Baseball Getting the Business End

A Visit to the Mound

Baseball fans over-analyzing an over-analyzed game

If you kids don't get your sh*t together I'm replacing all of you

A Visit to the Mound is regularly updated series of emails touching on a wide range of baseball subjects. 

Uncle Bones

Since we seem to be trending towards the business side of things here a bit check out this link to Forbes valuations of all the MLB franchises:

http://www.forbes.com/mlb-valuations/#page:1_sort:0_direction:asc_search:

Granted, this is only a snapshot of an organization's financial health, but I'm still curious if any of these numbers jump off the page at you. (Beyond the $ values which are largely hypothetical)

Pay particular attention to the teams who are operating in the red this season. A few of them are floating right around breaking even, but a some others like the Phillies, Tigers & Blue Jays are operating at major losses.

Does MLB owe it to its consumers to ensure that these franchises have a long term plan to get in the black? Or is it really OK for an owner or ownership group to throw money around like they're Rick Ross at a strip club until they're like MC Hammer at the soup kitchen?

Josh

I feel like you were lofting a Detroit poverty joke over the plate for me, but I am going to Joey Votto that one and let it go by, hoping to earn the walk.  

I always find the idea of "owing" consumers interesting. What DOES a team owe it's fans in general?  Going back to the tanking debate, some might say that the team owes it's fans the best product they can put on the field night in and night out. OR does the team owe them long term sustainability, which is what tanking is working toward?  I tend to agree with the latter.  Earlier in the year Buster Olney pointed out that Joe Girardi hit Jeter second in the lineup due to "organizational pressures."  In that case, did the team owe it's fans the best line up possible, or did it owe them the ability to watch a legend go out on his own terms?  The line is murky at best, totally open ended at worst.   

That wasn't a filibuster, but more of an establishment of how debatable the idea of "owing" your fans something is.  I do believe in owing them long term sustainability.  I live in Buffalo, and until Terry Pegula fracked his way into our hearts, we lived with a constant dread of the Buffalo Bills moving. Once the Bills started playing games in Toronto, the dread went from minor anxiety to full blown freakout.  Much like the "presence" in the current horror hit It Follows, the fear was ongoing, ever present and impossible to shake. When the Pegula deal was announced, grown men called into the local radio station crying tears of joy. So does a team owe it's fans peace of mind?  Ideally yes, but this idea is better in theory than in practice.  Just ask San Diego Chargers and St Louis Rams fans how they feel right now.  

In regards to the financial numbers, if anything I took away that baseball is in the age of parity.  Look at the Royals and Athletics, two contenders last year operating with low payroll and showing financial health.  The Mets, Phillies and Yankees appear in the top 10 franchises, further proof that money buys you a chance but guarantees you nothing in baseball. Parity rewards fans. The NFL probably likes the Pats and Seahawks playing in the super bowl, but poll casual fans outside of those two fan bases and I'd wager you hear about how they're tired of seeing those teams in the finals. Who WASN'T excited watching the Royals last year, you know? 

Uncle Bones

Being a Bills fan the last 10 years was sort of like having a loved one being diagnosed with a terminal illness. We felt like it was just a matter of time before they were gone, but we really didn't know when or how exactly we would deal with it. Then suddenly a pop-up billionaire swooped in with the miracle cure and here we are. Personally, I had already started the "moving on" process only to be sucked right back in. I'm still not sure how I feel about it given my other apprehensions surrounding the NFL, but I'm fairly sure I'll be tuned in come September.

I like to pretend that I can disassociate the emotion of being a fan with the business realities of professional sports, but it's not quite that simple. I think what surprised me the most about that list was the total valuation of all the MLB teams combined that fell somewhere around $36 billion give or take. Theoretically, should MLB be posted for public trading it would fetch around that number for an IPO, but I suspect it might creep up a little higher than that.

That's seems like a lot of money and it is, but it still less that half of what Facebook was offered for. That's crazy to me. MLB has an over 100 year history and has been an American establishment as long as any who is alive can remember. Facebook has been on the planet for the third of the time that you and I have been and I can't even hold it in my hand. I've never attended a Facebook, its not on TV, it only exists on the Internet and something tells me that in 40 years we won't be talking about the comment that Parker liked that Madison made about the picture Lily posted of her cat's birthday cake in the same way we still talk about 1975 World Series.

So yeah, baseball is a business and it's a big one, but there are bigger ones out there. I was also surprised to see that some teams didn't make money last year. I know that there are debt issues attached to that math, but what it reminds me is that you don't buy a sports team to necessary make money. Its kinda like the ultimate rich guy status symbol. You know you're rich when you own a team and so does everyone else.

That also says to me that if you cared enough to buy a sports team then you are probably a fan yourself. And as a fan you would want the team that you own to win as much as possible. I wouldn't want to own a loser. Some people might be fine with it, but it would piss me right off.

Keep that in mind when I own (sponsor) a slew of Little League teams. You'll just hear in the news that "Local man ejected from LL game again", but truth will be that I was just doing everything in my power to urge those little tykes to victory. Oh and also to grow my brand.

Baseball's a Helluva Drug

92? I didn't know they had D-linemen in baseball...

Like many Northeast baseball fans I found myself searching through the AtBat app looking for what Spring Training games might be available the first two days. Whether its this awful winter or my new obsession with Ken Giles and the Philly's bullpen I am Jonesin' for some baseball. And the strange thing is, I'm not the only one.

Take a look at some of the attendance numbers from the first Friday of Spring Training baseball:

Grapefruit League:

Twins at Rays - 4,148

Nationals at Braves - 5,936

Yankees and Phillies - 7,365

Tigers at Mets - 7,444

Marlins at Red Sox - 9,830

Cactus League: 

Rockies at Angels - 5,739

Giants at Rangers - 7,497

Reds at Cubs - 15,331

That's right. Over 15,000 people showed up to see Jon Lester throw 2 innings. The only "Baby Cub" to even make an appearance was Javier Baez. Unless you count Mike Olt and no one does.

Now, these might seem like meh numbers to a lot of people considering that the smallest parks in MLB hold around 37k and most parks draw at least 20k plus a night. But having spent a lot of time around a AAA team (Where many of the players who played today will wind up this season) I can tell you that crowds around and over 10k in the right sized ballpark are nothing to sneeze at. In fact you can really get a stadium rocking with those kinds of numbers and quite honestly you only get them on the weekends in the summer.

So what gives? Why are these Spring Training games so popular? It could be price. In a quick glance at ticket prices for these early games seem to be going for anywhere between $10-$40. Which might seem like a bargain at MLB prices, but exceeds anything that you would pay for a minor league game (once again where the vast majority of these players will wind up). 

Another possibility might be that Spring Training is played in baseball starved areas. I might buy that reason for the Grapefruit league in Florida if the Rays and Marlins weren't already within easy driving distance (especially considering that everyone in Florida drives 105 mph everywhere). Also laying low that argument is the fact that the Tampa Bay Rays 2014 average attendance was just under 18k per home game. That tells me that central Florida (home to the Grapefruit League) isn't baseball starved, its baseball indifferent. Now I understand that there are other factors that go into the Rays' poor attendance: their field is a converted convention center, I've read its in kind of a bad location, Florida is America's armpit (just repeating what I've heard), blah, blah, blah. But way more that 18k people turned out to see MLB players for a couple of innings and then minor league players for the rest on Friday. Why can't those people turn out for the Rays who have been a highly entertaining team to watch for the better part of a decade?

And don't even get me started in the Cactus League. The Diamond Backs play in downtown Phoenix and every Cactus League team has a facility nearby. I'll admit that I don't understand the American Southwest all that well (It's hotter than Satan's ass crack & there's no water. THERE'S NO WATER), but I do know what highways look like and if any of these facilities are more than an hour away from downtown Phoenix then feel free to take to internet and label me a moron. That town ain't baseball starved. That's all I'm trying to get at. So why on Earth did 15k people show up to a Spring Training game?

So as I sifted through possible explanations two commonalities remained on my screen. You know what Florida and Arizona both have a lot of? Old people. And you know who really likes baseball? Yep, old people. Who has lots of free time to take in an afternoon baseball game on a weekday? You guessed it, old people.

It seems so obvious now. But what does it really mean? Is it like other Spring Training stats and completely meaningless? Or is there more to it?

That MLB has the oldest fan base all the 4 major sports seems sort of odd considering how baseball is probably the best suited sport for the internet age. Its perfect for Twitter because there is plenty of time between action to fire off a snarky tweet about an awkward Ryan Howard swing or 2nd guessing a managers in game decision from a thousand miles away. Baseball has also been probably one of the more discussed sports in America and more words have been published than could ever be read. It was also the first sport to truly embrace advanced metrics and the internet has been amazing at spreading that gospel.

Unfortunately, young people tend to trend as stupid. I was young once, I know. Baseball is a game that requires patience and perspective. Something that your average teenager cannot even define let alone practice. Baseball is something that you love as a child, neglect as a teen (chasing booze, drugs, & tail are WAY more fun), and rediscover as an adult. And that's OK. You can't properly appreciate watching a player mature through his career until you have lived enough life to know that nothing lasts forever.

So numbers may tell us that the average baseball fan is trending older, but it might not be the canary in the coal mine some think it is. Games are on awfully late for children. Teenagers don't care about anything. In your 20-40's you're building a family, career, etc., but it seems like in your golden years, the game starts to make a little bit more sense. Like clockwork its there damn near every day for the better part of 8 months and its just plain fun to watch a child grow into an adult within the confines of an artificial environment. And when your forced to endure those long, harsh winters trying to rationalize to yourself why following the NFL is still OK or planning on which NBA team to follow next, you start to miss the stability that baseball provides.

My advice, just lean in to it. Enjoy being a child those first few weeks of Spring Training leading all the way up to opening day. After that its OK, if you miss some April & May games. Things start coming together in June and by July you'll know what you've got on your hands. By then you can settle in for August & September just in time for the Post Season. That's when the game really gets interesting.

Max Scherzer, James Shields and The Buyer's Market

Oh, uhh... hmm.

Its mid January, two weeks away from the Super Bowl and the MLB Hot Stove has ground to a halt. Normally this wouldn't be much of a problem, except this year 2 of the top 3 starting pitchers available remain without teams or contracts. This sort of "closing time" shenanigans are normally reserved for the Ervin Santana's of the world and not a former Cy Young winner or a 3.50 ERA, innings machine staff leader. So lets take a look at what has happened so far to Max Scherzer and James Shields, and see if we can figure out what to expect going forward.

How did we get here?

For Max Scherzer we need to start with the reported 6 year $150 mil or so contract offer that he turned down back in Spring Training of last year. As usual, the Detroit Tigers made a very competitive offer to one of their own. Had the Red Sox offered anything near that to Jon Lester in March of last year, they'd be no 'Cespedes for the Rest of Us' or 'Hello Mr. Rick Porcello'. All the same, its kind of hard to blame Scherzer for wanting to test free agency. Detroit was his 2nd organization so he was already used to the idea of forwarding his mail to a new city, and since Cy Young winners in their prime don't hit free agency every year Scherzer seemed a solid bet to surpass Detroit's offer. To his part, Scherzer posted a 127 ERA+ with a career high in strike-outs at 252 and innings with 220.1 in 2014. Something any team would want.

That's all well and good, but none of this has provided the seemingly near guarantee that Max's grandchildren will be able to send their kids to college by way of the Scherzer Trust. Part of the problem here is that when a player and his agent let a number like $200 mil start floating around, the market for that player's services becomes very limited. Take for example the current market setter Jon Lester. He wound up with that 6 year $150ish contract that Scherzer originally turned down and he really only had 4 potential and 2 practical suitors.

You would think that the teams in on Lester would also be in on Scherzer considering the numbers and the need, but it really hasn't turned out that way. The peripheral suitors of the Dodgers and the Giants have not been meaningfully linked to Scherzer and it makes a lot of sense. Signing a 30 year old pitcher for 6 years at $25 mil plus per year does not seem like a Andrew Friedman kind of thing to do and certainly doesn't fit into the way the Dodgers have gone about business this offseason. Similarly, that kind of signing doesn't remotely fit into the way the Giants go about building their teams, and its REAL HARD to argue with their results. The Cubs? Forget it. They already got their guy and a lot of factors went into all of that. And if the Red Sox weren't willing to go above 6yr/$140 for their 'own' guy then Scherzer at anything above that just isn't going to happen. John Henry loves his actuaries and since he signs the checks no pitcher over 30 is getting that kind of money.

Traditionally, the elephant in the room when it comes to big free agent signings has always been the New York Yankees. I'm sure that Scott Boras looked at the '14-'15 offseason and saw the Yankees as at least one of Scherzer's potential suitors. Unfortunately, for Boras, Scherzer and Scherzer's great-grandkids it hasn't panned out that way so far. Even with a rotation full of question marks, the Yankees seem to be pretty quiet on Mad Max. 

The Yankees reluctance to dive in head first on Scherzer make a lot of sense when you look at the whole picture of their current situation. Their payroll heading into this season is at nearly $212 mil which is right around twice that of the MLB average and well above the current luxury tax threshold. (http://www.baseballprospectus.com/compensation/?team=NYA) And while the Yankees financial commitments fall off pretty quickly in the next few years, most of Brian Cashman's moves this offseason have been geared towards making the Yankees a younger and more flexible team (Credit where credit is due; Cashman is a very good GM). It just doesn't make a ton of sense considering the rest of the Yankees' offseason that they would get involved in another long term, high priced commitment to a player on the wrong side of 30.

While James Shields did not have an opportunity to turn down a contract as lucrative as the one Scherzer spurned, he does face a very similar situation. Early in the offseason, the talk was that once Lester signed, Shields would find a home shortly there afterwards. That never panned out as Shields's team has floated a 5yr/$100mil expectation which wouldn't seem bad for a pitcher of his pedigree if he wasn't entering his age 33 season. Few of the Scherzer suitors have been seriously linked to Shields at those kind of numbers, although a mystery team (Houston Astros???) has reportedly put a 5/$110 offer on the table. For an in depth look at the James Shields market take a look at The Curious Case of James Shields post that I wrote back in December.

As if the obvious and reported on factors of the 2014-2015 offseason weren't enough to cloud the prospects of both Scherzer and Shields, there are other elements at play here that have created a very unfavorable buyer's market for these two free agents. One issue that both of these players are facing right now is the increasingly understood reality around baseball that paying a player, especially a pitcher big time money into their mid 30's rarely pans out in the best interest of the team. The Red Sox live and die by this strategy. Piggybacking off of that is general downward trend of offense that has been happening league wide. Sure, everyone wants a shutdown 'ace', but with the league average ERA having dipped below 4.00 for the first time since 1992 you don't have to shell out huge bucks for a pitcher who is just above average. (www.fangraphs.com) If you have the time take a look at baseball-reference.com's pitching top 10s and see how many of those pitchers are either still on their rookie contracts, arbitration eligible or signed to very team friendly contracts. Also, for shits and giggles ask yourself how many of those pitchers are over 30 vs. under 30 and then drop me a comment telling me how badly you want your team to pay Scherzer or Shields $25 mil when they are 36.

But, but, but wait it gets worse! While these 2 high pedigree pitchers north of 30 are searching for the right matches, take a look at the free agent pitcher class coming in the 2015-16 offseason. First up is Johnny Cueto who is coming of a season where he threw 243.2 innings to a 160 ERA+ and 242 Ks. BTW, he will be 30 in the 2016 season. Next is Jordan Zimmerman who owns a career 120+ ERA (slightly better career wise than Scherzer) and will also be 30 in 2016. Similarly Doug Fister hits free agency next year with a career 120+ ERA, but will be 32 in 2016, which is eerily similar to Shields if you pretend for a second that Shields hasn't been good for 200+ innings for 8 straight years. How about David Price? 31 years old in 2016 and the owner of a career 121 ERA+ and a Cy Young, but in 2014 between 2 team he threw nearly 250 innings with 271 K's. Oh, and we can't forget about Jeff Samardzija. While his career numbers aren't all that spectacular he has thrown for over 200 innings and 200 K's the last 2 years and will be 31 in the 2016 season. In addition to these topish level 30ish pitchers the following very solid to up and coming options will also be hitting the market: Rick Porcello (27), Mike Leake (28), Mat Latos (28), Hisashi Iwakuma (35), Yovani Golardo (30), Ian Kennedy (31) and Wei-Yen Chen (30). Not to mention a few former Cy Young winners in Tim Lincecum (32) and R.A. Dickey (41) and quite possibly Zack Greinke(32). Considering the shear glut of option on the horizon, its not hard to see why teams might be reluctant to shell out $200 mil to a guy like Max Scherzer when pitchers of very similar projections are about to flood the market and drive down prices.

What can we expect now?

The reality of this new buyer's market has to be setting in with both the Scherzer and Shields camps. What will be interesting to see is how each of these players respond to this new reality. By now you've probably heard the "Pillow Contract" talk that has surfaced around both these players, but don't buy into that idea. Shields is too old (only in baseball player terms) to be taking on a 1 year deal in hopes of re-establishing his value, while Scherzer won't be doing himself any favors by joining the free agent crowd next offseason.

So, its really going to come down to exactly what each one of these players want to get out of the remaining years of the baseball careers. You will never read a negative word here about a player who chose to take all the money he could when it was available. Baseball players have very short careers relative to the rest of us and when your skills are worth tens of millions of dollars you have every right to cash in on it while you can. But if that was really the case, then you would have to think that James Shields would have already jumped all over that 5yr/$110 that we all heard to much about. 

Lets be real, both these players have been winners for much of their careers and they know the value of that.  Both Scherzer and Shields are in line to make more money than they could ever spend regardless of where they wind up so why wouldn't they want to join a team that gave them the best chance to win. The contenders that we already mentioned (Yankees, Red Sox, Dodgers, Giants, and Cubs) aren't likely to offer the kind of money both of these players are looking for. So we are left with a few other teams that could stretch to spend the money needed, but its unclear exactly how far these teams might go, Included in this group are the Blue Jays, Tigers (Scherzer's got a bit of history there), Angels (stretched pretty far already) and the Cardinals (we've all heard it, but I don't buy it). 

While both of these players might be able to get close to the money they are looking for from teams like the Astros or Diamondbacks, they may be looking for more than just a paycheck. For Shields to go to a team with a consistent shot at winning he may need to look for a contact more in the 3yr/$60mil area. For Scherzer to play for a contender he could certainly land a Cliff Lee like 5yr/$125-6/$150 or slightly more to basically choose where he wants to play for the next 5-6 years. Even though both their agents want to deliver headline grabbing type of numbers, don't underestimate the value of working someplace that you enjoy. When you are already talking about making more money than you can spend in one lifetime, I would think that the value of enjoying your career would mean even more. Then again I make less money in a year than these guys make in a game so its hard to fully understand what shapes their decision making.

For the sake of pure speculation, I'll throw down a few guesses here. I still think that Max Scherzer will sign with the Houston Astros to the tune of about 6yrs/$165mil with options. Boras won't allow him to sign for anything less that Lester and the Astros have money to spend and are closer than people think. Shield I think will take something close to that 3yr/$60mil to play for a contender. If that's his number then the Cubs, Red Sox, Giants, Yankees, Tigers, Blue Jays and even Dodgers are definitely in the picture and will provide him with the opportunity to win every year. Otherwise he can take all the money he can and go to Arizona and hate the game for the last few years of his career.

Neither of these gentlemen have easy decisions in front of them. The money they want is out there, but they certainly have to weigh the value of winning in the equation. Some guys are perfectly fine to punch the clock, collect their check and go home, but most baseball players aren't wire that way. After all, Andrew Miller went on record as saying he felt like it was his duty to get the biggest payday he could. Well, as you may have hear he turned down bigger money from the Astros to go to the Yankees. Miller knew he would make his money one way or another, but he chose the chance to win above all else. If Scherzer and Shields feel the same way then we may have a few more surprises left in the Hot Stove season.

Which Team Will Be 2015's Kansas City Royals

Small wonder those timely hits were so hard to come by

By now we all know the story of the 2014 Kansas City Royals. A Wild Card entrant who tore threw the American League bracket on their way to one of the most exciting World Series in recent memory. And while the Royals ultimately fell short, they left in indelible mark on the landscape of baseball on down to even the most casual fan.

Its easy to look at the 2014 Royals and to interpret their success as a fluke. A one time thing. But as the incomparable Kevin Malone once said "The fluke is the most common fish in the sea. So if you go fishing for a fluke, you might just catch one." 

Unfortunately, relegating the Royals to 'flash in the pan' status does a huge disservice to the hard work that Dayton Moore did putting that team together over a prolonged rebuilding period. Armed with a deep farm system due in large part to the aforementioned rebuilding, the Royals had a young, affordable line-up full of home grown talent. They also sent valuable players packing when the timing seemed right (Zack Grienke, Wil Myers, etc.) and the return they recieved helped cement their already developing core.

I do expect the Royals to be a very competitive team again this year, but to expect the same type of playoff success would be unreasonable and unfair. It can be done, but I just wouldn't count on it. So lets take a lot at what teams might fit into the 2014 Kansas City Royals mold and make some early February predictions.

San Diego Padres

The Padres should be right at the top of the list of surprise teams, except they won't necessarily surprise anyone this season since they largely stole the first half of the hot stove season. AJ Preller made some big time moves bringing in Matt Kemp, Wil Myers, Justin Upton, Will Middlebrooks (meh), Derek Norris, and Tim Federowicz. While all these guys have their perceived warts in one way or another its awfully hard to argue that the Padres aren't a better team today than they were this time last year. Preller also did all this without terribly dismantling the Padres pitching staff or completely stripping their minor league system bare. 

While both the Royals and the Padres have undergone an extensive rebuilding process that is more or less where the comparisons end. While the Royals did trade away a top flight prospect (Myers) in order to gain some major league established pitchers (Sheilds, Davis) that was really the only time they did that. The Padres made 3 trades of that ilk this off-season alone without adding any starting pitching. Of course pitching was a relative strength of the Padres so that does make some sense, unless the Padres manage to pry Cole Hamels away from the Phillies. 

Also dissimilar from the Royals, the Padres have not really been able to develop any strong positional prospects. Jed Gyorko may eventually get to Alex Gordon level, but I wouldn't stake my reputation on it. So disappointing have the Padres prospects been that they were willing to part w/ their short stop (DFA'd Everth Cabrera) and catcher (Grandal - decent, but sent packing for Matt Kemp). Meanwhile, the Royals sported such competent to above average homegrown players like Gordon, Eric Hosmer, Mike Moustakas, and Lorenzo Cain.

There's no magic blueprint for Royals type success. So how the Padres got to 2015 by no means excludes them from that type of run. However, I think they have too many question marks for the Padres to be 2015's team. Kemp may never be the same, who knows who Myers really is, and how will Grandal's departure affect the pitching staff to name a few. They'll be a much better team, but probably not better enough.

Seattle Mariners

Now here is an interesting team. The Mariners have seemingly been knocking on the door now for that last few years. Much like the slow build the Royals went through leading up to 2014, the Mariners have been combining some solid prospects with outside acquisitions to put themselves into a position of respectability.

Most notable is the homegrown "Best Pitcher on the Planet" Felix Hernandez and hired gun Robinson Cano. The Mariners are also bolstered by the emerging James Paxton and Tijuan Walker to fill out thei rotation and the recently "Got Paid" Kyle Seager at the hot corner. They've got an extremely solid foundation going forward.

What's hard to know is if the Mariners have done enough to compete in the AL West. The Angels seemed to have figured out their formula to win, and the Athletics are a perennial off-season punchline who manage to prove everyone wrong every year. Texas twins Rangers and Astros both figure to be better in 2015 which will make wins out west very hard to come by. The Mariners certainly have a shot, but this may be a win the division or bust situation.

Miami Marlins

Nobody rebuilds like the Marlins. They've almost made it an art form. How many teams can average a World Series title once every 10 years or so while also alienating the fan base roughly twice every 10 years? These guys are doing something special.

One of the reasons the Marlins have been so successful in short periods has a lot to do with their ability to identify and develop talent. Typically though the Marlins take that talent, win a little and then send those players on their way in an effort to "rebuild" acting like a small market team. I'm sorry, but since when has Miami been a small market? If the Marlins can't make money in Miami, then they are just plain doing something wrong (Oh right, they tear apart their team every couple of years and built an ugly stadium in the middle of a swamp).

Something changed this year though. The Marlins kicked off their offseason not by dealing their marquee player but by signing him to a massive contract extension. Giancarlo Stanton received possibly the largest contract in baseball history from the team that once traded Miguel Cabrera for a box of nickels. The Marlins weren't done there as they went on to add Dee Gordon (a nice compliment to an already emerging line-up) and Mat Latos (An upgrade to an already solid rotation). On paper, the Marlins look to be a fairly well rounded team with a deep well of young players. If they can hold down the fort until Jose Fernandez returns from TJ surgery as projected in early June, the Marlins could be strong contender for the NL Wild Card.

Chicago White Sox

Sometimes we look far and wide for the next big thing when it was right underneath our noses the whole time. A team that closely matches up with 2014 Royals is their very own division mates, the 2015 White Sox. Now the White Sox where World Series Champions just 10 short years ago, but its been a long road out of hell since then.

Unlike the Royals, the White Sox never went through a full bottoming out process as they have floated right around .500 or so over the last decade. However, they have made the most out of their drafting and scouting by building a young nucleus around Chris Sale, Jose Quintana, Jose Abreu, and Alexi Ramirez (Not great, but competent as SS which is harder to find that you might think). The White Sox also went out and significantly improved their line-up by adding Melky Cabrera, Adam LaRoche, Jeff Samardzija, and David Robertson.

Also working in the White Sox favor is the general state of the AL Central. We already talked about the Royals. They'll still be tough, but its hard to predict that they will be better. The Tigers have stopped adding big time players and now appear poised to enter into a downward cycle. The Tribe may be on their way up, but its equally as likely that they are on their way down, and then there the Twins. Oh the Twins. An apparently loaded farm system that still is not ready to bear any fruit. That puts the White Sox in a prime position to rack up some wins and possibly even take down the division.

There you have it. Four teams with the possibility of taking the 2014 Royals' path to (near) playoff glory. There's probably four more teams I could add to this list, but at that point I'd be predicting success for a quarter of the league. That's just silly. If you think I'm an idiot for excluding your favorite team, I'm hardly hiding, Let me know.

The Curious Case of James Shields

James Shields in 2010 being informed his next World Series appearance would be with the Royals.

Let me start out by saying that I have almost no idea where James Shields will be playing baseball in 2015 or at what sort of price tag. What I do know is that no one else seems to really know either. But I love me some spec-u-latin', so here we go.

Here is what we do know. James Shields is a 32 year old pitcher with a career 111 ERA+ to his name. In his 9 years of Major League service Shields has gone over 200 innings every year in the last 8. He has been remarkably durable and consistent, minus a tough stretch with the Rays during the 09-10 seasons where for the only time in his career his FIP was over 4.00. The last 3 years however, Shields has posted a FIP around 3.50 while pitching for 2 different teams. He has clearly figured something out.

Also, there are those intangibles that we all simply have to take other people's word for. Like the much maligned "Big Game" James nicknamed battered about this postseason. But by most accounts Shields is a strong leader in the clubhouse and of a pitching staff. He is known as a "bulldog" out there on the mound which could mean anything from his general demeanor to that he has a hard time breathing due to a stubby nostril cavity and farts a lot because of it (his nose really isn't all that stubby, at least from pictures I have seen). Anyway, those intangibles are kinda worthless to me in trying to figure out exactly what team will pay how much to put its uniform on him.

What I do know is that there is plenty of reluctance out there to hand an about to be 33 year old pitcher a 5 year contract over a $100 mil which is the number I seem to be reading a lot recently. Most pitchers receiving contracts of that size are under the age of 30 which Shields is rapidly putting in his rear view mirror. Even if some of those under 30 pitchers do not have the same kind of track record that Shields has to his name (Homer Bailey, I'm talking about you).

One interesting comp for age and contract expectations is the deal the Phillies handed Cliff Lee in 2010. At the time we were to understand that Lee took an under market deal to go to Philly because he liked the city and the team (it is a nice city). As if a contract of 5 years at $120mil is somehow under market... but Lee was 32 at the time coming of great run with the Rangers and with a Cy Young under his belt. And for the most part Lee has lived up to his end of the deal with 3 very good years with the Phillies with 2014's injury plagued season fresh in people's minds. Lee hasn't helped the Phillies contend those years, but he sure isn't the reason why they are where they are today.

However, James Shields is not necessary Cliff Lee. Lee's career ERA+ of 118 is largely held down by his first 6 years in the league when he was slightly better than average overall, but since his Cy Young in 2008 he has been a straight beast while on a barnstorming tour of country. Shields just hasn't been THAT good. And it would seem to me if anyone one could qualify as an "ace" it would be Lee. Shields is not at that level. He's just a tick below.

So where does that leave us? It may be worthwhile to examine the potential suitors for Shields. The teams that most commonly come up are the Dodgers (in on everybody), RedSox (people believe they need more pitching), Giants (FA spurned World Series Champs), and the Yankees (so many reasons). RedSox and (new) Dodger management don't seem like the types to be paying $20+mil per year to pitchers who will eventually be 37. If he winds up with either of those teams it will be something closer to 3yrs/$70, which still seems unlikely. I don't buy the Giants paying any more than the RedSox or Dodgers, because even though they could use a guy like Shields, they sure don't need him. The Yankees? I don't know, its possibe, but if they were going to spend big on a pitcher it seems like Scherzer would be their guy. Plus don't underestimate Brian Cashman's position here. He's got a major rebuilding process ahead of him and I'm sure he's actually pretty excited for the opportunity. Paying aging pitchers lots of money won't dig the Yankees out the hole they are in and Cashman knows it.

So for the kind of money Shields is reportedly seeking we may need to look at the fringe candidates. The Texas Rangers could be a possibility, but may be a little gun shy of FA's with recent experiences with Shin Soo Choo and Prince Fielder (traded I know, but the point is there). There's no way Padres are really serious on this one. The Angel are out there, but they have a lot of financial commitments already on the books. I see the Marlins possibly getting involved, but at that price its a question. Now the Tigers might be a stealth team in this if they miss out on Scherzer. They could use some more quality, proven pitching to keep up in the AL Central and ownership is more than willing to spend when needed. 

Another team that keeps coming up for me is the Houston Astros. I know it seems crazy, but how different of a position are the Astros in now from where the Nationals were when they were willing to give Jason Werth that big money deal in 2011. A team rich in prospects that no one saw coming giving an "over market" contract to attract a big name FA. Werth has delivered and the Nats are contenders. Its an eerily similar situation. (I've got more to say about the Astros later)

If Shields wants the money and the years its probably going to come from an up and coming team who has to pay extra to attract players. If we wants to win with an established team, he may need to take fewer years, but the price per year will likely be around the same. However, the prospect of leading a rising team to the promise-land while being paid a truckload of money to do it may be just the kind of thing that gets "Big Game" James going.