Welcome to the New Site: NYaT.net

I love this blog. NY sports and 24 with a comedic/over analytical twist?
I'll take one.

-Commenter "Parch"

Welcome (or should I say Namaste?)! If you've found your way here, something worked correctly. I want to apologize for the downtime you may have experienced with the blog. The forwarding should have gone a lot easier, but, alas, it seems nothing is truly as easy as it seems with technology. As you can see, we've moved on from "No, You're a Towel" and we're now NYaT, which was our nickname anyways.

But now, after a little over a year in business, we're refocused. NYaT now also stands for: New York sports and Television. We're going to give you about 75% sports (and most of that will be New York Yankees baseball), about 20% TV and about 5% "other". We have fans of all the major New York area sports teams writing for the blog, but we'll also get into national topics as well.

What spawned this? Well, we've been wanting to change the name for a while. Not because we disliked the name (hell, I thought it was extremely creative, and judging by the messages I've gotten since I decided to change, many of you did as well), but more because we wanted to continue to grow and evolve. Everyone who watches South Park loves Towelie but as a blog that focuses on sports mostly should have something other than a pot-smoking, army-built towel as a theme. And this week, with more visitors coming than we've ever had, we've had another rallying cry to change the name.

But we're not letting "No, You're a Towel" die (and we'll still keep the Twitter account for a while). "No, You're a Towel" was the original name of the blog because that's what we would say to each other when our sports teams would get made fun of, but over time, it seemed to have lost it's meaning. Towelie will still be in our name and we won't change a lot else. Hopefully all the changes will be to the benefit of the readers. The design will change a bit on the site and hopefully make it easier to read. The content will be more focused. But hopefully we'll begin to be taken more seriously as a sports blog, a process that really took off this week. 

And if you have suggestions, just click the "contact" link at the top of the screen and let me know. I'm technically challenged, but I've really loved blogging and interacting with the readers and I hope you enjoy it as much as I do. Let me know what you like and what you don't like and hopefully we can make this a place you make a priority to visit multiple times a day. From Ari, Ben, Jay, Sarah and myself, we thank you for making this part of your online reading and we hope you subscribe to our feed/e-mail updates (on the right), become our friends on Facebook, Networked Blogs, and Twitter, comment on our posts with your thoughts and pass this along to your friends. We hope you love what you see.

Thanks!

Guest Post: Another Point of View on Scott Boras

Our post on Scott Boras this week brought us more visitors than any other post we've ever done. It got picked up by Rob Neyer's SweetSpot blog on ESPN.com, David Pinto's Baseball Musings, Jay's Fack Youk, Jay Jaffe's Prospectus Hit and Run on Baseball Prospectus, and even made it to Camden Chat, a chatroom for Baltimore Orioles' fans. The comments, e-mails, and twitter responses were a mixed bag, but mostly favored my opinion.

But I believe that the point of the blogosphere is to have different opinions expressed--that way one can form their own beliefs. So in that spirit, after I received an e-mail by Andrew, a lawyer from Canada, telling me why I was wrong, I asked if he would be willing to pen a blog post to use as a counterpoint. Now, to let you know ahead of time, I have nothing against Scott Boras, who is--as Andrew points out--"Ruthian" at what he does. Actually, once I graduated high school, the profession I was most interested in was becoming a sports agent. But I did want to bring up what I saw as an appearance of a conflict of interest, in my opinion. Andrew disagrees and now I'm going to yield him the floor so he can tell you why in this guest blog

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Andrew and I disagree, but I thank him for giving me the platform to do so.

Ill-informed fans hate Boras. I don't understand why. The owners--you know, those kind folks with their anti-trust exemption who fought to keep baseball segregated and colluded with regularity--certainly shouldn't have songs sung for them. I didn't even take econ 101 and I know that player salaries aren't tied to ticket prices.

I am enthusiastically pro-market. Part of the market, though, is a paying talent what it can command, and thereby creating incentives for individuals to excel. One is entitled to be compensated for producing, and that's especially important when one's career is as short as a pro athlete's is. If I were a great baseball player, I would want to be represented by Scott Boras--but I would also understand what it means to hire him.

When one hires any professional, one has to determine what one's priorities are. Surely even the least lucid of us can realize that depending on where one finds oneself on that professional's food chain, one may have more or less access and service. I hope, for her sake, that I am not within the top 100 of my accountant's priorities. At the risk of stating the obvious, there is a significant benefit in hiring someone who is good at what he does. Being good at what one does is, generally, the result of experience and working hard. If one wants an agent who has forgotten more about free agency and negotiations than many will ever learn, then one accepts that this expertise comes at a price--this agent has a lot of other clients. If one wants to be showered with attention, one should find an up-and-coming agent with a tiny book.

I am confident that Boras tells the client, "I work a certain way--I don't give hometown discounts, and I always strive for top dollar. I win far more than I lose, but there is risk in this approach. However, it's the only way that I operate. If you want to stay with your small market team, the 'PA can give you a list of certified agents." What Boras offers, quite simply, is the opportunity for a player to maximize his earnings.

To force a pun, that's baseball. If one wants to sign early and stay in Minnesota or Milwaukee, one should pick a different agent. If one doesn't want to play hardball, one mustn't sign with Boras. If one has a change of heart, a contract for agency can be terminated. One of the results of Boras' strategy is that his players rarely sign early. There is risk in this approach, but it works a surprising amount of the time. Boras is Ruthian, but the Babe made outs more than 50% of the time.

In some cases, I'm not sure that there is any value in having an agent. Schilling obtained template contracts from the 'PA and saved paying a commission. If Mauer, wants to stay in the Cities, there would be a lot of merit to simply hiring a good corporate lawyer to negotiate and review the terms of his contract on an hourly basis. Even at $1,500.00/hr, and even if the process takes 100 hours, Mauer would still realize a significant savings over a paying a commission of a few percent of the total contract.

Alleging that a lawyer is knowingly and purposely putting himself in a conflict of interest is a serious allegation. I disagree strongly with Jack Marshall's argument, though I credit him for acknowledging that the issue is disputed. It would an unequivocal conflict if Jeff Moorad continued to represent players while running a team. He would be on both sides of the negotiation for parties that are adverse in interest. That is entirely different from a situation where Boras acts for two parties that are in theoretical competition, but aren't adverse in interest. Free agency is to a great extent a zero sum game. There are a set number of everyday spots that are open each off-season (though occasionally a team will 'make room'). While Damon and Holliday are both outfielders, I reject the suggestion that they competing with each other. Would Holliday have accepted a 2 year, $26 million offer? By all appearances, Damon was actually competing with Randy Winn.

The key to Boras fulfilling his fiduciary duty is that he advises each client of the risks of free agency, and of his style of negotiation. I cannot fathom that Boras doesn't do that, and the risks that his clients incur are a result of their tactical approach. Whether Boras represents Damon alone, or 100 outfielders, the risks for Damon are constant--someone else willing to play for less may take a job that could have gone to Damon.

The other live matter on the issue of conflict of interest is the fluid nature of being a sports agent. I can't speak for law societies/state bar associations of which I'm not a member, but Ontario and Alberta are quite clear that we have to distinguish to our clients when we are qualified to give professional advice as lawyers, and when we aren't. One gives legal advice when one explains the impact of a team opt-out clause for a pre-existing injury, as the Sox have in their contract with J.D. Drew. Whether or not a client is prepared to sign a contract with the full understanding of that clause isn't a legal question, it's a business decision. It's similar to deciding whether to give up a total money or years in exchange for a no-trade clause. I'd be very interested in seeing some documentation from Boras' dissatisfied clients, because I can't fathom that someone this competent wouldn't set out his advice and qualifications in writing.

The point that Andrew raised certainly warrants discussion. The real issue, though, isn't that "conflict of interest exist(s)" but rather that players should consider what their priorities are in an agent, and how much risk they are comfortable assuming. Certainty comes with a price tag.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thank you to Andrew for that guest post

The Yankees Top 10 Prospects of the Last Decade

Baseball America just came out with their top 10 prospects team-by-team from the last decade. It takes a look at where they ranked on Baseball America's yearly list and how they turned out. It also lists the best and worst draft pick by team for the decade. Here's a quick primer and then a screenshot of the BA list:

Baseball America's Top 10 Prospects lists are based on projections of a player's long-term worth after discussions with scouting and player-development personnel. All players who haven't exceeded the major league rookie standards of 130 at-bats or 50 innings pitched (without regard to service time) are eligible. Ages are as of April 1, 2009.

A quick observation about the list: the Yankees spent most of the decade developing prospects to trade. Some examples:

• Alfonso Soriano (#1) netted the Yankees Alex Rodriguez
• Jake Westbrook (#4) was part of the deal for David Justice
• Nick Johnson (#3) and Juan Rivera (#5) netted the Yankees Javy Vazquez (the first time)
• Javy Vazquez was then traded with Dioner Navarro (#8) for Randy Johnson
• Marcus Thames (#10) was traded for Ruben Sierra (the second time)
• Melky Cabrera (#9) was traded for Javy Vazquez (the second time)

Trades one and two worked out for the Yankees, trades three and four did not and the fifth on the list had it's good (Sierra's 2003 playoffs) and it's bad (the Yankees continuous search for a guy like Thames). The last trade is still too early to tell. It'll be interesting to see where this high risk, high reward class of prospects that Brian Cashman has drafted in recent years (as well as guys like Phil Hughes and Joba Chamberlain) end up on this list when it's all said and done. We'll have to check back in another decade to find out.

Lawsuit against the YES Network dismissed

As River Ave Blues reports, Judge Richard Sullivan of the Southern District of New York dismissed a lawsuit by Bob Gutkowski, the former head of MSG and "Yankee confidant," against George Steinbrenner III. Gutkowski had alleged that he came up with the idea for a Yankees regional sports network in 1998, four years before the YES Network actually launched. Gutkowski also alleged that Steinbrenner had orally promised him an executive position at YES, only to later renege on the agreement.

Judge Sullivan granted the plaintiff's motion to dismiss the lawsuit for a few reasons. One reason was that the alleged oral agreement between the two men is rendered unenforceable by New York's statute of frauds, which states that says certain agreements must be in writing. Another reason is that Gutkowski's claim for fraudulent inducement was not an independent cause of action from his claim for breach of contract, so the fraudulent inducement claim must be dismissed. And finally....saving the biggest for last....New York's six-year statute of limitations precludes all of the plaintiff's claims.

//Gutkowski says "oops," slaps self in forehead//

In any case, the merits of the lawsuit just seemed fishy to me. It's almost as if Gutkowski (obviously) forgot about the statute of limitations, and just decided to wait until Steinbrenner was completely senile in order to file a suit alleging that Steinbrenner made only an oral promise to give Gutkowski an executive position. How convenient for Gutkowski that Steinbrenner didn't put such an important promise in writing. How convenient for Gutkowski that Steinbrenner cannot dispute the oral agreement -- Steinbrenner cannot remember by dinnertime what he had for breakfast, let alone recall a promise he made 12 years ago.

I guess what I'm saying is, this lawsuit was doomed to fail. Sorry, Bob. Major hat tip to River Ave. Blues for the story.

Hot Stove Coal: Some Last Thoughts On Johnny Damon and the Yankees OF

While we say RIP to JD Salinger (author of one of my favorite books from High School), we also say so long to another JD--Johnny Damon. Damon's tenure in Pinstripes started with him shaving his caveman-esque hair and beard to fit in with the Yankees, included four very good seasons,and ended in a sort of odd way. Until Randy Winn was announced as a signing by the Yankees, I didn't think he'd actually be gone, but now the door has officially closed.

Some have been lamenting that the Yankees didn't pony up to bring Damon back and others, like Fox Sports' Ken Rosenthal, feels that the Yankees will regret this. I've always felt that the Yankees and Damon could (key word there) have used each other for another year. The Yankees could use Damon in their lineup and Damon could have used another year of hitting homeruns in the New Yankees Stadium to boost his numbers heading into free agency once again. But in the end, they just never seemed to click on the right price and Damon, Scott Boras and the Yankees divorce is looking like Conan, Leno and NBC as New York Post's Joel Sherman writes. And this bit from Sherman doesn't seem to help Johnny's case at all:

Damon called the Yankees in the middle of last week, and Yankees executives floated a one-year, $6 million deal with $3 million deferred with no interest. The idea was that if Damon approved of that, Yankees officials would see if Hal Steinbrenner would relent and increase the budget specifically to keep Damon. But Damon never responded and the Yankees yesterday signed Randy Winn for $2 million, closing the door on Damon.

Now I have to say I was always a fan of bringing Damon back at the right price. He fit well on this team, in this lineup and in this park. He seemed to keep the team loose and never seemed to be phased by the bright lights of New York. But this team never hinged on Damon coming back. Remember, before he stole two bases on one play in a game in the World Series, many thought he was a goner. Why would one play change all of that? Damon isn't getting any younger or better defensively and the Yankees goal was to do the same. And since Damon hit the DL for the first time in his career in 2008, injuries have not stayed away. Don't forget, Damon did leave the final game of the World Series because of a hamstring pull.

So the fact that the Yankees didn't go out of their way to bring Damon back is not surprising and as Sherman pointed out in a different post, Damon is to blame here too, as much as we like to blame Boras. In the end, Johnny D does deserve a place in Jason's IIATMS Hall of Fame. It was all about the money when he left Oakland, it was all about the money when he left Boston and it's all about the money now, despite his rhetoric about really wanting to play in the Bronx. He seemed to try to distance himself from a guy like Jonathan Papelbon--a guy seemingly uninterested in being anything but a hired gun--by saying he was really interested in returning to Pinstripes. If he was serious about that, he should have immediately accepted the Yankees 2-year, $14 M offer or their $6 M deal mentioned above--which may look like a great deal compared with what he may get. While Damon's expected value may be high, his marginal value to the Yankees was not, especially in a long-term deal:

The Yankees have entered the prime area of significant diminishing marginal utility. They are so good that adding another high quality player doesn’t help them that much in 2010, and because of the long term contract that is required, they’d be risking future flexibility to add wins that may actually matter for an upgrade that just isn’t necessary.

While I believe the Yankees are done with Damon, I don't believe that Brian Cashman is done with leftfield. Although three of the 4-5 bench spots have already been claimed (Randy Winn, backup C, utility INF), there is still room to add one or two more players. Might one of those be Jaime Hoffmann, their Rule V selection? Might one of them be Rocco Baldelli, Johnny Gomes, Eric Byrnes or Marcus Thames on a minor league deal? Might one of them be from the group of unproven OFs the Yankees have assembled which includes recently acquired Greg Golson, Colin Curtis, David Winfree, Jon Weber and others? We don't know that yet. But I don't think the Yankees are done just yet. And as I said in my last post, the Yankees roster on January 28th will not look the same as it does on September 1st. I'll guarantee that much.

Hot Stove Coal: Randy Winn and Tim Raines - Similar but Different

When the Yankees traded for Randy Winn yesterday, the reaction among Yankees fans was pretty mixed. Most were upset that Johnny Damon was gone and some were upset that he wasn't replaced with a more productive player--or at least one better from the right side. I wrote my opinion here yesterday and although it hasn't wavered much, I do feel that if Winn is really a 4th OF, it's fine, though not terribly exciting. In the winter of 1995-1996, the Yankees picked up a switch hitting veteran OF as well: Tim Raines. While Winn will never be confused for Raines in his overall production or career, there are some similarities there.

1996 and 2010 are very different years for the Yankees, but there are similarities. In 1996 and 2010, the Yankees were coming off of a year in which they reached a point they hadn't in a few years (the playoffs in '96 and the World Series in '10) and said good-bye to popular players (Don Mattingly and Mike Stanley in '96 and Hideki Matsui and Johnny Damon in '10). The Yankees, looking to fill a hole in the outfield, went out and acquiring a switch hitting OF who was expected to mostly play LF and hoped that he would improve on his previous season. Both OFs will be 36 in their first season in the Bronx and while All Stars in the past, their best days were definitely behind them. The Yankees were hoping for some leadership, some speed, and some solid defense from the veteran players. And for the first time in both their careers, they both had to settle in backup roles.

That's where some of the similarities end. When the Yankees traded for Raines in December of 1995, he was actually coming off a productive season the year before, although his speed numbers were down (hitting in front of Frank Thomas as he's winning MVPs can do that to you). Raines was brought to a Yankees team who managed just 50 stolen bases the season before and was expected to leadoff and run. But even he acknowledged that he was a solid, but not spectacular OF. The Yankees used a bunch of guys to man LF, including Gerald Williams, Ruben Sierra, Darryl Strawberry, Ruben Rivera, and appearances by Mike Aldrete, Dion James, Jim Leyritz, and Mariano Duncan. Although Raines was technically a bench player, he got the most starts out of that group in LF.

Randy Winn won't be confused with Tim Raines on the basepaths, but he actually has developed into a very reliable baserunner. He's successful 71.3 % over his career (209/293) but in the last three years, he's been excellent at 88.9% (56 out of 63). Tim Raines stole 808 bases over his career at a 84.7% clip and Brett Gardner--the Yankees current speedster--runs at an 86.7% clip. Winn even referenced Raines' efficiency on the basepaths in a 2008 interview.

I think that what Winn will allow Girardi to do is to have a bench player he feels comfortable using as a pinch runner (something that I think kept Gardner on the bench last season more than needed) and a defensive replacement in the OF (for Nick Swisher in the late innings). Winn can provide a day off at times to the three OF and allow everyone there to stay fresh and give Girardi a solid bench player that he lacked last season until Jerry Hairston, Jr and Eric Hinske showed up. And as Steven Goldman of Pinstriped Bible pointed out as one of his (few) positives of the Winn signing, an OF of Granderson, Gardner and Winn on a day a flyball pitcher like Javy Vazquez is pitching would be very good defensively.

And for $2 M, it's a solid bet for Winn that he could have a bounceback year--as FanGraphs shows has been predicted--especially hitting in a better lineup. And if not, it's only $2 M for a guy who, as I said, can provide much more than just his bat. As River Avenue Blues points out, we can basically expect Melky Cabrera's 2009 production from Randy Winn in 2010 and pay less to get it.

The truth is that Gardner never needed a platoon as Chad Jennings wrote for LoHud today, but if Winn can show a little more against lefties, he could spell Curtis Granderson every once in a while against a tough lefty like Jon Lester or Cliff Lee and give the Yankees solid production. I would have rather had--in some ways--Reed Johnson or Rocco Baldelli, but judging by the contract that Xavier Nady got after not playing for a whole year, it may have cost much more to bring them in. And let's be honest, the Yankee roster on January 28th is not going to be the Yankees roster on September 1st.

As much as I'm upset to see Johnny Damon go, I am equally as anxious to see what Brett Gardner can do every day as a starter and I'm happy the Yankees have a player on the bench who is capable of starting every day if Gardner can't cut it (or if an OF gets hurt). The Yankees can go out and trade for an OF bat if they need it. But the Yankees of the 90s won with guys like Raines, Chad Curtis, Ricky Ledee and others manning LF. Sometimes you need a gritty guy in your lineup and GGBG is certainly that.

As some have pointed out, Randy Winn is an older version of Brett Gardner in some ways. But having more guys like this on the team is not necessarily a bad thing, as long as Girardi uses them correctly. And if he does, we could be looking back on Winn's tenure in the Bronx with the same fondness we recall from Raines. In 1996, Raines made the World Series for the first time in his career; let's hope the same thing occurs for Randy Winn.

Update: Ed Price of FanHouse asked on Twitter: @ed_price: Would you trade Damon, Matsui, Melky, Coke for Granderson, Javy Vazquez, Nick Johnson, Winn? #Yankees

I have to say yes to that, though there positives and negatives of each (and health/performance in 2010 will go a long way to determining whether this is good or bad). The Yankees traded other prospects to get that done, but for additions/subtractions from a Major League lineup, I think you have to like that deal. What are your thoughts?

Hot Stove Coal: Randy Winn to the Yankees

After all that debating, it looks like the Yankees' search for an outfielder is over. Joel Sherman of the New York Post tweets that the Yankees have agreed to a one-year deal with free agent Randy Winn saying "@nyp_joelsherman: #Yankees considered Winn a better overall player than Reed Johnson, though Winn is not a good hitter from RH side".

Um, wasn't that the point of whoever they got (being able to hit lefites)? Now they have Curtis Granderson, Brett Gardner and Randy Winn who are all not good against lefties. Here's what I wrote about Randy Winn a few weeks ago (click on the link to read my opinion of the other candidates):

Randy Winn: 

• Pros: From 2002-08, posted .294/.350/.440 line. Career UZR of 48.5 in the OF in 12,968 innings. Professional player and veteran presence who can still play all three OF positions. Posted WAR of 2.7 or better in 6 of 7 seasons from 2002-2008.
• Cons: Brutal season with the bat last year. Only .758 career OPS vs. lefties. 

I would have listed "old" as a con (he'll be 36 next season), but I think that may go without saying with Winn. And there is concern among some that his brutal season with the bat last year may be more about his decline than anything else. Winn is a really good defensive OF and projects to be the same way next year (though you wonder with his projections much better in RF and Swisher's better in LF, whether they consider switching them when they both play the OF...but I doubt it). But you wonder if he will see some decline in the OF as well.

Sherman followed up by saying that Winn will get the $2 M that the Yankees had allocated to the 4th OF spot.  So it's not a horrible contract. But it takes up a spot on the roster that I think could have been better used.

I think it's now officially time to say good-bye to Johnny Damon. We will miss you in the Bronx. And welcome to Randy Winn, a professional player who will fit in, but may need to find a way to start hitting righties. I'm really hoping that Winn's Major-League high streak of 1601 games played without a postseason appearance will end this season. And I hope the Yankees made the right decision by going with Winn.

Update: Just added his wOBA from FanGraphs vs. lefties and righties. He was BRUTAL against lefties last year:

Hot Stove Coal: Scott Boras Has a Clear Conflict of Interest With Johnny Damon

"And suddenly it was all pretty clear. The answer was fewer clients. Caring for them, caring for ourselves, and the games too. Starting our lives, really." - Jerry Maguire

Johnny Damon is having a bad off-season. Originally looking for a 4-year deal at $10 M+ a year, Damon seems as he will have to settle for a one-year deal at around $5 M. For a guy that made $13 M a season the past 4 seasons, this is a huge drop in earnings. I know most won't feel bad for Damon--he will make over $100 M just from playing baseball, his Sanford investment losses notwithstanding--but the fact is that he should have been paid more this off-season and may have gotten it had he had another agent. Scott Boras may be the best agent in the business, but unless a player is a top free agent, they may get lost in the Boras shuffle. That's why I feel that Damon should not have relied on Scott Boras this past winter and may pay big time for doing so.

Matt Holliday and Johnny Damon were two out of the best three outfielders (and probably in the top-5 of all positional players) on the market. Scott Boras has both OFs as clients. Matt Holliday--like Boras client Mark Teixeira the year before and Alex Rodriguez two years ago--received top dollar to sign. Boras created a market out of no place for both A-Rod and Holliday and made the teams that signed them almost bid against themselves. He walked away with a hefty payday because his best clients got paid. They always seem to get paid. It's his medium- and lower-profile clients that get shafted. As Craig Calcaterra of NBC Sports wrote:

Ultimately I think Boras' biggest mistakes come in the smallest of places, not these high profile affairs. Places like Johnny Damon's contract this year, whatever it will be. In the welfare of his lower-profile clients like Joe Crede and Hank Blalock and Jarrod Washburn who likely have to deal with (a) an aversion on the part of front offices to deal with them because of who their agent is; and (b) the fact that they cannot possibly rate in the top ten of Scott Boras' daily priorities given the other guys he represents, even before taking arguable conflicts of interest into account.

Ah, and how about that conflict of interest? Let's talk a bit about that because I think that's in the heart of the matter. Let's say the Cardinals showed a great interest in signing Damon this winter instead of Holliday. Let's say they offered Damon 3-years and $30 M which is way above what anyone else is offering. Let's say that Damon was happy to go to the Cardinals and he wanted badly to sign. Why wouldn't Boras want to sign this contract for his client? Because it would hurt Holliday which would hurt Boras' wallet. The same would be true if Damon had signed early (pre-Nick Johnson signing) for 2-years and $20 M with the Yankees, a team he seemed to want to return to and had a true fit.

Why is this? Well if Damon would have signed with the Cardinals, who would be offering $120 M for Holliday? Not the Mets who got Jason Bay for about half that. Not the Yankees who weren't in on Holliday at all. Not the Red Sox who seemed to value inexpensive defensive upgrades like Mike Cameron. Not the Tigers, As, Braves, Cubs or any other team looking for a cheap alternative in LF.

And if Damon signed for $10 M a season for two seasons with the Yankees before Holliday signed (a possibility at the time), it may have set the market for leftfielders in the market. The Cardinals may have said: "well, we like Matt, but he's not worth $120 and we know the Yankees aren't going to outbid us. Jason Bay looks like he'll get a maximum of $70 and we believe Holliday is better so we'll offer you $80 M for 5." Can Boras really say no? What leverage does he have in this situation? Maybe he could get it up another $10 M, but that's still $30 M less than what he signed for (and less money dedicated to older years).

Now why does this hurt Scott Boras? It's simple math. Let's say that Boras makes 5% for all his services to his clients (totally made up number). And let's say that he signs Holliday for $120 M but Damon only gets $5 M (a realistic view right now). That's $125 M for his clients so a nice payday of $6.25 M for Boras and co. If Damon signs early for $20 M and Holliday signs for $90 M (the high in our example), that's $110 M for his clients so only $5.5 M for the agency*. That's not even counting the lesser OFs he reps who could have made more money in other places if the jobs had been left open.

*Side Note: Even if Damon had gone back at one-year and $10 M early in the off-season his long-term value may still have been higher. Even though he'd be a year older, he'd potentially be hitting the market after two seasons of hitting homeruns in the rightfield wind tunnel at Yankee Stadium and could hit the market again with those inflated numbers. Damon is subpar fielder but I think here was the ultimate E-7 for Damon and Boras

The truth is that in this environment, I don't blame Boras for steering certain clients to certain teams. I have a Masters in economics but anyone who took Econ 101 will know that this is called "Opportunity Cost". Investopedia defines opportunity cost as: "The cost of an alternative that must be forgone in order to pursue a certain action. Put another way, the benefits you could have received by taking an alternative action." The opportunity cost of finding Damon a contract early was that Holliday and Boras would suffer. Boras goes to where the greatest amount of money sits, creates a market for his client, inflates his stats, and finds a way to get his top guys, top dollars. When Damon was a free agent 4 years ago, he did the same thing with him. This year, though, he doesn't have the leverage (because of the economy, Damon's age/defense, the lack of George Steinbrenner, and team's needs) and I don't believe he has the time. That's why I quoted the Jerry Maguire mission statement/memo and mostly this part: The answer was fewer clients. Caring for them.

But a true conflict of interest lies here as well. Jimmy Scott's High and Tight talks about former major league catcher Craig Paquette who switched agents from Boras when he felt he wasn't getting the attention he deserved and felt there was a conflict of interest. Scott says, in the agents defense:

Now the agent is going to deny there's a conflict of interest.  He'll talk about his fiduciary duty to his client, stating he's actually putting the interests of his clients above his own.  And, from his perspective, he's probably trying to do that.  An agent's job is to get his clients jobs, first and foremost.

Yes, that is true, but his job is also to get his client the best deal possible. Andruw Jones and Alex Rodriguez (supposedly) both went around Boras when they felt they needed to speak for themselves and sign with the team with which they wanted to sign. Former Yankee pitcher Brian Boehringer, within that same Scott article says that he's appealed to the MLB Player's Assocaition to regulate or at least look into this issue (he says they have not because he is not a "Alex Rodriguez or Derek Jeter"). And Jack Marshall of Hardball Times says that the legal profession has something to say about it as well:

I regard Boras’ activity as an agent as the practice of law, though this is an unsettled matter and not all legal ethicists agree. A non-lawyer can be an agent, but the role of sports agent is one of several hybrid roles, including lobbying and estate and tax planning, that are often regarded as the practice of law when performed by a lawyer. And if the agent ever gives legal advice—and it strains credulity to believe that Boras does not—then there is no doubt: the agent is, for all intents and purposes, acting as a lawyer. As a lawyer, he is bound by the lawyer’s ethics rules.

As a lawyer, Scott Boras is absolutely violating the conflict of interest rules. He is defying a basic conflict problem called the Zero-Sum Conflict...

The remedy for conflicts of interest is often informed consent. If both clients completely understand the implications of hiring the same lawyer to sue the same client with limited resources, can’t they just decide to trust the lawyer and hire you anyway?

The answer is no. The Model Rules of Professional Conduct for lawyers, specifically Rule 1.7, declare that the waiver of all parties is sufficient to waive the conflict only if the lawyer reasonably believes that the representation of one client won’t interfere with the representation of the other. In this situation, you can’t reasonably believe that, because it is impossible. To the extent that you help one client, you hurt the other. It is an unwaivable conflict.

Marshall draws the conclusion that an obvious conflict of interest exists, but I went to our on-site Legal expert--newly-sworn-in lawyer, Jay--for some clarification and thoughts (his emphasis, not mine):

RPC 1.7 would still apply. In this case, we know that Boras represents both Damon and Holliday. Therefore, this arrangement would qualify as a concurrent conflict of interest under Rule 1.7(a)(2) because "there is a significant risk that the representation of one or more clients [Holliday] will be materially limited by the lawyer's responsibilities to another client [Damon], a former client or a third person . . ."

However, it may or may not be unethical, in light of Rule 1.7(b), which states that "Notwithstanding the existence of a concurrent conflict of interest under subsection (a), a lawyer may represent a client..." if 4 things are established:

(1) the lawyer reasonably believes that the lawyer will be able to provide competent and diligent representation to each affected client;
(2) the representation is not prohibited by law;
(3) the representation does not involve the assertion of a claim by one client against another client represented by the lawyer in the same litigation or the same proceeding before any tribunal; and
(4) each affected client gives informed consent, confirmed in writing.

It really is a judgment call. Does Boras reasonably believe that he can provide competent and diligent representation to both Damon & Holliday, in this free agent market in 2010? Maybe, maybe not. Have both Damon and Holliday given informed consent in writing to Boras? I have no idea.

All I know is that the law probably doesn't prohibit Boras from representing both ballplayers (that's subsection 2). And I also know that the two clients haven't asserted claims against each other before a tribunal. So it really comes down to RPC 1.7(b)(1) and (4).

Honestly, Andrew? Given the current free agent market, you could make a good argument (both for and against) that Boras is violating the Rules of Professional Conduct.

My thoughts? I can't see how this is not a clear conflict of interest, even if it may be allowed under the Rules of Professional Conduct and it is certainly unethical (I know, amazing, a blogger accused Boras of being unethical). Boras' representation cannot be effective under these circumstances and I think this winter's example of Johnny Damon should be a rallying cry to reform the process (probably-future-Hall-of-Famer Bert Blyleven agreed on NBC Sports). The problem is that Boras' isn't going to rally to change it and as Boehringer ran into, lesser-profile players aren't going to influence the MLBPA to change their rules. But the poster boy for this movement could be Johnny Damon. Damon is a well-known player who has played the past 8 seasons in the bright lights of Boston and New York. His rallying cry could change things.

Or the simpler version is that players may have to be more diligent about changing agents when they see this conflict of interest exist. Players switch agents for a lot of seemingly greedy reasons (see Aroldis Chapman), but this would seem to be a great reason to switch agents. Players have sat out a year under Boras' advice and then blamed him afterward. Pedro Alvarez lost valuable developmental time last year when Boras was negotiating every last dime out of the Pittsburgh Pirates and lost some good-will from fans as well. If I had a lawyer or an advocate of any kind who I believe didn't have my best interest in mind, I would think about kicking them out the door, no matter how many miracles they've done in the past or how much they've promised me I could make. But I fear that the draw of the millions that Boras has brought in for his past clients continues to fuel future clients to follow in the same, treacherous path.

Update: Glenn, our other recently minted lawyer, shares his opinion as well:

I pretty much agree with everything Jay said, but think of this from a more practical perspective. Most players are represented by the same small group of agents and so most agents are, technically-speaking, conflicted out from representing many of their clients. Of course, this system shows no sign of changing.

But, on the same note, when clubs deal with the same agent for multiple players over the years, it makes for a great working relationship between the GM and the agent which, of course, benefits the agent's clients. An agent can advise his client on what GMs or what teams may be a good fit for that client based on the agent's past dealings with those teams for other clients. So, other than the technicality, there can be pros to letting these conflicts exist.

And honestly, although the language of the rule states black and white what is a conflict and how that conflict can be waived, even with law firms, many conflicts are brushed aside.

24 Recap: Ziya Gives It One Thumb Up—and the Other Thumb Hangs to the Side

Welcome back to Season 2. We have the second showing of our “unlikely president” (a Black man in Seasons 1 and 2 and a woman in Seasons 7 and 8) that really was proven not-all-that-unlikely. We have Sherry Palmer II with President Hassan’s wife; the woman behind the man who we can tell is cold, calculating, and not ready to be put on the sidelines. They belong, of course, to the Fake Islamic Nation of IRK (Islamic Republic of Kamistan) which of course is just like our FIN in Season 2. We have the undercover story at the beginning of the season to find out where the nuclear weapon is being held and the body part needed to be chopped off to get there. But I think we had a reveal this episode also—we, once again in Season 8, have a character out for revenge.

In Season 2, we had Jack, a shell of his former self and untrusted by those at CTU because of the worry he was going to go off the reservation. The first impression that you get of Jack in Season 2 is that he’s coming back in despite all of his hardships at the job for one reason—because he’s the one person able to go undercover to stop a nuclear bomb. We hear Jack say that he wants to help CTU out and then get out of town. After a few episodes of being undercover, though, we find out that Jack has revenge on his mind when Nina Myers’ picture shows up.

In Season 8, we have a change in roles: Freckles is a shell of her former self and untrusted by Jack because he thinks she’ll go off the reservation. The first impression is that Freckles will come help out her country because she’s the only one who can and then she’ll get out of dodge and go back to her sad life, but when the undercover story takes place, we also get the picture that she, too, is out for revenge as she takes this mission through a man who brutally beat Freckles in her past.

That’s not the only thing we got (but we’ll get back to that later). We have Ziya, a pawn in Freckles game who has one less hand capable of hailing a cab in the beginning of the episode, and by the end, he’s swimming with the fishes. We have the reveal that Dana/Jenny (Denny?) is hiding an ex-con past where she went to Juvi as an accessory to murder for her ex-boyfriend. Why she doesn’t just call the police, tell them there’s a strange man in her house and have him arrested, I have no idea. Who is going to believe a real, documented ex-con (who I think we can assume committed murder) over a woman who works for a government agency? And now Denny may be her ex’s pawn in getting his life back together, giving him the code to some financial institution…or something. Truthfully, that part of the plot needs to take a turn where either she turns him in or she comes in with a gun and Denny gets rid her ex and his buddy, permanently.

In another part of the plot that I don’t care much for, Baron Wolfgang von Wolfhausen says, “you don’t speak of Beerfest!”—er, sorry, I mean he says to his non-dying son, Josef, that he should just let his other son die. Somehow Josef convinces the Baron that he should at least live out the rest of his life at the family estate because, well, “papa he is my brother, he is your son” was a really powerful line. Amazingly, the police haven’t been by to question the Baron or anyone Freckles is undercover with even though he is ex-KGB* But Josef can't listen to his father and brings him to the doctor anyways and in the car ride there we learn Josef is the good son and his brother is the one in the family business.

*Side Note: I know that CTU is new-and-improved this season, but they put no money into people or intelligence. You’re telling me that they don’t know all the ex-KGB people in their own city (nevermind their own country) on the day the city is in lockdown over a big United Nations pact and the terror alert is high? Why the heck aren't they busting down the Baron's door right now? They got to the apartment of JH's GF in about 3 minutes but they can't round up all the ex-KGB in a few hours? You’re telling me that the only analyst they could dedicate to Freckles and Jack’s undercover mission was Chloe? They had no else they could have assigned to that task to help her out? Is Old-CTU and New-CTU a metaphor for Old Yankee Stadium and New Yankee Stadium? They spend so much money on drones that don't fire anti-missiles correctly because Arlo didn't test them but yet they can't hire another analyst to check Freckles' past while Chloe is on the phone? And, I have to ask this again, how simple is the entrance exam to get a job in the government? Do you just check the box that you haven’t committed a crime and you’re not a criminal and everyone believes you? Do they even know how to conduct a background check? I feel like Dennis Green should come on the screen like in the Coors Light commercials and say “they are who we thought they were!”

And while Josef is the Good Son and has a conscious, we learn that President Hassan is actually a dictator. Who'd a thunk it? It's actually sort of refreshing to see that while he was portrayed as the wholesome reformer, they at least make his character somewhat-realistic. He needs to go to President Taylor and say, "listen woman, you can't have it both ways; either I crack down on terrorists in my country and some human rights get trampled or I let them run rampant and I don't have a government people respect." I mean he sort of says this, but at least this makes his character a bit more believable. And this, juxtaposed to the scene where Josef grows a conscious about his brother shows that good people can be bad and bad people can be good. Wonderful.

But this all masks what I think this season is coming to: Jack and Freckles in a hot, passionate embrace. Jack is shown to have concerns about Freckles' well-being, even hyperventilating after he thought Frecks had been offed. The scene is set that maybe he's just being a concerned Grandpa for a woman in his life. But I think that what's deep-seeded under the surface is that he wants her--badly. And I think his jealousy of this man in her life is going to fester to the point that they have to be together. Look at Jack's past lovers: Teri got killed by Nina, Nina turned out to be a terrorist and he shot her, Claudia got shot by Ramon Salazar, Jack ditched the woman who he was living with in Canada, and Audrey is in a really bad mental state (if you're counting, that's one ditched, one mental, and three dead). Since we're comparing this to Season 2, Jack's "love interest" in Season 2, Kate Warner, went by the wayside as well.

But I think that this season he finally goes after what he wants and gets it (and she's still alive which is a plus in her column so in the words of Herm Edwards "we can build on this!"). I think that Jack and Freckles are more similar than any of those other women, that he can see himself in her, and that he feels responsible for the state she's in and wants to help her and protect her. There is something appealing to Jack about helping people and here is someone on the edge who he can help (I mean she didn't flinch with Ziya was shot). And as someone who has been to the edge and back, Jack knows a thing or two about recovery. If they have to spend some of that recovery time in bed, so be it. Jack does deserve it after all this time.

Season grade so far: B-  I'm still at B-. This season has not hooked me in yet. And even Jack in his ridiculous glasses in the previews of next episode doesn't have me all that excited. I don't know if they're waiting for sweeps week (they did say that the uranium would be there in "about 5 hours") or they don't have an exciting plot this season, but I can't get all that excited just yet.

Best line of the week: "DAMN IT!" - Jack (it took until 8:48, but we finally got one this episode and it was delivered perfectly)

Best moment of the week: It was very subtle, but I love Arlo "covering" for Denny by telling FPjr that his woman had headed home. This was at the same time he was making a cover for Jack and Freckles. I hope he's better at their covers than he is at Denny's

Thoughts? Comments? Did you think she cut off Ziya's entire wrist also?

I've been watching on DVR but want to point you who don't to check out Amanda Rykoff's "The OCD Chick" and the live chat she has going on there.

End of Week Link Roundup

Thanks to all who participated in the first ever NYaT live chat today. You can see a replay of it here. We'll do it again in two weeks before the Super Bowl. The photo, from 1969 and in honor of the J-E-T-S, comes straight from the SI Photo Vault and shows Joe Namath grabbing a drink with a lady friend. Let's get to the links:

Talkin' Baseball...

• NY Mag did an interview with Curtis Granderson and found out he likes eating at the BLT chain and he got advice on New York from Gary Sheffield. I can live with the former but the latter scares me.
• David Schoenfield of ESPN says that Derek Jeter was the second-best SS ever and was even better than Cal Ripken, Jr.
  
• Big League Stew has a list of the worst uniforms of the last decade (I hated the Angels ones)
  
• Jayson Stark of ESPN proposes a Jerome Holtzman award for the best relievers and I love the idea
• A great Dusty Baker graphic from Beyond the Box Score
• Rob Neyer of ESPN.com and Matthew Cerrone of MetsBlog.com question the Mets picking up Gary Matthews, Jr. The 'Ropolitans can live with $1 M a year for Matthews.
• Rob Bradford of WEEI has an inside look about what happened between Jason Bay and the Red Sox
  
• A top Oakland A's prospect is leaving baseball for priesthood according to FOX Sports' Jon Paul Morosi.
• Sam Borden of LoHud talks about "The Hall of Memories" and Donny Baseball
• NPR says that computer-generated sports stories may make beat writers extinct. Ouch
  
• River Avenue Blues quotes a report that says the Yankees offered Jesus Montero straight up for Roy Halladay. Interesting...
  
• Sandy Koufax will speak in public according to Big League Stew!
• Beyond the Box Score lists some potential 2011 Hall of Fame hitters and I like Jeff Bagwell and no one else on that list. Sorry.
• Peter Gammons on the revenue gap in baseball
  
• FanGraphs looks at the horrible winter of 2006 when pitchers got WAY too much money and produced WAY too little
  
• Dayn Perry of FOX Sports looks at the 2011 free agent class
• Mike Axisa of River Avenue Blues looks into the 2009 Yankee offense to find out if it was lucky or unlucky (amazingly, they were unlucky)
  
• Eric Byrnes may not be unlucky...he may just be bad according to FanGraphs
  
• FOX Sports' John Halpin lists some early fantasy baseball sleepers with Brett Gardner among them
• Big League Stew's Alex Remington gives a primer on Win Shares and wOBA. The former I like but probably won't use (it still confuses me why I would use it over WAR) and the latter I've been trying to use a lot more of...and this certainly helps. Some more good stuff on wOBA from Bless You Boys
  
• Murray Chass gets a beatdown by The Baseball Analysts (and deservedly so)
• Speaking of pariah's (just kidding!), Jorge Arangure Jr. has a great post on ESPN.com about Jose Offerman
  

Hut, hut, hike!

• Are the Jets playing this weekend? I heard some rumors of the sort...but that can't be true, right? I mean Rex Ryan declared his team out of the playoffs weeks ago. Oh...(we spoke a lot about the Jets in our chat today so go to the replay if you want Jets talk)
  
• Mel Kiper, Jr. of ESPN thinks that Carlos Dunlap from Florida is going to the Giants. Don't know much about him, but he seems like a really good fit. 
• Antonio Cromartie of the San Diego Chargers looked like he tanked it ("pulled a Randy Moss?") in the 4th quarter according to The Big Lead
  
• I watched the Giants 2007 Super Bowl video the other day and was surprised (again) to see how much Reuben Droughns contributed to the Super Bowl team. I'm surprised again as ProFootballTalk says that he got busted today for growing pot in his house.
• Maybe Bill Cowher won't be the next Giants coach according to Ralph Vacchiano of The Blue Screen
  
• Bar None in New York City is about to become a hot spot to watch the second NFL game on Sunday according to Yahoo! Sports. I hadn't been to Bar None since I've been "of age" so I didn't even knew they showed football. I just thought it was a teenage hangout...

Potpourri

• Sports Pickle has a hilarious bit about what sport each Jersey Shore cast member would play. I'll give that two fist pumps!
• LeBron wasn't the biggest fan of Craig Sager's latest disaster of an outfit as The Big Lead shows
  
• RealClearSports has a lists of the sports knuckleheads of the month
  
• Law & Order: SVU predicts the future according to The Daily Beast
• John Travolta is a jackass
• Samuel Dalembert is certainly not according to ESPN's TrueHoop
• The New York Daily News kisses the feet of New Jersey (H/T Jay, who loves NJ as much as this writer)
• I lived in one of the 8 coolest college dorms according to US News & World Report

Have a great weekend!

New York Sports Live Chat Starting at 2 PM EST

The first ever No, You're a Towel live chat on New York Sports:

Hot Stove Coal: How Would David DeJesus Look In Pinstripes?

Since we've been vetting almost every left field candidate for candidacy in the Bronx, I thought it best to look through the credentials of one of the more underrated left fielders out there, David DeJesus. With the recent signing of Rick Ankiel, adding to a crowded OF, DeJesus may be available from the Royals. DeJesus is nothing spectacular as a hitter: his career splits are .286/.358/.425 and his career wOBA is .340. But on a second-look, those numbers are comparable to Damon's at the same point in his career and would seemingly be better than Brett Gardner's. As you can see from the graph below from FanGraphs, the two Kansas City OF compare favorably in wOBA through age 29 (and I've added Reed Johnson to this graph just for comparison's sake):

Amazingly, all three OF had down years at Age 27. Since that age, Damon and DeJesus have been almost identical. But there are a few reasons why DeJesus would be better than Johnson/Damon. DeJesus will only turn 30 next season, making him the youngest of the group by quite a few years (well, other than Gardner). DeJesus* was born in Brooklyn, went to high school at Manalapan High School in Englishtown, New Jersey, and then went to college at Rutgers University--so he's definitely a local boy.

*Side Note: It was radio host Don Imus who first brought DeJesus to national fame when he talked on his show about the ballplayer and his on-again, off-again girlfriend, Michelle Salvatore, who did the "Scum Report" on his show. Supposedly she dumped him when he got demoted to Triple-A Omaha but got back together when he got back with the Royals. Sort of a true story.

But the big thing that sets DeJesus apart from his peers is his defense. In 4,121.2 innings in CF, DeJesus has a UZR of 16.4 and in 2,263.2 innings in LF, he has an UZR of 35.0. That's some good defensive production. This has helped DeJesus consistently put up really good WAR numbers since he's become a regular in 2005 (4.2, 3.8, 2.6, 2.6, 3.2).

The problem is that I don't think DeJesus fits on this team for a few reasons. One, I'm not sure the Royals are really trying to get rid of him. He's the best OF they have right now even after acquiring Scott Podsednick and Rick Ankiel this off-season to go along with the disappointing--but unmovable--Jose Guillen. Just because they have three other OF, doesn't mean they're going to trade one. Second, DeJesus doesn't hit lefties well (.276/.339/.377), which really has to be one of the requirements of acquiring a LF. Lastly, I'm not sure the Royals would give him up for cheap, but even if they would, he still makes $4.7 M this season with a $6 M club option or $0.5 M buyout next season. If their budget is truly $2 M, this wouldn't work for the Yankees.

The Yankees could make this work, especially if they're truly not sold on Brett Garnder as as starter. A trade of Chad Gaudin ($2.95 M), Gardner and a minor leaguer for DeJesus would seem to almost make it work player- and salary-wise, but I'm not sure if it truly makes the Yankees a better team. I just think it's another name to throw out there into the mix as the Yankees look to fill one of their final roster spots.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In other news, a reminder that we will be doing a live chat on this blog at 2 PM so come with your questions or topics to discuss. We'll be talking all New York sports here on the blog so get excited!

Hot Stove Coal: Why Did The Phillies Have To Trade Cliff Lee?

"What's goin', I say, What's going on here?" - Foghorn Leghorn

Well I've already gone through the odd decisions made by Dave Dombrowski and the Detroit Tigers this offseason, but the next team I'll take a look at is the NL Champions: the Philadelphia Phillies and their General Manager, Ruben Amaro, Jr. . The Phillies traded for Roy Halladay this season and traded away Cliff Lee. This was not a 3-way deal. The Phillies traded their own prospects to Toronto for Halladay and got back completely separate prospects from the Mariners for Lee. The reasoning at the time was that the team could not afford to keep both Lee and Halladay. But as this off-season has progressed, that seems to have been far from the truth.

Lee was 7-4 with a 3.39 ERA (and an amazing 7.4 K/BB ratio) and was the playoff hero for the Phillies last season after coming over to The City of Brotherly Love in a trade deadline deal with the Cleveland Indians. With one year under his contract, it was assumed that Lee would come back this season and the Phillies would try to work out a contract extension either before, during or after the season. But when Lee mentioned that he was looking for CC Sabathia-like money and years, the Phillies quickly moved to acquire Roy Halladay (who they knew they could lock up for the years and money they wanted) and traded away Lee.

At the time, the reasoning behind the trading of Lee was that the Phillies had overspent the past season to get to the World Series and couldn't spend the money again in 2010 (some were reporting they were over their payroll limit even before this trade). They also didn't want to leave their farm system barren after trading for both Lee and Halladay within a year. Fine.

But the Phillies moves this off-season makes me think that maybe they weren't so enamored with Lee as a long-term option. Amaro first gave Placido Polanco a three-year, $18 M deal which seemed excessive at the time and, how this market's performed, it seems pretty insane now. Polanco hasn't played third base since his days when he last played with the Phillies in 2005. Their incumbent 3rd baseman, Pedro Feliz, has been in serious decline, but they could have found another option for 3B (Adrian Beltre's contract would be more palatable for the Phillies than Polanco).

I just really point that signing out as a place the Phillies could have saved some money. Another place? Trading Joe Blanton. That's what Buster Olney argued today and it was made even more obvious when they signed Blanton (a workhorse, for sure, but no where near the ace status of Lee) to a 3-year, $24 M extension. Cliff Lee was signed for $8 M this year. Are you seriously telling me that keeping Lee for $8 M and trading Blanton for a prospect would not have been better than the prospects they got for Lee and keeping Blanton for 3 years? Add that to the fact that Lee would have brought back two picks as a Type A free agent if he left and you got me scratching my head.

Here were the four choices as I see it:

1. Don't trade for Halladay

• Keep prospects (and the Phillies prospects were the best given up in the deal)
• Pay $8 M to Lee for one year, get draft pick compensation if he walks
• Give Blanton 3-year, $24 M extension
• If it ain't broke, don't fix it. You have a pitcher whose proven he can pitch in the playoffs and in the friendly confines of Citizen Bank Park and Blanton, a workhorse. This rotation was able to handle the NL East last season and should be able to this season as well. You have the prospects in stow to make a mid-season splash, if necessary. Plus you have Kyle Drabek waiting int the wings in case Jamie Moyer/Antonio Bastardo/Kyle Kendrick can't cut it as the 5th starter.
  

2. Trade for Halladay and keep Lee and Blanton

• Drains the farm system
• Pay $8 M to Lee for one year, get draft pick compensation if he walks
• Pay $15.75 M to Halladay in 2010 and sign to 3 years/$60 M extension
• Give Blanton 3-year, $24 M extension
• You need to get rid of money someplace, so you can start with Polanco's $6 M and not sign Danys Baez for $2.75 M. There's over $8 M right there. You have the best rotation in baseball with Halladay, Lee, Blanton, Cole Hamels and JA Happ. You replace Baez and Polanco with low-priced talent and hope to pick someone up on the cheap midseason or at the end of the off-season. I don't think they would have ever gone with this, but it would have made them the NL favorites right off the bat.
  

3. Trade for Halladay, trade away Lee, keep Blanton

• Trade away the better prospects, but at least replenish the farm system a bit. From Olney: "[J.P.] Aumont, the best prospect in the deal, is projected as a possible set-up man with the promise that he might develop into a closer. The Phillies also received outfielder Tyson Gillies and pitcher Juan Ramirez in the deal."
• Pay $15.75 M to Halladay in 2010 and sign to 3 years/$60 M extension
• Give Blanton 3-year, $24 M extension
• This is what they did. They got Halladay (a better overall pitcher than Lee but unproven in Philly's home park or in the playoffs) and kept Blanton. The one advantage of this rotation is they can go righty, lefty throughout the entire rotation. The New York Times' Tyler Kepner points out @TylerKepner: With Blanton deal, the Phillies now have Halladay-Hamels-Blanton-Happ under club control through '12. I don't know if that's a good thing, though. You basically replaced a great starting prospect with a great relieving prospect. Sounds like the Joba debate all over again, but I think that it's now proven that a great starter is much more valuable than a great reliever.
  

4. Trade for Halladay, keep Lee, trade Blanton

• They would have a pretty barren farm system but would recoup a B-level prospect for Blanton (he is better than most of the other options out there) and draft picks for Lee if/when he walks
• Pay $8 M to Lee for one year, get draft pick compensation if he walks
• Pay $15.75 M to Halladay in 2010 and sign to 3 years/$60 M extension
• I still have no clue why they didn't do this. Their rotation is the best in the National League with Halladay, Lee, Hamels, Happ and Jamie Moyer/Antonio Bastardo/Kyle Kendrick and the left-handedness of the rotation was hard for most teams to handle. They would be paying their roster the same amount in 2010 as the third option, but they would have Lee plus prospects and payroll flexibility for this option and Blanton for three years in the other. I also think this instantly makes them the NL favorites and one of the most scary teams in baseball. It's basically replacing Blanton with Halladay. That's scary.
  

In the end, I think the fourth option was the best and I'm not sure why the Phillies didn't go in that direction. If they fall short of winning the World Series this year or are searching for pitching at the trade deadline, they'll be wishing they had gone with Lee and Halladay, the best 1-2 punch in the majors.

We're Chatting Tomorrow

The picture to the right is from the SI Photo Vault and shows Brett Favre playing football at 15. He declared at the time whether he'd come back for another season at age 16. Tomorrow afternoon (Friday, January 22nd) at 2 PM EST, we're going to try our first live chat on the blog. We'll be talking about:

• Yankees' left field, Mets' offseason/follies, and the rest of the MLB Rumor Mill
• Jets playoffs and blitzing Payton Manning
  
• Rangers/Devils/Islanders hockey
• Maybe some NBA basketball (or all-white league basketball if you will)
• Martha Coakley and Curt Schilling
  
• And whatever other topics you want to bring up

Come to the site and bring your friends. It should be a fun time! If you have any big topics you want to discuss (or you can't be there but you have a discussion question), put some thoughts in the comments below and we'll bring it up tomorrow.

Hot Stove Coal: Jerry Hairston Insinuates Yankees Are Waiting For Damon

On SIRIUS XM's MLB Home Plate Channel last night, former Yankee Jerry Hairston, Jr. had an interesting view of the Yankees left field search:

Host/Jim Bowden: “I have to ask you this, and it’s a two part question: Did the Yankees make you an offer and the second part, did you sign with San Diego after [your brother] Scott was traded and was that part of the reason?”

Jerry Hairston Jr.: “You know what, to answer your first question, the Yankees didn’t officially make an offer. We’d been talking with them for about a month or two months and, um, they were kinda, I guess, waiting for a certain left fielder’s price to come down. That’s what I was gathering. (Laughs) I know Brian [Cashman]’s going to really love me for saying that. But that’s the sense I had and more power to ‘em. You know, obviously Brian has a job to do and Johnny Damon’s an incredible ballplayer. But obviously at that time I said, ‘You know what? I need to do what’s best for me.’ And the best fit for me was in San Diego. 

Now Hairston could have just been wrong about that. Maybe the Yankees were waiting for all left fielder's prices to go down. Hairston got $2 million from the Padres and I'm guessing the Yankees were more than willing to wait to see if his price tag went down from there. Maybe they knew with so many left fielders out on the market, that the price of one would go down eventually and they could scoop up one for under $2 million. Maybe the Yankees just weren't that enamored with the idea of Jerry Hairston, Jr. who is a good role player, but maybe not worth such a generous contract in this environment.

Or maybe Hairston is right and the Yankees are just waiting for Johnny Damon. If that's the case, then the Johnny Watch is back on in the Bronx. I've always said that I think the Yankees are fine going elsewhere but without any great options and with a perceived need to feel in left field, the Yankees seem to be hanging around, seeing if Damon's price will drop to the point they can bring him back for a bargain basement price. And no one seems to want Damon at this point so he seems to be out of options as well. Whether he'll be upset at signing for so low a price and will let it become a distraction remains to be seen. But the truth is that Damon is still the best player available and for the right price, he'd look mighty fine back in Pinstripes.

Update: Newsday's Ken Davidoff tweets: @KenDavidoff: Brian Cashman says it's "right" that he never made an offer to J. Hairston Jr., but "not right" that he is waiting for Damon's price to drop

Hot Stove Coal: Nick Johnson is a Weapon Against Lefites Too

Over lunch today I was reading through Steven Goldman's Pinstriped Bible as he was going "to the mats with reader comments". Goldman was talking about the Yankees left-field platoon options and said this:

The defensive issue may not even matter if the Yankees are willing to bench Nick Johnson against some southpaws—your Gomes or Thames takes over at DH and Gardner plays defense.

That sentence didn't do well for my lunch. Now I'm a big fan of Goldman but I've disagreed with him at times in the past. But generally I find his writing to be of my liking and I agree with him most of the time (translation: he's a smart dude). This, though, bothers me.

The Yankees should never sit Johnson against a southpaw because he's left-handed. Ever. Now Johnson will not DH every day. A-Rod will need to DH at least once a week. Derek Jeter, Robinson Cano, Mark Texeira and others may need the DH spot from time-to-time as well. So Johnson will not be playing 162 games, even if healthy.

But the games he doesn't play should not be replaced by Johnny Gomes or Marcus Thames or really anyone. Why? Because Nick Johnson is really good against lefties. Nick Johnson's career slashes against righties are .266/.394/.450. Against lefites they look even better .292/.424/.438. If you take out intentional walks, his BB/KK ratio is actually (slightly) better against lefties as well.

And if you look at the seasons in which Johnson's logged at least 150 PAs vs. lefties, it opens the argument up even more. In 2005, 2006 and 2009, Johnson had at least 150 PA vs. lefties and in each of those three seasons he ranked in the top 6 in the league in OBP vs. lefties. In those three seasons, only one other lefty (Travis Hafner in 2006) even ranked in the top 9 in OBP vs. lefties.

Those three years happen to be the only ones where Johnson logged over 450 PA, but it's not the only time he's had success getting on base vs. lefties. As the below graph from FanGraphs shows, he's been pretty proficient at hitting both lefties and righties (with 2008 being the one big outlier in my argument, but he only played in 38 games--a small sample size).

Since OBP isn't all of it, let's look at the OPS differences those 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007. Johnson's OPS was 206 points higher against lefties in 2004, 40 points higher in 2005, and 74 points higher in 2009. In 2006 in was 24 points lower, but he managed a very nice .938 OPS vs. lefties regardless*. But since wOBA has replaced OPS in my way of thinking, let's look at that split on FanGraphs:

*Side Note: Let's be honest: there aren't many "tough lefties" to worry about Yankee hitters facing. Jon Lester is the big one and Cliff Lee they may see once or twice. Mark Buehrle is 1-6, with a 6.43 ERA against the Yankees and his teammate, John Danks, has a 6.06 ERA. CC Sabathia and Andy Pettitte are going to be in Pinstripes. So who are they so worried about facing?

As you can see from this graph, Johnson has been at least equally as good, if not a better hitter vs. lefties. But the point is that Johnson is a really good hitter no matter whoever he faces. Bill James projects for Johnson in 2010 to put up slashes of .277/.414/.434 and a wOBA of .375. Johnny Gomes has only once put up a wOBA of more than that amount (.385 in 2005). Marcus Thames has never done that. In fact, you can see the three players' wOBA comparisons throughout their careers in the next FanGraphs graph (with the blue line representing league average):

Now I know this is an overall wOBA number (you can't compare the split numbers, unfortunately) and I know Goldman is not saying that Gomes or Thames should be DH'ing vs. righties, but the point is that it makes no sense to sit Nick Johnson vs. lefties just so you can get a righty at DH and put Brett Gardner in the OF. The point of having a right-handed caddy for Gardner (or Curtis Granderson) would be to sit Gardner/Granderson vs. lefties, not play them and sit someone else who actually can hit lefties.

The Yankees would be much better off putting Gardner/Granderson in LF/CF and playing Johnson. Or, if they decide to employ the platoon in left (which is fine), they just need to make sure that doesn't effect Johnson. I know Johnson has had injury problems throughout his career, but if he's healthy, he should be in the lineup almost every day, whether a righty or lefty is pitching.

24 Recap: Same Old Jack, but Freckles Has Truly Gone Rogue

I know, I know: we've seen it all before. Jack trying to get out but continually sucked back in? Check. A mole within the government/police/CTU/FBI? Check, check, check, check. A CTU woman who works at a desk in love with a CTU male who works in the field? Yup, Season 3. An informant with vital information dying before he can say what he needs to say? Done. Jack says "stay with me" to a guy who obviously won't be staying with him? Yuppers. Chloe and Jack going behind the backs of people to find the real criminals? Yup. An interracial affair between a male head of state and a woman that can ruin the presidency? So Season 2. Jack convincing police officers he really works for CTU? At least once a season. A CTU agent with something in their past that's distracting them from their job? That's Season 4 for you. Jack's even gotten tased a few times before (and has never said "Don't tase me, bro!"). And despite the fact that Jack has saved the country numerous times, he's still unrecognizable and underappreciated.

So why do we stick around? Why do we watch 24? Why does it still have so many loyal fans?

Because it's still awesome, even if it is formulaic. Law & Order is formulaic too and no one complains. Someone dies, the police investigate, they check out some leads, they arrest someone, the lawyers get involved, there's a twist, someone objects/files a motion, and the show ends with Dick Wolf's name. The difference is that 24 was so revolutionary, so unique when it first started that we were surprised when anything happened. Moles in the government? Holy shit. A nuclear weapon in Los Angeles? OMG! It was all exciting because it felt real and it felt like you never knew when the next twist was coming.

Now we know. If they say the file is going to be decrypted within an hour, we know we'll get a twist before the episode ends. If they arrest a woman (who happens to be Jon Hamm's girlfriend--forever to be known as JH's GF) in the second episode, she's probably not the extent of the plot or even involved at all.

But in a way, the writers and producers know all that and sort of winked at the audience this season. Chloe said what everyone who has ever watched 24 was saying watching that episode: it was all to quick and too easy. Chloe's wink at the audience was very LOST-esque and very real (speaking of LOST, how about Horace showing up as a bad guy? I wanted them to bury him far beneath the earth when he was dead. You do not want him coming back alive). They no longer treated us like idiots (a big Season 6 mistake) and let us in very quickly to the fact that JH's GF wasn't the real mole. Even though she was taken into custody by Freddie Prinze, Jr.'s and Bubba's new CTU*.

*Side Note: FPjr. has done a great job so far. I was worried about him on this show but so far, he's acting the part well. Though I'm not sure why they have him being Hispanic. Was being a white guy as the head of field ops not believable enough? I love the admiration he shows for Jack Bauer (someone needs to) and I think that's going to play in big for the rest of the season. The head of CTU? The guy whose head is so heavy he can't seem to keep it upright? Brian Hastings? He's Bubba in Forest Gump and Mike 'Baby-O' O'Dell in Con Air. Thank you, IMDB.

The real mole was shown to be President Omar Hassan's brother: Farhad. And Omar (the judge in Slumdog Millionaire) and Farhad come from a country that is, of course, fake Middle Eastern country, but there's no doubt it's modeled after Iran. I have a real question about this: why can 24 continually name Russia as a country they have troubles with but have to make up Islamic countries that the terrorists come from? Is that PC, even? Farhad has escaped and he's working with Baron Wolfgang von Wolfhausen from Beerfest. Except he's Russian. Because, 24 is stuck in the Cold War. I digress.

And Omar and President Allison Taylor (who I still believe didn't deserve her Emmy) are negotiating a big nuclear agreement (hello Season 5). But this time Taylor seems to have better council. Not only has she gotten rid of her annoying husband (and maybe married Ethan who may be on his way to his death?) and not only has she gotten rid of her daughter, but she also has a secret weapon: Chief of Staff Rob Weiss. Yes, folks, she seems to have a Jew as her Chief of Staff--her own Rahm Emanuel, if you will. So far her one big decision was whether to tell Omar he was being targeted. But do you think those decisions may get a bit harder for her? Do you think that she may be forced to use the angry face again this season? 

Side Note: And one more question for you: where the heck in New York is this multi-billion dollar CTU? Roosevelt Island? Long Island City? Randall's Island? There is seriously continuity issues with how quick they can drive from place to place depending on where the heck it actually is. And for those of us who live in New York, this season is hitting way too close to home.

So how does Jack and co get in with the Russians? Is it because Jack can speak Russian as we learned in Season 6? Nope. So what is it? Boom: Freckles is back! But this time SHE'S gone rogue. Now my great idea for this season of 24 was that Jack had gone rogue and started shooting innocent people and Sarah Palin (now that she's a Republican FOX talking head) says "I thought I was rogue but then I watched this season of 24." But I guess Freckles going rogue will have to do for now.

Though she really hasn't gone rogue. Remember at the end of the episode where she cut off the guy's hand because she's undercover and wants to get this guy to take her to the next guy in command? Remember how Jack thinks she's gone postal? Well that's been done before at 24, and Jack should remember it: he cut off the head of a guy in Season 2 to get in undercover with the next guy in charge. True story. This is actually a recycled plot.

What makes this so much better is that Jack and Frecks have no trust and Freckles could really blow this thing at any moment. The parallels between Freckles this season and Jack in Season 2 (especially with the whole: person you love dying but you're still asked to come back to save the country even though you're not up to it thing) are unmistakable, but for some reason, I'm still intrigued. Is there still some sexual tension there? Does she blame Jack for what happened to her? Does Jack blame himself for how she turned out?

I want to feel a little more hooked than I am now. A brother of a faux-Iranian President is trying to get nuclear weapons out of the country with a Russian mobster (can we just let them leave the country with it for once? and why the heck would Russians bring in Uranium to the US only to ship it to faux-Iran? wouldn't it be easier to just to send it there directly?). There's no imminent threat. Jack doesn't have to save the US right now. But we all know that he's going to have to. Or maybe instead of the US, Jack is saving the world from the threat of a nuclear (and he did pronounce it like George Bush this episode) faux-Iran. I'm faux-excited to find out.

I also feel like JH's GF and Omar's relationship will play a part later on in the season. I mean you don't bring in Don Draper's gf for four episodes! Maybe she gets kidnapped and he has to decide what's more important to him. Maybe she takes her story public and he's delegitimized. All of this, combined with the Redneck, ex-con, ex-boyfriend, plot going on at CTU makes me wish that 24 didn't spend so much of its energy on things we don't care about (speaking of which, how the heck does Dana/Jenny get away with wearing those outfits to work? And Ari pointed out: how did she get past a background check with a fake name/background?). Also qualifies for Kim Bauer being on the screen now that she's not as hot as she once was.

I'm hoping that Jack finally grows as a character this season. Maybe the fact that he's already had his sights set on heading back to Los Angeles (Lord knows why the heck he would want to do that considering all the bad shit that's happened to him there) will make him more cognizant of the ending, more fearful that he won't get to see his granddaughter grow up. Jack already started to do this last season when he was forced to justify his torturing of suspects, but maybe this season he finally makes amends with everything in his life. One hint of this is when Jack is confronted on the basketball court by a bunch of street-tough guys and instead of whooping some ass, he flashes his piece and offers a C-note for anyone who will snitch. But less than an hour later, he's busting up a cop (Entourage's Dom if it was bothering you) and up to his old tricks. 

But maybe this season is different. Maybe it takes Jack on a different path. Maybe he finally has to really rely on other people for help. Maybe he can't do it all by himself. Maybe he will finally become old and unable to do the things he used to do.

But at the very least, Jack has to come to grips with the monster he's obviously created in Freckles. He showed her how to loosen up and smack around a few suspects but she's gone way beyond that: she's completely unhinged. Maybe instead of stopping the bomb plot, Jack's main goal for Season 8, in the end, will be stopping Renee Walker. And maybe in the process he has to stop himself from becoming what he's always become when the nation is threatened. Maybe they have another twist up their sleeves that we still haven't seen yet. Or maybe this will disappoint me as yet just another formulaic season of 24.

I certainly hope not.

Season Grade So Far: B-

Best Line of the Week (paraphrased):  Bubba: "You probably expected him to thank you."
Chloe: "I was actually thinking he should thank Jack, then Cole, then maybe me."

Put your thoughts in the comments below.