more impressive than Hershiser.

Baker's obvious overuse took it's toll and, frankly, after starting the year the way he did, I figured this would be one of those years that was a hiccup where he had an ERA 2 runs above the rest of his career and we eventually find out he was injured (ala Jake Peavy last year- he never said it but he had to have been hurt).

That said, Zambrano is one of 4 or 5 guys who have sustained excellent numbers for over 3 years now. I had a post earlier in this thread about the concept of a nameless, faceless ace and most teams who had to use "just" a #1 starter. Zambrano is one of a few aces in the game today (I believe I listed Santana, Peavy, and Oswalt as the others) and 5/90 is an absolute bargain.

Even if he does lose a step and become merely very good, it's not that much more per season than average to very good pitchers are getting these days and 5 years isn't any longer either.

SI

Rarely in this thread, I find myself in agreement with SI. In terms of #1's today (not the future), I'd limit the list to 8 pitches: Santana, Oswalt, Zambrano, Peavy, Halladay and Webb - and then add Bedard and Kazmir as the "almost" there crowd.

He might be a better overall pitcher. I won't argue that, because Hershiser's heyday was when I was still in elementary school. Love the guy as a pitcher, would love to see him make the Hall (even though he won't), but I'm not objective enough to compare them as overall pitchers.

But frankly, I'd be less impressed by eight 7-inning starts taking a guy near the record than by somebody just overwhelming the competition like Hershiser did in '88. Maybe that's not fair, but it is what it is. Going the distance in a shutout 5 straight games, and then pitching 10 shutout innings the game after that...that to me is infinitely more impressive than sandwiching a couple shutouts in between a handful of 7 IP starts.

Dola,
here's a debate out there. Irrespective of cost, who is the pitcher you'd want to control cumulatively for the next 5 years? Someone like a Halladay might not neccessarily be at the same level over that period.

My list:
1. Johan (big surprise)
2. Peavy
3. Bedard
4. Kazmir
5. Tim Lincecum (homer pick, but have you seen the K-rate the kid has?)

Here are the original posts mentioned. I forgot about Halladay originally and went back and added him. Webb I don't consider yet as this is only his second "ace"-like season. He's on his way and the type of pitcher who likely will be there after another full season of work like the last two but his peak hasn't been sustained long enough yet for me.

http://www.operationsports.com/fofc/...&postcount=887
http://www.operationsports.com/fofc/...&postcount=897

SI

Dola,

Let me put this another way. Drysdale threw 6 straight shutouts en route to setting the record in 1968. Hershiser would have done the same thing, but Andy Hawkins was magnificent in his own right for the Padres that day, and the Dodgers didn't score the game's first run until the 16th inning, which is I think also the first time all game they had more than one runner on base in any given inning.

The problem is that the offensive level back then was lower - in simple terms, its easier to get through a lineup of 9 Manny Alexander's as compared to 9 Manny Ramirez'. In 1988, the NL's league ERA was 3.35, and hitters hit .248/.310/.363 overall. Compare that to 2007, where the league ERA is 4.58, and the average hitter is at .264/.331/.416. Webb's level of achieve is at least as good as Orel's, if not significantly better.

Hmm, I am limiting this to my own team's #1 because that is what I know (so there may be others--Penny, perhaps?), but how do you include Bedard and Kazmir and not include Lackey? What about Carpenter when healthy?

I agree with your top six. Not sure why your "extra two" get the nod over some others, though.

I don't know if I'd throw Kazmir in there. He's been good, but not dominant and his WHIP is pretty high this year after it looked like he was getting control of it last season (though he is only 23). Total agreement on Bedard though. He's a stud pitcher already.

I think I'd replace Kazmir on the "almost" there crowd with Dan Haren. And also add Chris Young (to "almost" there), whose ERA+ is blowing everyone else away this year. That means the Pads have two #1's, but I'm comfortable with that.

Remember, the unbalanced schedule means that Bedard and Kazmir have to face the Red Sox and the Yankees far more - that's why I'm impressed with them. Their high K rates (Bedard especially is top 3) despite their divisions are amongst the reasons I think both of those guys are brilliant.
Lackey is a very good t pitcher in my mind - one of the top 20 in baseball easily, but I'd take Kazmir and Bedard over him without a second thought.

In 1988, there were also fewer teams. Is the 1.23 increase in ERA entirely attributable to an increase in the quality of hitters, or are hitters' numbers higher because of a relative dearth of quality pitching?

But that's absurd - it seems reasonable to assume hitting and pitching talent was roughly evenly distributed. If there is dilution, it ought to occur with hitting and pitching evenly unless we have significant proof otherwise. Webb is facing a significantly more difficult league.

Crapshoot - "it seems reasonable"? On what planet?

Expansion has added almost 50 new roster spots for pitchers in the last 13 years, and what it boils down to is that you're going to have between 11-13 pitchers per staff, five of whom are going to be starters. The six who are relievers are likely either specialists, or they're neither fish nor fowl - guys who aren't good enough to start and aren't good enough to be specialists, so they're called on to eat innings.

When you add four teams, you aren't going to evenly distribute the best pitchers to those four teams. They're going to get your #4, #5, and fish-nor-fowl guys, as well as young players who get drafted.

What that means is that you're going to have four teams that are relatively light on pitching until they can establish themselves, and what pitching they attract is going to be predominantly #4's and #5's from other teams for their first few years, unless they really splash the cash, as the Diamondbacks did.

Pitchers are also going to flame out at a higher rate in the minor leagues, because their value is predominantly predicated on the ability to get guys out.

Offensive players can have value in ways besides their bat, but a pitcher who can't get players out isn't any good to anybody. So what you've done is put mediocre guys on the four new teams, weaken the pool of #4's and #5's available to the other 26 teams, and oh-by-the-way, more teams are drafting (and thus drafting pitchers), which means guys who wouldn't necessarily have gotten the call in the past might work their way into the system now.

Pitching talent will never be evenly distributed on expansion, because the teams that have aren't going to let their new competition have it. Those teams will have to build it, and quality pitching does not spring forth, fully formed, like Athena. It's gotta get drafted, and developed, and that takes time. Heck, the Devil Rays and the Rockies still haven't really gotten the hang of it, although the Rockies have improved since the introduction of the humidor.

I've never bought the "expansion dilutes pitching" argument back when people were trying to explain the offensive era we live in. Like Crapshoot, I would think that the dilution would be equal in both pitching and hitting and thus across the board it would be the same.

Assuming with 26 teams and 25 players per, we had the top 650 players who wanted to play MLB playing pre-expansion. We've just added the next 100 so you've thrown roughly the next 50 pitchers and the next 50 hitters into the pool.

SI

I'll tip my cap to Carlos, loyalty must be very important to him. He left a shitload of money on the table.

I wonder if Boston can get a refund on Gagne

Have you, though? Highly touted hitting prospects are going to have an easier time hanging around if they struggle to hit than will pitching prospects, because a hitting prospect won't completely blow the game if he fails to deliver.

Look at Rick Ankiel. Guy had enormous hype, and for a while, showed what he could be. Then he completely melted down. A consistent pitcher, even if he's consistently mediocre, will have an easier time sticking than a great prospect who struggles mightily.

Guys who have the world in talent hitting, though, will get 19 chances. They may never really pan out (see: Dee Brown), but they'll get the chances. Thus, a hitting pool can stay consistent in talent despite expansion more easily than a pitching pool in the years immediately following expansion.

Put another way - you're grabbing the next 50 pitchers, sure, but their development is going to take time, so in the meantime, you're adding four teams with mediocre-to-awful staffs (because they get the leavings, not the steak), and you know it's going to be a while before their development plan starts to show fruit. For the other 26 teams, squads like the Rangers, where pitching just historically hasn't been a strong suit of their minor league system, they're digging deeper into an empty cupboard than they were before.

Zambrano's biggest argument for being listed among the elite starters has been his durability. When he pitches, he's not as effective as the top guys like Santana, Webb, Peavy, Halladay, Sheets, Carpenter, Oswalt, Clemens and Harden. But what he has over many of those guys has been durability - pitching an average of 218 innings (pro-rating his current season) and never less than 209 2/3.

Still, I think Zambrano belongs in a rung of starters below the elite guys - Santana, Webb, Peavy, Oswalt (guys that are effective and reasonably durable). I think he fits in more with guys like Sabathia, Lackey, Escobar, Bonderman, Verlander, Hudson and Harang - very good starters, but not elite.

There are others to be considered in those two mixes, but questions about their durability (Sheets, Carpenter, Harden, Halladay, Beckett) and/or age (Clemens, Johnson) cloud the waters. Bedard seems to be joining this upper echelon, as is Felix, and the question right now is will they be in the very good category or ascend to the elite category, and can they stay healthy?

Well, the Zito deal certainly skews the whole market. Compared against Zito, I think Zambrano is worth more. On the other hand, like Zito, I worry about whether Zambrano will start slipping in effectiveness. His drop in strikeout rate this season is a concern, as is his general rise in walk rate over the last 4 seasons and his drop in groundball percentage. The only positive for Zambrano in the last 4 seasons is that his strikeout rate was increasing prior to this year.

I would agree that if Zambrano stays fairly durable and doesn't lose much from this year's level of ability, he's probably worth the money he signed for. And it may well be that his big dip in strikeout rate this season is a fluke. But the other trends worry me, as do the visible changes in his delivery that suggest he's been battling a sore (or worse) arm.

I agree that Zambrano probably would've gotten more on the open market, maybe even a lot more given Zito's crazy deal. But the question I'm raising is whether Hendry has taken a smart risk with this deal. I'm leaning towards yes given the high cost of very good starters, but it wouldn't take much more than a blown-out elbow to change that in a hurry.

Different eras. Three shutouts in a season now is amazing. Its simply not the same game that it was 20 years ago. Hershiser's '88 season was great, but his ERA+ was only 148 for that year.

Offenses are also built differently now. In the 80s teams would load the top of the order with slap hitters and have a couple power hitters in the middle of the order. Today's game has power hitters throughout the lineup and a larger number of players willing to work the count. That leads to more runs scored and less innings for pitchers.

56 scoreless innings today is much more impressive than it was in '88.

And since we've been discussing the subject, here's my briefly researched opinion on the top starters in the game right now in order (and I'm sure I'll overlook some guys):

Elite:
Johan Santana
Brandon Webb
Jake Peavy

Elite (when healthy):
Chris Carpenter
Roy Halladay
Ben Sheets
Rich Harden

Elite (but age and/or injuries are limiting them):
Roger Clemens
Randy Johnson

Very Good
Kelvim Escobar
C.C. Sabathia
Tim Hudson
John Lackey
Dan Haren
Aaron Harang
Carlos Zambrano

Very Good (when healthy):
Josh Beckett

Young, but knocking on the door:
Erik Bedard
Felix Hernandez
Justin Verlander
Jeremy Bonderman
Chien-Ming Wang

We've only got one season of Daisuke Matsuzaka, but he looks like a good candidate to fit into the Very Good category.

Really? I think Bedard is significantly better than Clemens and Johnson right now - not even close. Heck, I would take Bedard over every pitcher in your "very good" list (well, Zambrano would be a close call).

Bedard is having a hell of a season, and his trend over the last 3 years is very good. I'd say he's already in the "Very Good" category, and the question mainly is what level of performance can he sustain. He's certainly flashing the ability this year to become an "Elite" level pitcher, and this season he's definitely one - I'm just waiting for a follow-up season to confirm where he belongs.

I'm not ready to anoint guys as "Very Good" or "Elite" after just one season - Chris Young is another guy having a very good season with regards to ERA, but his peripherals aren't as good and his big improvement happened when he moved to the NL and Petco. He's another guy that could go in the "Knocking on the door" category, as I want to see another good season out of him before forming a firm judgment. The big thing with Young is his very low BABIP numbers the last 2 years (.226, .234), much lower than the usual .300. Is this sustainable, is he one of the outliers that does have some ability to consistently suppress hits on balls in play? That's a big question that only a few more seasons will really answer.

Clemens and Johnson have been elite level pitchers for a long time - age is the biggest question mark with both. Clemens was the best pitcher in the NL the last 3 years. But his limited workload last year and this one, combined with his drop in effectiveness this year (moving to the AL or just age?) mean he's probably dropping into the "Very Good" category. Johnson obviously struggled last year in New York and has been hurt this year. Given his age, even if he gets healthy he's probably done as an elite pitcher, but could still be a very good one.

And Zambrano, as I listed, I think falls below everyone else on the "Very Good" list. Look close at the peripherals (i.e. xFIP) and ERA+ of the other guys as well as their trends the last 3 years in comparison to Zambrano. That's not a knock on Zambrano - he's a very good pitcher - I just think those other guys are a touch better.

I think this greatly undervalues Zambrano. Let's throw out the generic layman stats first as he has gone over 200 IP the last 4 seasons, had an ERA under 3.50, and over 150 K's.

But for the sabermetrics out there, an ERA+ of 136, 165, 131, and 136. That's 4 straight seasons over 130. He'll fall short this season, but, as I said above, I suspect he was actually hurt to start the season.

For that group you want to put him in, here are the number for 130 ERA+ seasons in the past few years (provided they went at least the 162 IP for an ERA title): Lackey has had none. Sabathia 1, Escobar 2 but sandwiched around 105/110/117, Bonderman's only ERA+ over 100 is 111, Verlander tops out at 125, Hudson- this year will be the 4th in his 9 year career, and this will be Harang's first.

For that other tier: Halladay is below as I think he is an ace and the only season he has only lost 1 of the past 6 seasons to injury, Harden's only season over 128 IP had an ERA+ of 117, Beckett's only in his third qualifying season and his first two were 119 and 92, Sheets had his really good 154 in 237 IP but hasn't pitched over 160 IP since, and Carpenter had two nice 151 and 143 seasons but 121 was his career high before that.

I think that to put Zambrano with any of those is really selling him short. It really undervalues his durability *and* consistency. Some of those guys have had higher peaks, look like they might be better in the future, or
And in some cases, people just pretend they were never hurt and fill in the gaps with favorable performances.

As for that top group (not counting this season)
Santana: 148, 151, 182, 153, 161, 145
Oswalt: 142, 149, 123, 141, 152, 133
Peavy: 177, 134, 103, 188
Webb: 165, 124, 124, 154, 176
Halladay: 152, 145, 116 (injury), 184, 147, 115

So, yes, he's not Santana but no one is. I think he fits snugly in there with Oswalt, Webb, and Halladay and is a good half step at least above all of those other guys you have mentioned.

If I were starting a team today, would Zambrano be the 6th pitcher I picked? Maybe, maybe not, because if I were starting a team today, I'd want someone who didn't have as much workload on the arm and I'd be weighing future potential higher than we are here. But if we're talking about who is an ace, using the metrics of season's past, he has to be in that top group.

As to your point about dissecting it from Hendry's point of view, I think that's a lot tougher because of the workload. However, if you have a guy with good performance, he's on you team, and he's begging to stay for well below market value to a team (and I think this is the big one) who has fairly big pockets, you have to sign him to that deal.

SI

T-minus 40 days until the Phillie's blow it........again

(this was kindof the discussion I was hoping would come from those first posts about "aces" but no one really said anything :D )

SI

I'd like to nominate Cole Hamels to the "Young, but knocking on the door" category.