Daily Archives: January 10, 2009

The wife and I were down in the village this afternoon when it started to snow.  I told her about an e-mail I got this morning from my friend Rich out in Long Beach, California.  He pointed out that it would be 80 degrees there today, 30 in New York.  Then he quoted Randy Newman’s “I Love L.A.”  I replied, taking the bait as I always do, and questioned his manhood.  But as the wife and I walked west into the wind,  I cursed him again, thinking 80 degrees didn’t sound so bad after all.

We stopped by the Chelsea Market.  I hadn’t been there in years.  I got a baguette from Amy’s Bread and went to Buon Italia, one of the most comprehensive Italian markets in the city.  It can be pricey, but it is worth it. 

We puttered around, looked at the expensive cheese and chocolate.  Got a can of La Valle tomatoes, my favorite brand.

I browsed the jams and the wife said, “What is a Quince, Alex?”  Rosie Perez, her best movie impression.  So I picked out a jar of Quince jam.  Then we got some nice buccatini pasta, the hollow spaghetti that the wife loves.   

Then we stood in front of a case of cured pork products.  The wife looked at the rolls of pancetta and sides of ham and frowned.  “That is so gross.”

“It is heaven,” I said. 

“Funny how two people can look at the same thing and have such opposite reactions,” she said.  I repeated the line back to her twenty minutes later when we passed a parked car with a pug sitting in the passenger’s seat. 

When we got back to the Bronx, the snow was covering the cars and three garbage trucks were rolling up Riverdale avenue plowing the street.

Then we were upstairs, warm and dry.  NFL playoffs, a cup of tea, and some butter and quince jam on a baguette.  Kittens.  Wife.  A perfect way to beat the cold.

In the wake of the Mark Teixeira signing (and press conference), the Yankees have made both Xavier Nady and Nick Swisher available in trade talks. They may end up dealing one of the two, depending on which one can bring the better package in return. I’m still not convinced that’s the right thing to do, unless the return equates to a competent center fielder or a high-grade backup catcher. But there’s no harm in at least exploring the market, which includes teams like the Mariners, Reds, and Giants, and possibly the Dodgers if they don’t re-sign Manny Ramirez. The Reds appear to be one of the most interested parties, but they may not have the right parts to offer. They have no spare center fielders of any real value, and only a moderately tempting backup catcher in Ryan Hanigan. Perhaps the Yankees would have interest in Homer Bailey, who was once rumored to be heading to the White Sox for Jermaine Dye. At one time hailed as the game’s best pitching prospect, Bailey has fallen on hard times in the major leagues and may not have the stuff to succeed as a high-end starter. All in all, he’s a risky proposition who looks too much like the next Charles Hudson to me.

The Giants might be a better match. They can offer either Aaron Rowand or Randy Winn in a deal for Swisher or Nady. At one time, Rowand was a Gold Glove caliber center fielder, but followers of the Giants say his defensive play fell off considerably in 2008. And Winn isn’t really an everyday center fielder, but rather a corner outfielder who can play the middle for short stretches. Unless the Giants can pad their offer to include a pitcher or a catcher, I might have to take a pass on a potential trade with Frisco.

Then there are the Mariners, who need offense in the worst way. They’d prefer Hideki Matsui to either Swisher or Nady, largely because of the Japanese marketing possibilities. But who would the Mariners offer in return for “Godzilla?” They have an unwanted catcher in Kenji Johjima, who was simply dreadful in 2008. They have a shopworn pitcher in Erik Bedard, but his health, attitude, and general contempt of the media would be a bad fit in New York. Once again, the potential return in a trade looks so questionable that Brian Cashman should be very careful before he commits himself to dealing one of his extra outfielder/DH types…

(more…)

Powered by Moe Green, here’s the news:

• Let’s start with a good trivia question, courtesy of Jayson Stark … now that the John Smoltz-Chipper Jones tag team has been busted up after 16 years together, which pair of active teammates has played together the longest? (Answer at the end of this post)
• Newsday’s Ken Davidoff gives the reasons the Yanks would prefer to keep Swisher over Nady:

1) Swisher’s versatility. He can play both corner outfield positions and first base as well as centerfield (his weakest position). Nady plays only the corner outfield positions.

2) As a switch hitter, Swisher gives Joe Girardi more flexibility.

3) Swisher is signed through 2011 for $21 million. Nady can become a free agent after this season, and with Scott Boras as his agent, he indeed will file for free agency.

4) Although the Yankees like Nady perfectly well, they think Swisher’s upbeat, fiery personality could be an added asset.

• Over at BP.com, Shawn Hoffman details why a salary cap might actually harm lower-revenue/lower-payroll teams:

Let’s say, in some far-off universe, MLB owners and players actually did agree on a salary cap. With it would come the normal provisions: a salary floor at around 75-85 percent of the cap, and a guaranteed percentage of total industry revenues for the players. Since the players have been taking in about 45 percent of revenues the past few years, we’ll keep it at that figure …

Using 2008 as an example, the thirty teams took in about $6 billion … for an average of $200 million per team. Forty-five percent of that (the players’ share) is $90 million, which we’ll use as the midpoint between our floor and cap. If we want to make the floor 75 percent of the cap …  we can use $77 million and $103 million, respectively.

With a $103 million cap, nine teams would have been affected last year, and a total of about $286 million would have had to be skimmed off the top. Since total salaries have to remain at existing levels, the bottom twenty-one teams would have had to take on this burden, which had previously been placed on the Yankees, Red Sox, et al. On the other end, fourteen teams would have been under the payroll floor, by a total of $251 million. Even discounting the Marlins‘ $22 million payroll, the other thirteen teams would have had to spend an average of $15 million more just to meet the minimum. Some of those teams might be able to afford it; most wouldn’t.

Imagine being Frank Coonelly in this situation. Coonelly, the Pirates‘ team president, has publicly supported a cap. Had our fictional cap/floor arrangement been instituted last year, the Pirates would have needed to increase their Opening Day payroll by $28 million. Not only would the team have taken a big loss, but Neal Huntington’s long-term strategy would have been sabotaged, since the team would have had to sign a number of veterans just to meet the minimum payroll.

Now fast forward to 2009. Let’s say the Pirates’ sales staff runs into major headwinds, with the team struggling and the economy sinking. The team’s top line takes a hit, falling $10 million from 2008. The Mets and Yankees, meanwhile, open their new ballparks, and each team increases its local revenue by $50 million. If the twenty-seven other teams are flat, total industry revenues rise by $90 million (not including any appreciation in national media revenue). Forty-five percent of that, of course, goes to the players. So even as the Pirates’ purchasing power decreases, the payroll floor actually rises.

In other words, without a more egalitarian distribution of income, the system crumbles.

(more…)