Derek Jeter

The headlines in New York and on espn.com would have you believe that the Yankees and Derek Jeter have reached an impasse on contract negotiations. The rumor is that Jeter wants a deal that at minimum will pay him an average of 20 million a year over 4 years. There are some in the Yankees' organization that would be willing to pay out the 20 million a year but at a 3 year maximum.

This may all be true, in fact it likely is 100% true, but that doesn't matter. It's all just hype for a story and here's why. If Jeter can't get a 4 year 80 million dollar contract from the Yankees he's not getting it anywhere else. Negotiations tend to posses a lot more suspense when there is competition. With the numbers the Jeter camp is throwing around the Yanks need not worry about another team swooping in and dropping an offer of that size on Jeter's lap in an effort to lure him out of the Bronx.

In fact there are only a few teams that could afford a contract of 4 years and 60 million dollars. The best question then would have to be " Why would they?" Why would any major league team drop an average of 15 million ( never mind 20! ) on a player who despite one of the greatest resumes ever is without debate past his prime. It's almost an agreed upon fact that Jeter is on the decline. There's nothing wrong with that. He's due, he's been very good for a very long time. He's probably the best shortstop in baseball history. If the Ernie Banks, Honus Wagner, and Cal Ripken camps want to debate that they are more than welcome to. Jeter has been as great a player as anyone could have imagined. He's made big plays, at big times. He's gotten numerous clutch hits, he's won titles, been an all-star. He's a model citizen on and off the field. He played in an era that will be remembered for the chemically induced stats generated by most of the brightest stars of the era. Yet Jeter would be on any short list of players least likely to have used steroids.

Despite all these accolades ( I could go on) Jeter is nearing the end. He could put together another great season. His stats were in a three year decline heading into the 2009 season and he put together a fantastic season which culminated in his 5th World Series Title. Yet there really is no logical reason to expect much more than declining numbers over the next few years. When you add in that Jeter will have to begin to relinquish his everyday shortstop position his value drops off a bit more.

It's an agents job to extract every last bit of value out of every contract. Yet as these negotiations continue Casey Close ( Jeter's agent) must know in the back of his mind that he's in a tough spot. There are a small handful teams that might want to pursue Jeter. Reds, Mets, Angels, Dodgers. That's it. Even those four teams are a stretch. The Mets have Jose Reyes at short. He's one of the few Mets that is still coveted by management. Could Reyes or Jeter for that matter be shifted to second base? No team in all of baseball would relish the chance to pluck Jeter from the Yanks more than the Mets. The Reds have an opening at shortstop but financially there is no way they would go more than 4 years 60 million and even that's a stretch. The LA teams both have the money and the infield situation with the Angels is certainly wide open. However the Angels have made it pretty clear that they are going to spend on the outfield this offseason. The Dodgers with Joe Torre and Don Mattingly in the dugout would offer a comfortable transition for Jeter but LA has a fairly talented infield.

The fact of the matter is this. Jeter can ask for whatever he wants to ask for. In the end he's going to have to take what the Yankees give him. He's almost assured to not find a better deal anywhere else. It will make for a good story while it's going on, and maybe there will be some headline grabbing quotes from both sides, but in the end Derek Jeter will be wearing Pinstripes next spring. Bank on it.

Election Musings...

Amidst all the pontificating regarding last night's election there are a number of key points to keep in mind. This goes for those thrilled with the results as well as those contemplating silly things like moving to another country, or jumping off a bridge, or telling everyone that voted GOP they are "assholes" or " morons" or something else that really serves no purpose. In fact I'd urge everyone to keep this in perspective. While the number of seats was quite high what transpired last night was hardly a surprise. In fact it would have been much more historically notable had the democrats gained seats anywhere last night.

From a purely strategic standpoint this election means not so much. The GOP controls the house which is nothing to sneeze at however they don't control the Senate and with the too close to call senate races in Colorado and Washington seemingly breaking towards the Democrats the margin of majority will be slimmer but still a majority nonetheless. Last check Obama was still the President.

With regards to the media. While last weekend's Jon Stewart rally was attended mainly by progressives the message actually was one that any rational person regardless of ideology can digest. The media ( CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, FOX, MSNBC) in many cases only tell the narrow niche viewers that watch them what they want to hear. That might make everyone watching feel better about what they stand for or believe in but it's not really what the media is supposed to do. This has been a long term bugaboo of mine. It cuts both ways. Ed Shultz and Keith Olbermann are nothing more than liberal versions of Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly. Beck crying like a baby and lamenting the anti-american and socialist members of Obama's administration does absolutely nothing but rile up an already economically stressed out group of people. LIkewise to Schultz calling people "teabaggers, and racists" When the goal of news becomes ratings points and advertising revenue everyone loses. This is because truth and facts are generally not sexy things. They just are. This viewpoint is in itself a progressive stance. A free-market, conservative stand would suggest that if the news sells it is somehow valid. That's a debate that I'd be happy to have with anyone. This attitude has permeated much of our lives. How often in the last election cycle did you hear a politician or pundit validate a policy proposal by referencing public opinion polls? That's an amazing insult to our society because it's a very overt way of saying " Im standing for this because you want me to" as opposed to" I'm standing for this because I truly think it's right" They're supposed to be leaders not followers. Children do things to make their parents happy, adults make decisions based on what they believe to be right. As soon as the media and the politicians stop acting like teenagers afraid of sitting at the uncool lunch table things in this nation will get better quickly. That won't happen when ratings points and advertising revenue dictate how news is disseminated. If you like Bill O'Reilly better than Rachel Maddow that's fine. There's nothing wrong with that at all, you are more than entitled to your opinion. However if you somehow think that the fact that more people watch O'Reilly on a nightly basis somehow makes his news better or more factual then that's a problem. One has nothing to do with the other. If a public opinion poll could have been taken in Portugal in the year 1491 there's a fair chance that a vast majority would say that the world was flat. Maybe Columbus would have backed out of his trip? Perhaps the results would have slashed funding for his trip? More people think the world is flat- so it must be true right? It's an absurd premise. Yes our tax dollars do pay politicians, but that doesn't mean they should be bending in the wind on each piece of legislation based on a bunch of focus group snap polls.

The media for their part are supposed to be exposing this and reporting it accurately. Just because there's a liberal in one seat and a conservative in another doesn't mean either one of them are telling you what is "news". They're just telling you what they think. "News" is supposed to be a factual entity not something that two pundits argue over. There was a time when networks did not hold news departments accountable with regards to profit. It might be impossible to somehow bring that type of attitude back into vogue but it's a very worthy pursuit because of ALL the hyperbole that exists out there. A free and accurate press really is very, very important. Just being able to say what one wants is only half the picture. There has to be some sort of standard of accuracy dictated by something other than what generates a profit and I eagerly await a real newscast that does this.
I'd say that the GOP has put themselves in a very tricky position. Many of their candidates ran on total repudiation of the Obama agenda. Even after the massive gains they made last night they have zero chance of overriding a presidential veto or of getting hard line conservative legislation through the senate. They can either compromise which many of the candidates ran AGAINST doing or they can create gridlock which totally doomed them in the 90's. Both options have substantial risk. Create gridlock and they will lose many of the moderates and independents that broke their way this cycle. Compromise and they tea-party people will be very upset. Thus the results of this election cycle will not be earth shattering. The odds are very good that the country has some form of economic upswing in the next two years. This would be the case even had the GOP won the Senate and House last night or had the GOP been swept totally out of office in an unprecedented Democratic wave.

So one of the next big issues will be who claims "credit" for an economic upswing? History tells us sitting president's receive credit for economic upswings and take blame for downturns regardless of wether or not they deserve it. Clinton and Reagan both offer clear evidence of this. Both were decimated in their first midterm elections due in large part to economic turmoil and both cruised to reelection. In my lifetime I can't remember two LESS suspenseful presidential election nights than 1984 and 1996. Boehner is far less skilled a political tactician than Gingrich was so I'm not that concerned with the GOP somehow highjacking any sort of economic revival. The real question is how the democrats go forward? While their policy options have become somewhat limited they do have a fairly progressive caucus. Not many blue dogs left and very few Dems operating in red districts. Obama's biggest and it turns out most unrealistic challenge once he won the office was following through on the duality of his campaign. It turns out at this point in our nation's history one can't govern on unity AND create bold change. The sacrifices needed to make that attempt render both causes to be perceived as failures. Rahm Emanuel thought he could do it by working behind the scenes but Obama also ran on transparency and at every turn Rahm created another firestorm. His departure makes things interesting. Who will take over and fill that void and more importantly can they do a better job?

Today Obama held a press conference at 1pm. I didn't think it was bad. In the immediate aftermath of an election night there's no need for fire and brimstone and in addition Obama is not a fire and brimstone style of speaker. He's very measured and quite savvy. If you look at some of things he said during that conference he's already throwing things at the GOP that they will be silly to not accept. In addition he also offered up zero concessions on the expiring Bush Tax cuts. Finally while he did acknowledge the voter discontent he did not say it was due to progressive policies. In fact his statements regarding his policies lack of timely and immediate impact contributing to voter outrage suggest that he may in fact be thinking those policies were not bold and progressive enough. I think he will ( without admitting it) follow Clinton's model from 94-96. That's a fairly successful model and Clinton did in fact make a stand against the GOP by not conceding the entire budget to them and forcing them to capitulate the far right base and shut down Washington. A move which totally blew up in their faces. Yet here they are less than 15 years later and already they are saying they'll do it again.

It will also be interesting to see how McConnell and Boehner mange their crew. Let's face it. There are a bunch of new GOP people in the house and three senators Paul, Rubio, and Lee that are fairly beholden to the tea party. Those two congressional leaders can kiss the asses of the tea party in the media all they want but the instant they make a compromise, sign on to a piece of bi-partisian legislation or embrace anything even vaguely resembling an Obama backed policy they're going to hear it and LOUDLY from the teaparty. Already today Dick Lugar, Orin Hatch, and Scott Brown are on a list of GOP senators targeted in primaries for 2012.This is what's called "being backed into a corner". Have fun boys!

Cliff Lee to The Yanks, Why?

It didn't take long. Less than ten minutes after the Yankees hopes to repeat as World Champs had evaporated into the moist Texas air the chatter began.

" Lee will be in New York next year and that will cure the Yankees pitching woes"

Nearly everyone agrees that the Yankees will bid aggressively on the top prize of the 2010-2011 offseason. Could Lee end up playing for the Yanks next year? Of course he could but there are a lot more good reasons for him to NOT go to play for the Yanks than good ones for him to sign with them.

First off is the desire to win a title. Never mind the fact that Lee may end up with a world series ring before he even files for free-agency. Even if Texas losses the World Series to either San Fran or Philly there's really no reason to think that the Yanks will be favored by anything more than a thread to win the American League next season over the Rangers. Both teams have plenty of talent but unfortunately for fans of the Yanks, Rays, and Red Sox the Rangers are young, have plenty of money to spend, and have tons of talent. Right off the bat the Rangers have the best young closer and young shortstop in all of baseball. Feliz and Andrus are both 22 years old. The sky is the limit for these two young players. While it's unlikely either of them ever match the achievements of Mariano Rivera or Derek Jeter it is VERY likely they will both be improving, not declining over the next four or five seasons.

When one starts to look over the remaining rosters you can't help but notice a dramatic difference in the trajectory of these two American League powerhouses. Even the most optimistic Yankee fan would concede that Rivera, Jeter, Posada, Petite, Berkman and A-Rod are all players who's careers are past their peeks. In Texas only three such players exist. One is DH Vladamir Guererro, the other two are catcher Bengie Molina and middle-reliver Darren Oliver. Kinsler, Cruz, Hamilton, Moreland, Murphy, Borbon, and catcher Matt Treanor are all either in their prime or approaching it. While the Yanks have two guys on their team that can contend for an MVP trophy in Texiera and Cano the Rangers actually have three guys in Hamilton ( who is likely to win this years), Kinsler, and Nelson Cruz. All three of these guys could end up with an MVP trophy on the mantle at over the course of their careers.

Ownership and management. The name is the same but the simple fact of the matter is that Hal Steinbrenner inherited the Yankees. He's not a self-made entrepreneur like his father. He's a rich kid who's main qualifications to be the owner of the Yankees is purely genetic. Contrast that with the new owner of the Rangers, Nolan Ryan. Ryan is baseball legend. He's the all-time strikeout leader and has been involved in the pros since the late 60's. In addition Ron Washington is much more of a players manager than Joe Girardi is. Girardi and the Yankees in general have a very strict philosophy when it comes to pitchers. Rigid pitch counts, innings limits, enforced missed starts, extra days off. Ryan is a guy that really allows his guys to pitch, they can finish games, they are allowed to get in a groove. This current Yankee roster features many more guys performing below expectation than ones that are exceeding them. Girardi forced Hughes to skip a start he wanted to make back in June. Girardi also went on the record as saying he would have removed CC Sabathia ( his ace) from a no-hitter back in April to limit his workload. Is there anything about Cliff Lee that makes anyone think that he would want to play for a manager like that?

Then there's the stadiums. Texas stadium is already a pretty decent hitters park. It's not even close to the new Yankee Stadium though. Left handed hitting Yankees really rip it up at the stadium. Nick Swisher who has become one of New York's favorite players hit 15 homers against right handed pitchers this year, 13 of those came in New York. His OPS batting left handed in New York was an impressive .906, batting right handed it's a pedestrian .748. The ballparks are probably not that big a deal though when compared with the next issue.

The money. Let's not pretend this won't be a HUGE issue. Keep in mind Yankee fans that the amount of money the Yanks can spend is not endless. Yes they have lots of money but they're already spending a ton of it. Alex Rodriguez alone will be paid 32 million dollars next season. If that sound absurd it's because it is. He was not even the best third baseman in his own division this year. In addition to that Sabathia and Texiera will both make over 20 million next year. Add to that 16.5 for dud pitcher AJ Burnett, 13 million for Posada and 11 million for Cano along with nearly 10 for Swisher and you've already got over 140 million committed for 2011 before the inevitable resigning of Jeter, Rivera, and if he's willing Petite. The Yanks can still throw a monster contract at Lee but The Rangers are flush with cash between the new ownership and a monster new TV deal. In addition Texas has no state income tax which means that even if the Yanks outbid the Rangers by 20 million dollars it's still a wash over the long haul. If the Rangers really, really want to keep Lee they will be very competitive with the Yanks. It helps when Andrus and Feliz get paid a total of $800,000 next year. Not only will Texas have money to throw at Lee but they may be in the market for some of the other top free agents as well. Lee for what it's worth is also from right over the Texas border in Arkansas. So Texas is about as close to home as Lee can ever expect to play.

In other words there's only one real reason for Lee to go to the Yankees next year outside of Texas just flat out deciding to not get involved in the bidding. That's New York City itself. That's not a bad reason. It's a great city, one of the truly unique places in the world. The question is will that be enough for someone like Lee? Money, future winning, organizational philosophy, weather, all those seem to point in the direction of Texas. Maybe Lee just loves New York? He wouldn't be the first and he won't be the last. Yankee fans better hope so because after Lee is off the market there aren't very many guys out there that can really improve the Yankees pitching next year, unless they can trade for Zach Greinke! Hmmmm?

Why all the no-no's?

Patience is a virtue.
Or is it?
This year baseball fans have seen unprecedented amounts of near no-hitters, near perfect games, and real no-hitters and perfect games as well. Why?
Perhaps being too patient is part of the reason? Most modern baseball fans remember Nomar Garciaparra. The Shortstop was among baseball's brightest young stars in the late 90's. He arrived around the same time as other young phenoms such as Alex Rodriguez and Derek Jeter. Nomar never had a great Hall-Of-Fame type career. He burned bright for a few seasons and then due in part to a tough wrist injury and potentially to PED he faded. Still for a few seasons he was on of the most feared right handed hitters in the game. He hit 373 in 1999 a number which is impressive in any era of baseball. He also did something that almost no hitter skilled or unskilled does in baseball today. He almost always swung at the first pitch. This had it's detractors at the time and in today's game it would be frowned upon by nearly every manager, scout, gm, or writer. But that's what Nomar did. In today's game with it's emphasis on working the count, forcing the pitcher to throw more pitches and trying to draw a walk this type of thing would not be allowed to happen. Nomar would never be promoted through the minor league systems of today's teams. Even if his minor league numbers were great there would be push to get him to be more patient at the plate. Today's top offensive players are just not very likely to swing at the first pitch a pitcher throws. Now, perhaps some pitchers are using that to their advantage?
Baseball is a game where stats truly matter. Even a basic understanding of statistics will allow a fan to understand that because the game has been played for over 100 years and because there are over 150-160 games every year the numbers don't often lie. Statistical irregularities mean more in baseball. They require some thought.
Despite this aspect which makes baseball different from other sports it also has something in common with other sports. Teams look at what works, who is winning championships and then they try to emulate them. The A's use of Eckersley in the late 80's led to the Yankees use of Nelson/Stanton/Rivera throughout the dynasty of the late 90's. Then all teams started to embrace the specialization of the bullpen which led to tightly regulated pitch counts and entire trade deadlines based on contenders acquiring extra arms to provide rest to skilled starters that now throw less pitches then at any other time in the history of baseball.
Like all trends there are reactions made to combat them. If pitching staffs are getting deeper and being asked to work less then hitters will try to make them work more. The best way to do that is to take pitches. The teams that seem to maintain a fair amount of success year in and year out in baseball all subscribe to a similar offensive philosophy. This philosophy first brought into the public eye in Michael Lewis best selling book " Moneyball" is one that espouses patience at the plate. It values a walk, it values working the count. It places a premium on the on-base percentage statistic. Another stat OPS incorporates the importance of power into the equation. It accounts for the combined number when a hitters' slugging percentage and on-base percentage are added up.
The results of teams stressing these stats may now be showing one of it's first possible weaknesses. Why would a skilled pitcher with confidence not throw a hitter, especially one considered slightly below average a first pitch strike? The odds have ALWAYS been in the pitcher's favor but if the hitter is less likely to swing then it would seem to tilt them even more toward the pitcher. This is not the type of thing that needs to effect every batter that comes to the plate to have a big impact. Four hit and five hit games happen all the time in baseball. They're noteworthy in the daily sportspages and on-line but they aren't really historical events. No-hitters and perfect games ( especially perfect games) are. They're tracked by all the major baseball media clearing houses. They are mentioned in the Hall of Fame. It only takes a bloop to ruin a no-hitter or a perfect game but perhaps hitters trying to work the count are putting themselves in an 0-1 hole a bit too often?

None of this should in any way devalue the no-hitters and perfect games that have been thrown this season. Just two days ago Roy Halladay threw the first no-hitter in post season play since Don Larsen's perfect game in 1956. The magnitude of that accomplishment should in no way be denigrated regardless of the reasons behind it's occurrence.

I do wonder if hitting coaches and accomplished hitters are taking notes though.

Red Sox 2011

Lots of sports stories floating around out there but as a Red Sox fan I can't help but think forward to the 2011 baseball season. There are going to be changes made in Boston and this is a combination of what I think they will do and what they should do.

Catcher: They should probably let Victor Martinez walk and I think that they will. Yes, he's a good guy and a very good hitter. However he's a very weak fielding catcher and having a better than average glove at that position is more important than having a better than average bat. In addition it appears he wants a minimum of three years. That's too long. He won't be getting better in the next three years. Let him go ( probably to Texas) and let Varitek ride off into the sunset as well. In addition to being quite old. He's totally injury prone and you can't carry three catchers. The Red Sox should look to sign John Buck to a short term deal. He's an above average fielding catcher that hit 20 homers last year playing in the AL East. Sign Buck as your everyday guy and hope that Saltalamachia can begin to become the player that most scouts think he can be.

First Base: Youklis has this position on lockdown unless something interesting happens with regard to Adrian Gonzalez out in San Diego. Although I don't see the Sox parting with the 2 or 3 top prospects that it will take to get him away from San Diego.

Second Base: I think Pedroia has this position for the next 4-8 years.

Shortstop: Two months ago I would have said that Scutaro was a pretty safe bet to be the opening day shortstop. Now I'm not so sure. Lowrie made a compelling case in the last month of the season. Lowrie will have a chance to win this position in Spring Training. I'm not sure if he will but if he does then look for Scutaro to be involved in some sort of trade. He's not that pricey and there will be a very willing market for him.

Third Base: This is a big issue. Beltre just finished off an exceptional season. Most reports seem to say that he enjoyed playing in Boston quite a bit. Scott Boras is his agent so you can forget about any sort of discount just because he happened to like Boston. The issue is twofold. Can the Sox afford him? Yes they can. Will they pay him? I'm not so sure. He's not just going to want a lot of money per year ( I'm thinking in the 12-15 million range) he's also going to want at least three years. Three years and 42 million. Is he worth it? Hard to tell. A quick glance at his career numbers suggests that years where he hits over 300 are more an aberration than the norm. In twelve and a half big league seasons he's finished over 300 just twice, this year and in 2004. 2004 just happened to be the year preceding his last big free-agent contract. This past season was also just his fourth with an on base percentage over 350. If the Sox let him go then the question becomes "who plays third?". There aren't too many decent third baseman in all of the big leagues never mind ones who are free-agents this coming off season. So Beltre has put himself in an extremely advantageous situation. If he leaves then the Sox could go after a first baseman and move Youklis to third. The list of free-agent first baseman is much better. Adam Dunn, Paul Konerko and Carlos Pena headline it. Forget Pena, he just doesn't get on base enough. However Adam Dunn is only 30 years old, he has a career obp of 381 a career ops of 901 and averages 40 homers a year. It's going to depend on the dollars and also wether or not Youklis is willing to make a move to third. They still could pursue Adrian Gonzalez but if given the choice between spending a ton of money or spending a ton of money AND parting with top minor league talent Theo seems to prefer to keep the kids in the system. ( I do to)

Outfield: The Sox have a huge payroll but it's not even close to the Yanks. That means that they will never have all-stars 1-9 in the lineup. After the injuries to Ellsbury and the disaster that was the Mike Cameron signing many Sox fans are calling for a wholesale change in the outfield. Not only is that unlikely to happen but I'm not even sure it's needed. The biggest issue this past season was without question Jacoby Ellsbury. Seemingly on the verge of superstardom Ellsbury had a brutal collision with Adrian Beltre on April 11th and never really recovered. Nearly the entire season was spent on the disabled list. By summer Ellsbury had become the target of both media and fan scorn due in large part to the seemingly never-ending recovery time and his total lack of communication to even his own teammates. No question that Ellsbury handled the injury poorly from a PR standpoint. None of that changes the fact that he's still young ( 27) and still possesses a a skill set that you just can't go out and replace in major league baseball. Even if you are one of the fans that thinks Ellsbury should be traded common sense would suggest that you would want to trade Ellsbury at a time when his value did not sit at it's lowest level since his days as a Class A minor leaguer. Be patient Sox fans, Ellsbury will likely hit 300 and steal 50+bases next season. The 2011 season will be JD Drew's final one in Boston. I know most fans consider that a blessing and I won't miss his all that much but he's not a bad guy to have out there most days and he won't be losing his starting position anytime next season so pencil him into right field and let him go after next year. The last outfielder is the big question mark. There are a number of marquee free-agent outfielders available. Carl Crawford and Jason Werth are the big names. I really don't see the Sox seriously pursuing Crawford, yes he's very good, but he's going to be extremely expensive, he could very well be the largest free-agent contract after Cliff Lee this off-season. In addition his greatest strength is his speed which is something that at age 29 is a near certainty to decline over the next 4 years. Crawford has never hit more than 20 home runs in a season, he has a career on base percentage of just 337, in short I just don't see him in the Sox plans. They might get involved if for no other reason then to drive the price up on the teams that are more serious. To me Crawford will be in one of two uniforms next year. Yankee pinstripes or The Angels. Both teams have the money, the Yanks may need to deal either Granderson or Gardner to obtain pitching and the Angels have huge holes in their outfield. Werth will get more attention from the Sox. If they were to sign him I wouldn't be shocked but I don't think it's that needed. The reason? The Red Sox have two guys in Josh Reddick and Ryan Kalish that may both be pretty decent major leaguers. Kalish is especially attractive. He's only 22 and has shown some power, better than average speed ( 10 steals) and a nice glove in the outfield. Reddick has been a bit less impressive but I really think the Sox may give Kalish a shot at an everyday job in spring training. He may end up being pretty good and while an outfield of Ellsbury/Drew/Kalish wouldn't be hitting a ton of home runs they would play great defense, have a high on base percentage and steal some bases too.

DH: One of two things is going to happen here. The Sox will probably offer Ortiz something in the area of a 2 year 16-18 million dollar deal. If he turns it down then they will pick up his 1 year 12.5 million dollar option and let him walk after next year. If he accepts it then Sox fans will get Papi for two more years. Either way I don't see Papi playing anywhere but Boston in 2011. He deserves to come back. After his atrocious April there really wasn't a better DH in the AL with the exception of Vlad Guerrero in Texas.

Starting Pitchers: Yes Beckett was awful and yes Lackey was a huge letdown. Here's the real issue. Those guys aren't going anywhere. They are signed to contract so huge that they are untradeable entities unless one of them magically morphs into Cy Young. Lester and Buchholz are also untradeable but for a different set of reasons. Only if the Yanks were to sign Cliff Lee would a team in the American League head into next season with an arguably better one-two punch than Lester and Buchholz. Then there's that pesky fifth starter. As of now his name is Dice-K. He still has 2 years at 10 million a year left on his contract. By now it's a safe bet that Theo and company realize they will never get anywhere near full value for the large contract and posting fee they paid all for the privilege of being able to watch a guy make more 0-2 counts into 3-2 counts than almost anyone in recent memory. Still even I a dedicated Dice-K hater will admit he had some nice outings down the stretch this past season. He will be shopped this off season. I'm not sure he'll be dealt but there will be offers made. Felix Dubront would be a much cheaper and likely not much worse #5 starter.

The Bullpen: After the injuries there was nothing more aggravating about the 2010 season for Sox fans then the bullpen. It began in 2009 when Papelbon blew a two run lead with two outs in the 9th as the Sox were swept by the Angels. This season seemed like one long continuation of that futility as nearly every Sox reliever with the exception of young fireballer Daniel Bard consistently allowed inherited runners to score, walked hitters, and generally stunk. Bard wasn't perfect but he was pretty close. Everyone else was between mediocre ( Papelbon) and awful ( take your pick). Most won't be back. Delcarmen is already gone, Okijima will be gone, Bard will be back as will Papelbon for what will likely be his final season in a Sox uniform. Look for the Sox to pursue numerous free-agent relievers. There are a ton of good ones out there but among the best non-closers are guys like Joaquin Benoit of Tampa, Matt Thorton in Chicago, Scott Downs and Kevin Gregg in Toronto, and Kerry Wood in NY.

There will be changes Sox fans and to me the core of the team returning in 2011 looks very good. Consider that this team finished 7 games out of first and 6 back from the wildcard while missing Pedroia and Youklis for almost the whole second half, Ellsbury for the whole season, and getting subpar performances from the entire bullpen as well as Beckett and Lackey. Nice work Tito and company. See you in the Spring.