What about Ollie?

Addendum: I always forget to mention this, but I really love the people at FanGraphs. That site is where I get most of my information for these types of analysis, and they are just wonderful.

The whole throwing across his body thing probably isn't too good for his control or arm.

So we've heard rumors about CC Sabathia, AJ Burnett, Derek Lowe, Ben Sheets, and Ryan Dempster, but one free-agent pitcher we haven't heard much of is Oliver Perez. He has essentially fallen off the face of the planet os far this winter. Of course, that will probably change in the next week or two as guys go off the board, but I'm a little surprised that no one is currently in on the 27-year old lefty. Let's look into why that might be.

After a successful season in 2007 where Perez went 15-10 with a 3.56 ERA, Perez fell to 10-7 with a 4.22 ERA despite pitching 5 more games and 17 more innings (only a little more than 3 IP/start?). I found that a little surprising when I first looked at the stats. His BABIP of .287 last season dropped to .280. His LOB% rose from 71.6 to 73.4. His GB/FB rate increased from .65 to .70. It almost seems like he should have been better. But then, I saw some other stuff. His K/9 dropped from 8.85 to 8.35, but the biggest thing was that his already high BB/9 of 4.02 went all the way up to 4.87. Perez's HR/FB also went up from 8.8% to 9.8%. In total though, he shouldn't have been much worse (at least not more than a half-run) than the previous season. However, Perez's FIP last season was actually 4.32 (4.68 this past season -- not a big jump). That was a BIG difference caused by his low BABIP and HR/FB. He's also been aided by pitching in pitcher-friendly and now extinct Shea Stadium.

What does the randomness tell us? One, he isn't a very good pitcher. The only consistency he has are his FIP's, which are always at least in the mid-4's except for his fantastic 2004 where it was 3.45 (but his BB/9 was also really below his career mark -- 3.72 vs. 4.76). Two, he's unpredictable. His high walk rate and flyball tendencies lead to inconsistency and luck playing a larger role (will the walks hurt -- LOB% -- and will the flyballs turn into outs or home runs -- HR/FB -- which may be a five foot difference). Three, he can't throw strikes. A new metric called F-Strike% (percentage of first pitches that go for strikes) is interesting. The norm is around 60-65%, but last season, Perez's was 52.9% (and usually around 55%, which is really low). If you can't get ahead, it makes it harder to get guys out. Four, he strikes out a lot of guys. His career K/9 is a really high 9.25, and teams just love power-guys who strike out a lot of people, especially lefties. Ollie is that guy, and that's why someone is likely to give him a chunk of dough this off-season. They just hope his BB/9 drops dramatically.

For those who want a Randy Johnson comparison, Johnson's first five BB/9 were 2.42 (4 games), 5.38, 4.92, 6.79, and 6.16 before dropping down to 3.49 and going down essentially ever since (How in the world did sub-4 ERA's those seasons?).

So, Perez could get his command under control (pun), but I'm not so sure he will. There is the possibility however, and I bet Boras plays that in his negotiations. Otherwise, I don't think I'd spend too much money on Perez this off-season, even if he's only 27.

Thoughts on Baseball's Economy

My brother knows more about this economy thing than I do. He works for the FDIC.

I'm not an economist. The farthest I got was ECON 201 where I learned about supply and demand and their respective curves. I don't why the economy has plummeted, but I do understand how real estate and stocks affect certain things. I don't really know how the economy is affecting/will affect baseball in the near future. Buster Olney believes that the economy is having its effect on all 30 teams, and honestly, I can't blame/ridicule/argue with him about any of it. It seems perfectly logical, but I do have some thoughts to consider:

1) Is this the perfect time for collusion? I'm not saying it's a good thing (although I find it a bit unfair that players can talk but GM's can't, but I do understand why it's not fair to the players that the GM's could talk and subsequently lower salaries substantially), and it would probably be a bad thing. But think about it. If you were to collude to really drop players' salaries, this is the time isn't it? When they drop, people think it was the economy that affected teams and consequently lowered salaries. Collusion might be the last thing on people's minds. Again, I am not advocating that the GM's/owners do this. They're the ones playing with money and have all of it (well not necessarily the GM's, but you get my point). I really just want to plant a warning in people's heads. I'm not a conspiracy theorist. I don't really think JFK died the way the history books say, but I also don't think LBJ and Jacquelin Kennedy conspired to kill him to continue a love affair (look at White House tapes website) and get LBJ the presidency. However, I believe it may be a fair warning to look into how GM's are spending money if indeed the free-agent market crashes. Teams are still going to spend a lot of money this winter and next year while millions of fans will attend games (I bet there's a decrease in attendance -- more than this year's decrease --, but I bet there isn't a dramatic decrease; we'll see), so I don't really believe that all of these owners are that concerned about money. Sure, the Padres and Rockies (and others) are rolling back payrolls, but you can also see increases in the payrolls of the Royals, Marlins, and Rays (and others).

2) Is the Yankees' decision to not offer Abreu arbitration really about the economy? Couldn't it be more about baseball business? Abreu is a solid player, but $16+M for him is a bit steep. If you can get him for much less, then wouldn't you anyway? Offering arbitration to Abreu may not net the Yankees what they really want -- draft picks -- because he may accept knowing that he won't get as big of offers from teams. While yes the economy is affecting the Yankees in a roundabout way, is it really affecting them? They're still going to try to spend a boatload of money this off-season. This goes for several other players as well.

3) For everyone stating that the slow off-season is a result of the economy, ALL OFF-SEASONS ARE SLOW. Take a look. Tell me how many big free-agent signings happened before the Winter Meetings last season. Sure, there were more trades, but this free-agent market offers much more than last season's. Teams are still waiting around. Please ... Please stop talking about it being slow. It's always slow. Now, if nothing happens in the next week or two, then we can start talking.

I won't even begin to say that the economy isn't doing anything to baseball. It has to, doesn't it? This is a pretty serious economic recession (I don't know when a recession becomes a depression), so it has to affect everything. Baseball is included. These are just some things I was thinking about earlier. I may be completely wrong. That's perfectly acceptable. As for the first thing about collusion, don't take it all that seriously. I'm not implying teams would do it, but it does seem like the perfect time for it, doesn't it?

Kevin Millwood a Good Idea?

Updated (10:44 PM): In case you were wondering, Vicente Padilla, Millwood's rotation partner, is not worth getting for anyone. It would be like giving someone a pair of socks you'd already worn holes in (not a good gift to being with and even worse after you've seen it). Why did the Rangers give him 5 years/$55M?

Yet another failed Ranger acquisition.

If you're an NL team, it might be a better idea than you think. We all laugh when his name is brought up, but at one point, he was a solid major-league pitcher. Guess where that was. The NL. Let's take a closer look, shall we?

First, let's look at his ERA. Last season, it was an abysmal 5.07, but let's also notice that his FIP was a whole run lower at 4.02. Indeed, his career FIP is 3.83 even though his career ERA is 4.06. People want him to be the 2.68 guy he was in Atlanta, but his FIP that season (1999) was actually 3.52. He wasn't that good, either.

So why was he so bad last season? BABIP is a good place to start. It was an astounding .366, and in his career in as a Ranger, his BABIP's have been .313, .348, and .366, all of which are high. Part of that could be a decline in talent-level, but I think ball park has more to do with it (he's a half run better away than at home in Texas). Another issue was his LOB% which has been below 70% each season in Texas, making matters worse. Shockingly, however, Millwood's HR/FB rate is still around 10 for his seasons in Texas. When you look at this, it seems that his career in Texas has gone sour due more to luck, ballpark, and subsequent lack of confidence, but has his talent dropped?

A look at LD% shows us that 25.3% of the balls put in play were line-drives, but before you freak, he also gave up 24.% while in Philadelphia and would come back two years later to have a 2.98 ERA in Cleveland. So that doesn't help. His K/9 of 6.67 is below his career 7.17 mark, but it is better than his two previous seasons and almost equal to his 2005 Indians season. His BB/9 was 2.61 (lower than his career 2.74) and right around his career norms and better than his 3.49 the year before. Millwood is also a slight groundball pitcher with a career 1.27 mark, and with his groundball rate at 1.20, he was pretty close to that mark. From this, it doesn't seem that Millwood has lost a lot of talent, but his pitch speed has declined about .6 mph each of the past four seasons (but take that for what it is).

So why does a move to the NL, or at least out of Texas make sense. One, it gets him out of Arlington Stadium, which has to help automatically. Two, a move to the NL would be another drop in overall talent in lineups, which has to help. Three, it would be a change of scenery as being in Texas has to be frustrating (granted, he was the one to choose money over place to pitch -- that should be a lesson to you kids out there). Four, going anywhere else would help purely based on the fact that Texas was the worst defensive team in baseball last year. Put all those things together, and Millwood could be a 3.70-4.00 pitcher who pitches around 200 IP (although he hasn't done that since 2006 -- 172 and 168 the past two seasons). As for the contract, $11M and $12M over the next two seasons wouldn't be the worst contract in the world, especially if it works out. The Braves say they aren't interested now, but they may be when they lose out on some free-agents.

Mike Hampton Signs with Astros

Updated (4:40 PM): The deal is reportedly for $2M (via Shysterball). Even better for the Astros.

It's time to party like it's 1999!

Apparently Hampton's feeling of loyalty/guilt toward the Braves did not last long as Hampton signed with the Astros earlier today. The 36-year old probably signed a one-year contract without options. After being injured for the entirety of the 2006 and 2007 seasons and most of 2008, Hampton wanted to sign a one-year contract to prove he could still pitch and be healthy in order to get a bigger contract next winter. Honestly, I'm not sure who would give a big contract to a then 37-year old with major injury issues, but if he pulls off a Derek Lowe-like campaign, someone will pay him some big bucks.

Regardless, Hampton pitched well down the stretch for Atlanta. He was 3-4 with a 4.85 ERA (3 of his first 4 were pretty horrible, so he was better after getting his feet under him) in 78 IP in 13 starts (6 IP/start -- pretty good). His 4.38 K/9 was pathetic, but no one expects him to strike out a lot of hitters. His BB/9 was a decent 3.23, but that looks worse with his low K rate. A lot of those is made up by being a great ground-ball pitcher (a quality needed in Houston these days) with a 2.06 GB/FB, and with his pitches mainly being a sinker, cutter, and change-up with sink, he should continue that trend. As for luck, Hampton's FIP was 4.94, so he wasn't particularly lucky (his .286 BABIP and 68% LOB% were a tad low -- but just a tad -- like a tadpole really). Overall, Hampton was a fairly solid pitcher last season when taking into account that his first four starts were terrible (maybe they were due to rust, but we can argue about that later).

The money figure is not known at this time, but I imagine it's in the $3-8M range ($5M is my guess). At that price, Hampton is a perfectly affordable, low-risk chance taken by the Astros. I have no idea if the Astros are having money issues, but if they add Ben Sheets later like Roy Oswalt wants, a rotation of Oswalt, Sheets, Rodriguez, Hampton, and Backe could end up being a pretty good rotation.

Two Good Royals Stories

I saw different shuttlecocks in the stalls and planners of my high school.

This doesn't happen very often, but the Royals have two ... interesting ... stories circulating over at KC Star. Let's go one at a time.

The first one is about the "Curse of the Shuttlecocks". A museum in Kansas City commissioned two Shuttlecocks, badmitton "balls", to be placed in the quad area out in front of the museum. Before the commission, the Chiefs and Royals were good teams, but after the commission, they were terrible teams (or at least inept, unable to win playoff games, unable to win many games at all). So, some guy went looking for the answer and arrived at these shuttlecocks (I think we should make that into a new curse word; who's with me?) because they arrived at the same time as the the decline of the two teams. Considering they are 18 feet long and this whole thing is ridiculous, both teams should be terrible for another 3 years.

The next one is about Kyle Davies. This is another "my therapist helped me through tough times, so I'm actually good now" story. Kyle Davies, by a stroke of luck, had a really good September, and he's giving credit to his "mental trainer" Buddy Biancalana. I give credit to the fact that he's a decently good (at least a fifth spot starter) pitcher who happened to put some things together for a month. Hell, Jorge Sosa was good for awhile, too, wasn't he?

Why did I bring up these stories? To type "shuttlecock" as much as possible in a post. Shuttlecock.

Braves Pitching

Young stud or young tease?

You expect me to talk about Jake Peavy. You expect me to talk about AJ Burnett, Derek Lowe, or Ben Sheets. You even expect me to talk about Tommy Hanson. But, I won't. I actually want to talk about the two pitchers we know will be in the rotation next season: Jair Jurrjens and Jorge Campillo. Both are in interesting positions. Jurrjens is a young starting pitcher that just broke out in a big way and looks capable of being a front-of-the-rotation starter in the NL. Campillo is a journeyman pitcher that somehow ended up being one of the more dependable starters on the team. Both look good going into next season, but are they?

Jair Jurrjens
Jurrjens was absolutely spectacular last season, and he missed out on the ROY because Soto and Votto had such good seasons. He went 13-10 (which should have been better) with a 3.68 ERA in 188.1 IP. With him being so young (22), you almost expect him to be that good or even better next season. I've been talking about him like he will be, but I've finally come to the realization (actually, I came to the realization a while ago, but I've been ignoring it) that he may not be. One reason is that he pitched those 188 innings last season after only having thrown 143.1 at most in years before. That's a 45 IP difference, which is substantially higher than the 30 IP rule. That can't be good. Another is his fairly high 3.35 BB/9, but to be fair, his minor-league totals were closer to the mid 2's. His 6.64 K/9 wasn't impressive, either (neither was the subsequent 1.99 K/BB). Now, all of this isn't to say that he's a bad pitcher and can't sustain what he did. He had a great season, and there are plenty of reasons to like him. His GB/FB rate of 1.94 is outstanding, and if he can keep coming close to that, he should stay very effective. His BABIP of .311 was also a bit high, but his HR/FB rate of 7.1 was a little low, thus evening things out some. Continuing to show his season wasn't a stroke of luck, Jurrjen's FIP was actually lower than his ERA (3.59). His stats show his season was legit, but that 45 IP difference nags at me. Will he be Fausto Carmona all over again?

Jorge Campillo
Luckily, Campillo's problem is not his increase in innings. He actually only threw .1 more innings more than he did the previous season. This past season, Campillo flew under the radar but was pretty good. He went 8-7 (and suffered the same lack of luck in his record as Jurrjens) with a 3.91 ERA in 158.2 IP (he started the year by relieving). Was he a fluke? Possibly, but his 4.00 FIP shows he wasn't lucky. His 6.09 K/9 isn't inspiring (although he might get some of the ugliest swings I have ever seen on his changeup), but his 2.16 BB/9 is awesome (or at least really good, good enough to make up for not striking out a lot of guys). What about other luck stats? Glad you asked. His HR/FB rate was 9.4% (normal) and his BABIP was .291 (normal). His GB/FB of .97 isn't really good, but he relies so much on his change-up and curveball that he's bound to get more flyballs. Campillo's season wasn't lucky, but can he sustain it anyway? I guess we don't know. He could be Buddy Carlyle and Jorge Sosa, or he could be a late-bloomer.

Will either pitcher be as good next year? Bill James thinks Jurrjens will regress a half run but Campillo should stay the same, and Marcel (I hear this has to do with a monkey, but I'm not entirely sure what is going on here) thinks Jurrjens will be as good while Campillo will regress the half run. They aren't much help. However, I think James is probably more accurate. Jurrjens will probably regress a little in second season as teams get another look at him, and Jurrjens' lack of a solid third pitch (his slider is okay, at least better than Chuck James' whatchamacallit) scares me a bit. Campillo does a lot of things right (good command, good secondary stuff) that make me think he'll be about what he was this season. I guess my main point is that we shouldn't be expecting these two pitchers to be what they were. We have plenty of examples showing how things could change. Jurrjens and Campillo don't have proven track records. Jurrjens just threw a lot more innings than he had previously and could be in line for injury and/or regression. Campillo could just show that he isn't that great of a pitcher, more in line with a guy pitching in the Mexican leagues. As a Braves fan, I hold out hope that Jurrjens can withstand the increase in workload and develop into a great pitcher and that Campillo can stay solid, but the realist in me makes me remind myself that neither are guaranteed.

Construction ... Again

Updated (3:29 PM): Okay, so I'm trying to get into the holiday spirit.

I need one of these for my room.

I know, I can't sit still. I never have. I like constantly changing things like this (I have never completed an entire season on a baseball video game, and only once have I gotten to the All-Star Break. I'm pathetic). Anyway, things might look a little different around here over the next few days. The last look didn't really hit my eye very well, so I figure I would try something different. If you have any suggestions/ideas, let me know, but keep in mind that I'm not incredibly computer savvy.

Thanks,

themarksmith

Jason Giambi

Steroid stigma? What steroid stigma?

A year removed from the Mitchell Report, Jason Giambi rebounded from a dismal, injury-filled season to hit .247/.373/.502 for the Yankees in the final year of his failed contract. This off-season, he has become an after-thought so far, which isn't much of a surprise. He can't play first base at all, and that limits his potential destinations to teams who need DH's (Rays, Blue Jays, Twins, A's, Rangers, Mariners), which can still be quite a few teams. While his defense is atrocious, a lot of those teams could definitely use a guy with a .875 OPS and would be a major upgrade. For the right price ($10M or less?), he'd probably be a bargain, but let's look at some stats before we just jump in.

Giambi will be 38 years old, so he is getting older. As for his .247 batting average, his BABIP was a pretty low .257 last season, but his LD% was also a low 18.9. Interesting notes here though as his LD% has gone up (not down) the past four seasons, which means his hands might not be slowing down that much, but his K% was a high 24.2. His 14.2 BB% was also lower than his career norms but still pretty good. Giambi's ISO of .255 was also pretty robust, so he still hits the ball pretty hard.

Is he that 30-40 HR guy anymore? Probably not, but I wouldn't be too surprised if he hit 25+ with close to a .260/.360/.500 line next season. Bill James says he'll hit .244/.388/.484, which would be pretty good.

Rule 5 Guys to Watch

There is a sign for this. I'm slightly surprised, even though it isn't very imaginative.

The Rule 5 draft (December 11) is an interesting and slightly complicated process. The drafting part of it isn't, but the eligibility rules are. First, start here to learn the rules. Then, come back and look at this list of guys to watch for in the draft. Personally, when building a bullpen, I have stated over-and-over again how much I hate signing free-agent relievers. This is one reason why. There will a few arms available to help fill out that bullpen. These guys generally have some sort of problem (why they aren't protected), but most just need a shot and have the talent to succeed, at least decently well enough for a spot in the bullpen. If not, you give them back, but if they do, it's a nice, cheap addition. Position players are harder to keep and to guess on, but some (like Josh Hamilton) can be nice additions. I think that's much rarer though. This list is a closer look at Tim Dierkes'.

Juan Abreu
A Royal farmhand, Abreu did strike out 104 in 76 IP last season. But, it was in A-ball. I doubt he'll get much attention.

Jordan Brown
A first base/corner outfielder in Cleveland's organization, Brown only hit .281/.337/.417. That doesn't exactly scream first base/corner outfield. I doubt he'll be picked, either.

Bobby Brownlie
A starting pitcher in the Nationals organization, Brownlie did well in AA, but got hammered in AAA. Probably not worth the gamble unless you need a mop-up guy. He doesn't strike out a whole lot of guys and he does walk people.

Matt Fox
Another A pitcher this time from Minnesota, Fox strikes out a decent amount of hitters and had a 3.37 ERA, but I doubt he gets picked.

Alan Horne
Once a very promising pitcher in the Yankees organization, Horne had some injuries this past season (dead arm?) and didn't pitch particularly well. However, his past success and his low 90's fastball with a hammer curve might intrigue a few people.

Kei Igawa
I wanted to just laugh this off as insane, but he did have a very nice 3.45 ERA in Scranton. However, $12M are still owed to Igawa over the next three seasons, and there have been reports that Igawa is not happy in the US. I doubt anyone picks him up.

Chuck Lofgren
A pitcher in the Indians organization, Lofgren isn't particularly impressive but has pitched against advanced competition. At age 23, he might be worth a gamble hoping his command gets a little better.

Daniel Mayora
A shortstop/second base prospect in Colorado, Mayora hit .288/.360/.422 with 34 doubles this past season in A-ball. He's a decent prospect, but I doubt anyone will jump for him.

Eduardo Morlan
Brought over in the Delmon Young trade, Morlan was pretty good this past season with a 3.64 ERA in AA with 45 K in 47 IP. I would not be surprised at all to see someone take a gamble on the soon-to-be 23 year old.

Chris Nicoll
Another relief prospect in the Royals organization, Nicoll was impressive this past season and finished the season by striking out 55 guys in 43 IP in AA with a 3.09 ERA. He only had 23 walks in 86 IP, so I almost expect someone to think enough of him, even a year removed from his embarassing '07 campaign.

Jay Rainville
After a quick start to the season, Rainville plummeted in AA, and he doesn't really warrant too much consideration.

James Skelton
A catcher in the Tigers organization, Skelton performed well in 2008 at several levels. He has almost zero pop but hits for average and walks and throws out basestealers (29 of 74 last season). If you need a catcher badly or need an heir-apparent, it might not be too bad to take a flier on him and let him sit the bench for a season while working with another catcher.

Tim Stauffer
Do you ever play video games and have a guy do really well for you even though you've never heard of him? Stauffer is that guy for me. Too bad he didn't succeed as well in real life. He's been stuck in AAA for the past 3+ seasons and finally got his ERA under 5 (4.34). He's not particularly impressive, but his experience will probably make him somewhat desirable.

Wade Townsend
Injuries have derailed his once-promising career. His command isn't much better (39 BB in 66.2 IP), but he does strike out quite a few people. He throws in the low-90's with what has been said to be a very good knuckle-curve, and he might be able to come in handy out of the bullpen, which should help save his arm.

Philippe Valiquette
A decent arm in the Reds organization, Valiquette can strike people out at a decent pace, but he hasn't been seen above A ball and is doing badly in Hawaii.

Donald Veal
His terrible control got worse this year as the Cub prospect saw his ERA rise from 2.15 in 2006 to 4.52 this past season. However, he strikes out a lot of people and has pitched in AA. Someone might take him thinking they can tinker with his mechanics a little to get better command.

Ryan Wagner
A former first-rounder, Wagner has jumped around quite a bit in his major-league career, but someone is likely to take a chance on his once-high promise.

Kyle Waldrop
Another Twinkie, Waldrop did make it to AA this past season, but he doesn't strike out a lot of guys and his ERA in AA was 5.34. I wouldn't look for anyone to take him.

Again, pitchers are the most commonly sought-after guys because you can hide them in the bullpen and use them for mop-up duty. If I was a GM, I would look at Horne, Morlan, Nicoll, Skelton, Townsend, and Veal. You always need cheap bullpen guys. I'm telling you.

What to Do with Edwin Jackson

Smile Rays fans. This is a great problem to have.

The guys over at Rays Index came up with an interesting problem (not really a problem but you'll see) the team faces next season. No, it doesn't have to do with right field or where exactly to put David Price or if the Rays can repeat. They want to know what to do with Edwin Jackson. I'd trade him, and here's why.

1) The Rays have more pitchers. Scott Kazmir, James Shields, and Matt Garza could blossom into a dominant front three until at least 2012 (2014 for Shields). After that, Sonnanstine is a fine number four starter whose FIP says he should have been a sub-4 ERA pitcher (3.91). Just when you think that's enough, David Price, Wade Davis, and Jeremy Hellickson are there to fill in that last spot in the rotation. Considering the love David Price keeps getting, he might end up making that dominant front three a dominant front four with him as the number two guy. Wade Davis is no slouch with a 3.85 ERA at AA that dipped to 2.72 in 53 AAA innings. Hellickson started the season at High-A ball with a 2 ERA before going up to AA and having a 3.94 ERA, and he had 79 K in 75.1 IP (only 15 BB). That doesn't even mention guys like Chris Mason (bad year but could bounce back), Mitch Talbot (3.86 ERA in AAA), and Jeff Niemann (3.59 ERA in AAA). There are plenty more options that are actually good options instead of just decent ones.

2) Jackson was the fifth-best starter on the team. If there's one place in the rotation on which to gamble, it's the fifth spot, and with all those options, it doesn't seem much of a gamble. I think at least one could match his 4.42 ERA and 183.1 IP. What about you? Plus, the Rays really didn't need or use him in the post-season.

3) Teams still believe he has "potential". That's what happens when teams (Dodgers) move the kids too quickly. People think he has finally started developing, so as of right now, people will be willing to deal some good players for him. His stuff is good (probably closer to great), but his command has always been off (3.78 BB/9). Sure, that could come down and Jackson could become an ace pitcher, but it's just as likely that he turns into Daniel Cabrera and just frustrates you with his talent. There are other guys in the system with as much "potential". Oh yeah, add Jake McGee to the list (even though he just had TJ and sat out last season).

4) He shouldn't be used as a middle reliever. Rays Index is right. You don't want to spend $2-3M on a reliever. If you really want to, sign a free-agent whose had success as a reliever, but I generally feel that is a bad thing. Plus, those other options (Jeff Niemann and Jake McGee, especially) could be placed in the bullpen, giving the Rays cheaper bullpen options that have plenty of upside. Oh yeah, let's all remember that 5.45 ERA he had as a reliever in 2006.

5) Don't count on him as a closer. There are other guys in the system with great arms (ie. the guys I just mentioned) that could be just as good and just as ready. With Jackson's iffy command, it's suspect to put him in such an important position.

6) He would be great for an NL team. Getting out of the AL East where he continually faces the Red Sox, Yankees, and, to a lesser extent, the Blue Jays should help Jackson's ERA, and the obvious difference in offense between the two leagues would help him. NL teams would really see the "potential" in him.

7) Use the $2-3M somewhere else. Sign Juan Rivera to play right. Draft a player without worrying about the costs. Make a run at the really good Latin American prospects. Just don't spend it on your fifth-best pitcher when he probably isn't your fifth-best pitcher.

The worries are always there. Will he blossom somewhere else (and the irrational thought of if he would have done it there, especially if he's sent to the NL)? Do we have enough depth (no one likes giving up young pitching, but he's moving into arbitration and the Rays have enough depth even though they certainly won't be as lucky injury-wise as they were last year. Still, it's hard to imagine a Braves-like injury list, and if that happens, you're SOL anyway)? Jackson is cheap to other teams, especially NL ones who figure him to be a no.3 guy, but the Rays need to save some money. Here's an easy way. The only drawback I see is that the Rays haven't received a very good offer so far, and thus, haven't dealt him. But, teams always need starters. They, in fact, crave them and would be willing to overpay (or at least fully pay) for a cheap 25-year old. Once some of the free-agent options go, teams will be more willing to listen. Teams who might -- Mets, Nationals, Braves, Cardinals, Pirates, Astros, Dodgers (wouldn't that be funny), Rockies.

Pirates Off-Season Plan

He looks familiar, but I can't quite put my finger on it.

I've given the Pirates, or I guess more directly the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, a hard time so far this winter because nothing, and I mean nothing, has been going on with them. Almost like they aren't one of the 30 major-league teams. But honestly, it is a good idea that they've been quiet. With Bay, Nady, and Marte, I thought the Pirates were relatively close to being competitive. To me, they needed one big pitcher, maybe Ben Sheets, to really compete, but obviously, Neil Huntington didn't agree. He, therefore, traded the three for inexpensive, young players. Now, this has been done before in Pittsburgh, but then, the GM's always began giving big contracts to undeserving free-agents. It killed them. Huntington has a plan, and it's this:

1) Let the young guys play. Might as well. You traded for them, so you might as well see what they have. They have some promise on the team with McLouth, McCutcheon, Tabata, Doumit, Snell, Maholm, and Capps. If they can get some help from guys like Neil Walker, Luis Cruz, Jimmy Barthmaier, and Ross Ohlendorf and bounce-back years from Duke, Gorzelanny, and Snell (I think Snell will), then the Pirates can get back to being competitive.

2) Only sign "bargain" free-agents. This is really where the Pirates have failed. We can all make a nice, long list of what mistakes they have made. This offseason, there could be some bargains, but they shouldn't jump on a guy like Paul Byrd. That's just a waste of money. They should only offer contracts to guys that have seen their markets really dip, like Kyle Lohse last season.

3) Keep recruiting in Latin America. They are building a new academy in the Dominican Republic, and they need to get players from down there. Ignoring a whole labor market is a bad business strategy but one they've had for a while.

4) Trade veterans for younger players. The Pirates are in a good position here. They don't have to clear payroll, so they don't have to trade anyone like the Padres have to trade Peavy. They can probably also eat salary, which should give them better players in return. The Pirates just have to make sure they don't sell low. Grabow, Wilson, and Paulino could all bring back at least one good player in return, and Grabow and Wilson might even be able to bring back two or three. The Pirates have a good foundation, and these trades can only make it better.

I like Huntington's plan. It's a solid one, but the trick is sticking to it. Others have had it, but they have let media and fan pressure force them into free-agent signings and the need to contend this season without thinking of future seasons. That can't happen this time. But for the first time that I can remember, we actually believe Huntington.

MLB Won't Reveal Amphetamine Data

I wonder what he thinks of this.

After originally saying they would release the aggregate data (essentially the bare numbers without names) on the number of players testing positive for amphetamines, the MLB has decided to not release the data. Granted, their excuse is that the CBA states they cannot release the information on first-time positives. So, if a guy tests postive but is the first time, they can't release anything about it, which makes sense. But are you really releasing anything if you just say how many? You aren't saying their names. Maybe the CBA specifically states that nothing can be shared. It also makes me wonder how many players tested positive. Wouldn't they want to release the numbers if it was low? You would also think they would have known that they should have mentioned at the beginning that they couldn't release all of it, but they probably didn't want to knowing that it would seem bad. "Okay, here's our findings and we promise more transparency, but we won't release the first-time positives." We wouldn't have liked it very much, and the process wouldn't have seemed very transparent.

Free-Agent Quiz

I used to love this game, but then half the flipper things kept falling out/wouldn't stand up causing me to be unable to play anymore. Sadness.

I'm going to give you a few comparisons between free-agent players. Your job is to look through them and decide which you would rather have. The answers are at the bottom.

Comparison 1- Second Basemen
Player 1- .290/.365/.430, 6 HR, 18 2B, 300 AB, OPS+ 111
Player 2- .305/.367/.450, 8 HR, 29 2B, 407 AB, OPS+ 107

Comparison 2- Left Fielders
Player 1- .321/.436/.563, 22 HR, 77 RBI, 414 AB, OPS+ 163
Player 2- .250/.367/.507, 33 HR, 86 RBI, 536 AB, OPS+ 125
Player 3- .293/.325/.433, 15 HR, 84 RBI, 557 AB, OPS+ 97
Player 4- .293/.358/.479, 23 HR, 110 RBI, 635 AB, OPS+ 124

Comparison 3- Starting Pitchers
Player 1- 198.3 IP, 3.09 ERA, 1.15 WHIP, 158 K, 47 BB, ERA+ 139
Player 2- 211 IP, 3.24 ERA, 1.13 WHIP, 147 K, 45 BB, ERA+ 131

Comparison 4- Starting Pitchers
Player 1- 221.1 IP, 4.07 ERA, 1.34 WHIP, 231 K, 86 BB, ERA+ 105
Player 2- 184 IP, 3.91 ERA, 1.24 WHIP, 173 K, 43 BB, ERA+ 117

Comparison 5- Starting Pitchers
Player 1- 196.7 IP, 1.51 WHIP, ERA +91
Player 2- 190.1 IP, 1.38 WHIP, ERA+ 93

Comparison 6- Closers
Player 1- 66.1 IP, 84 K, 18 BB, 3.26 ERA, ERA+ 137
Player 2- 68.3 IP, 77 K, 34 BB, 2.24 ERA, ERA+ 198

Answers (The first player is Player 1 and the second is Player 2):
1) Ramon Vazquez, Orlando Hudson; 2) Milton Bradley, Pat Burrell, Garrett Anderson, Raul Ibañez; 3) Ben Sheets, Derek Lowe; 4) AJ Burnett, Randy Johnson; 5) Jon Garland, Randy Wolf 6) Kerry Wood, Francisco Rodriguez

Things I Am Thankful For

Hope your day was food and football-filled.

Inspired by Shysterball, I decided to make a list of baseball things I am thankful for (not each team). But before I do, I hope everyone had a good Thanksgiving. Mine was pretty good, but because the family is mainly old people and really young people, we don't stay out past like 7:30. So, I'm here writing because I have nothing else to do.

I am thankful for ...

1) The Washington Nationals because every time I depress myself over the current state of the Braves, I can always realize I could have things much, much worse. Then I realized the Braves were 6-12 against the Gnats. Maybe I should be thankful for the Orioles instead.

2) Tommy Hanson, Tyler Flowers, Jason Heyward, Freddy Freeman, Brian McCann, and Jair Jurrjens because they give me optimism (however unfounded or unrealistic or delusional it may be) that things can turn around soon for the Braves.

3) The Rays because without them we wouldn't keep having those inspirational David vs. Goliath stories.

4) Hank Steinbrenner who is always an easy mark for some sort of sarcastic remark, which makes me smile.

5) The readers I have (this really should be number one) and the new cyber-friends I have made because without them, I would be talking to myself which is just fine but not as fun.

6) The Louisville Bats and Lexington Legends for giving me the oppurtunity to see professional (by the strict definition but rarely by the loose one) baseball and see prospects that allow me to say, "Hey, I remember him."

7) The sites to the left who continually challenge me to think while simultaneously giving me good information and interesting stories.

8) MLB.tv who took up for TBS and actually allowed me to see more Braves games than I had previous seasons. And when the Braves stink, it also allows me to watch other games, like when Johan dominated that last weekend. Amazing game. Amazing.

9) Statistics that have given me a better perspective on how good hitters and pitchers really are but continue to frustrate me because everyone uses one to make their argument but none really satisfy that argument.

10) Instant Replay, which was recently mentioned as the 38th best invention of 2008 even though it wasn't an invention and it was dumb. I don't know why I'm thankful for it.

11) Joe Maddon, who is just hilarious.

12) Keith Law, Rob Neyer, Peter Gammons and Tim Kurkjian who restore my faith that ESPN actually does try to hire good baseball analysts instead of ex-professionals that have big mouths but little to offer (you realize none of those were ex-professionals, right? Anyone notice a pattern? Hopefully the MLB network will remember that).

13) Jered Weaver, Raúl Ibañez, Brandon Inge, Dioner Navarro, Aaron Rowand, and Keiichi Yabu who all hurt themselves in hilarious ways (getting up from the bench, sleeping on a plane, moving a pillow, playing tag, walking down the dugout steps, and hitting himself in the eye with his exercise band).

14) Ozzie Guillen, who everyone thinks is crazy but I believe is a foul-mouthed genius.

15) The Phillies who allow us to put "Ph" in phront oph or inside any word with an "f".

16) My dog who you can get to do this weird head thing when you say, "Franco for Franco" (I guess to understand this you have to remember that Julio Franco and Matt Franco played for the Braves in 2002 and 2003 and would often be subbed in for each other. My brother and I would subsequently freak the dog out by repeating the phrase in various, slightly disturbing voices and still do from time to time).

17) The neutral-site chatter that has seemingly subsided because that was annoying (and I just brought back up to annoy everyone else because I'm spiteful like that).

18) Baseball video games that give me hours of endless entertainment while simulataneously making me want to throw the controller through the TV screen. You can't really put things into perspective until you've wanted to destroy a perfectly good, expensive machine because of a meaningless and completely accidental occurrence on a game that is probably a result of you being bad at that game.

19) Will Ohman's Harry Caray impression that makes me crack up every time (Greg White -- priceless).

20) The tallest fight in history.

Citi/Taxpayer Field?

They'll need to add a few more letters.

Let's all say this together -- Political Ploy!

Also, does this mean that all stadiums should be named ________/Taxpayer Field. If that's the case, wouldn't it become redundant? If it's redundant, then should we keep putting it on there anyway? Then again, shouldn't we keep it on there to remind the owners and everyone else that it is the taxpayers' field? Regardless, Pro Player/Taxpayer Stadium could have had a nice, tongue-twisting sound to it.

Varitek to Affect Teixeira?

Well, at least he can hit a Yankee. That has to count for something, doesn't it?

No, seriously.

"it's interesting to wonder whether the Red Sox's chances to land star free agent first baseman Mark Teixeira could be hindered by their current impasse in negotiations involving his good friend Jason Varitek." "But if they budged a little in the case Varitek, it might help. It surely couldn't hurt."

This is poor baseball strategy. Teixeira is a Boras man and will take the best offer. Use the $9m you are about to give Varitek and add on another million to each year of Teixeira's contract. Case closed. Cease and desist (isn't that redundant? -- Craig, I need your help).

The CC Situation

Real loyalty or ploy number 1?

When I saw the 6-year/$140m offer from the Yankees, I was sure that it was far-and-away the best offer. But I've seen some interesting posts about how the Yankees' deal really isn't that far away from anyone else's possible offers (it seems the Angels are about to make that a concrete offer) for reasons such as living expenses, taxes, charities, and promotional deals. I started thinking about it and polled you all to find out how you would deal with the situation. A few said you'd take the $140m dollars because that is a lot of money, and I can't blame anyone based on that (I would probably do the same). This argument about it not being so much more kind of takes that down a notch. The rest seemed to think New York is a bit of a headache, whether it's the pressure, Hank, or the inordinate amount of pressure. Granted, if you aren't getting above-and-beyond what other people are offering, then the pressure and Hank seem to be stresses you don't have to cope with. As things heat up with CC, let's take a look at this situation.

First, the Yankees offered a huge contract in a presumed TKO power-punch after the Brewers had bid an underwhelming but substantial 5-year/$100m. The Brewers made a legitimate offer, but no one really thought anything of it. Everyone was preoccupied with the Yankees' shiny offer that tops the Johan contract by about $2.3m total. People saw the number and thought no one can offer CC that much money, and it was a sure thing he would sign. Then, CC waited, people came out with reports on how the money really isn't that much more than what someone else could offer, and people mentioned CC's desire to return to California. Hank got a little scared and gave his "deadline", which really isn't much of one.

Now, the Angels are ready to make an offer which would presumably be at least the 5-year deal from the Brewers. My guess is that the Angels don't want to go six years, and they will instead settle for giving him a 5-year/$120m offer. That's $24m a year. If CC has that, it seems it would be better to take that deal, pitch a few good years, come out of it at the age of 33 or 34 and get a shiny new contract while playing at home. Of course, I don't know that the Angels will go that high, but let's say they offer $110m instead. Then, they are just under the Yankees and still have the "hometown advantage". Does he take it then? Or does he wait for the other California teams to jump in. If the Angels start the bidding, the Dodgers and Giants have shown they are afraid of his price-tag and have shown interest. Then, it becomes a bidding war among the California teams making the Angels, or someone, go to that $24m/year plateau.

What comes next is the real uncertainty? Does CC show that his interest in the Yankees was really to ensure more money from the California teams or is this CC drumming up his California interest to get more money from the Yankees? It's brilliant if you think about it.

Let's look at scenario one. He really wants to go to California, but if he took out the Yankees, he's looking at a $18-20m/year offer from the California teams. He knows he's worth more, so he lets the Yankees bid. This is what most people expect is going on. By also getting the Yankees involved, he knows he'll still get a really good offer that he'd be okay with accepting. If this is the case, he is succeeding. The Angels are about to play the game, and you know they have to give a really good offer. They were going to spend $20m on Teixeira, so they have the cash. Now that the offers are close, he can take what he wants. Then, the Yankees counter-offer, and the Angels (or Giants or Dodgers) must respond. Or maybe they won't. CC just got his big offer from his California team.

However, let's look at scenario two. He doesn't care where he plays and he just wants the money (insert Jason and it is about the money, stupid). It's perfectly plausible and reasonable. Here, he knows the Yankees are going to give him a lot of money, but he wants more. Therefore, he lets slip that he wants to play in California. The Yankees insert incredibly ridiculous deal. But, CC keeps up the charade. He's not biting just yet. He's in the perfect position. He's the best free-agent on the market, and the Yankees just showed how much they need the big ace (pun intended) by not being able to handle life without Wang (insert you know what) and relying on a career season from Mussina, who was unlikely to repeat that. So, CC keeps thinking about California. The Angels, Giants, and/or Dodgers get involved and make the offers close because they know they have to. They want him to. They aren't driving up the price. That's something only the Red Sox would do and could get away with (Why aren't they bidding?). Now, CC keeps letting people think he would like to play in California. The Yankees get nervous, revoke the "deadline", and up the offer to 7 years/$180m. Ridiculous, right? Wrong! Add in the extra $22m for the next year, and the remaining $18m is spread evenly over the previous six years to make it far-and-away the best offer. It's the only way for the Yankees to win if CC wants to go back to California. Except he doesn't really. He wants the money, and he just played the Yankees into giving him a buttload. Cashman wants that starting pitcher, and CC seems a much more sure thing than anyone else in the market. Will the Angels/Giants/Dodgers respond? Probably not. The Angels realize Tex was a better fit anyway. The Giants know they need offense, too. The Dodgers happily bring back Manny because he's already a fan-favorite anyway. But CC still has the golden offer.

I don't know what's going on in CC's head. No one does. That's what makes this perfect. He is going to rake in a lot of money this winter. But for now, he'll go home to California for Thanksgiving stress-free while the Yankees and Angels sweat it out. They can't bluff, but CC can.

Is AJ Burnett Worth a Five-Year Deal?

Just don't give him an opt-out clause.

With Sabathia only available to the big-market teams, AJ Burnett has become the next in line for the big deals. It seems as though people like him more than Derek Lowe. You can chalk that up to age and perceived belief in "stuff", but Lowe will get his due. Anyway, lots of teams are interested in Burnett and a contract with an annual salary of $15-16M will scare off some bidders, but there will be plenty of teams still in line (Braves, Phillies, Angels, Yankees, Red Sox, Blue Jays, Orioles, Nationals). With all of those teams able to pay the salary, the number of years becomes the next important part of the contract. Burnett's agent has stated that Burnett wants 5 years, and with a market where lots of teams are involved, someone will give Burnett the 5 year/$75-80M deal he covets. But should they?

At age 32 (next season), no one really believes Burnett will be worth it, but let's face it, no big-ticket free-agent really is worth the years and dollars they usually get. You pay for the first few years and hope to God that they are still serviceable for the last year or two. It's just understood, so stop thinking you'll get your player for the right price and amount of time. You have to add on the extra year to make sure you get him for the next 3 years (the years you would like to give him). So let's stop the generic "No pitcher is worth it" argument.

As for his talent, no one will deny Burnett could be an ace, especially for an NL team. If you're an AL team, he could be an ace, but he's more of a no.2, which is just fine thank you. His career FIP is 3.75, and it was a career-best 3.45 last season. That probably goes down in the NL, but as he ages, it will go back up. Do you want a mid-3 pitcher?

His K/9 is a very good 8.36, and his last two seasons have seen his rate climb to 9.56 and 9.39, which is pretty awesome. For the counter-part BB/9, Burnett has a pretty high 3.71 career mark that has been better the past two seasons (3.59 and 3.50) but not much better.

Was he just really lucky or unlucky last season? Well, his BABIP was .328 (unlucky), his LOB% was 70.5 (normal), and his HR/FB was 9.6% (normal but a little low), so his 4.04 ERA was really too high.

Even better for Burnett is that he is a ground-ball pitcher with a career 1.67 GB/FB and it was 1.52 last season. Ground-ball pitchers are more likely to age well considering they get guys to hit the ball into the ground. If you get a lot of fly balls, you start giving up more runs when that fastball loses a tick or two as guys can react better. Burnett is of the former.

Teams also like power-pitchers, and Burnett was fifth in average fastball speed with a 94.3 mph. That will start to drop, but he should be able to hold it for the next few years. At 36, he won't be able to, but we don't really want to worry about the future do we?

So, we know Burnett is a good pitcher, but I think we all knew that. It's the injuries that keep Burnett from getting $100M this winter. But we can't really predict injuries. I've always thought that if the X-rays and PET scans and MRI's and whatever the hell else people use come back clean, then you just have to go with it. Anyone can get hurt. However, I found an interesting pattern with Mr. Burnett. In 2001, he pitched 173.1 IP and then 204.1 the following season. That's a difference of 31 IP (remember the 30 IP rule?). The next two seasons saw him pitch 23 and 120 IP. The year after, he pitched 209 IP (+82 IP). Now, I realize the rule talks about being under 25 and under 30 innings from a previous career high, but it can't be good to go up 80 IP. That's a lot more work. It turns out it was as he only threw 135.1 IP the next season. He went u to 165.1 the next season (+30). That enabled him to throw 221.2 IP this past season as one of the only Blue Jays not affected by injuries. But, that was a 56.1 difference. Again, that seems a bit high for any pitcher to just throw the next season. Does that mean he's going to get hurt? Well, history and patterns say it's a good possibility, but do we really know? Has he reached the point in his career that he can make the jump and his arm withstand it? This was a more incremental increase than past increases, so maybe it will be okay.

So is he worth five years? Well, obviously not, but he is worth the $15-16M a season. That has to be the main question. He should be able to pitch well for the first three seasons (through age 34), and I'm betting there's at least one good season in the 35-36 range. Is it better to give Lowe a four-year deal knowing he'll be 40 at the end? I'd rather have Burnett who's still in a good time in his career. Lowe should decline and probably fairly rapidly whereas Burnett should decline but slowly. For giving the two essentially the same contract, go for Burnett, which is apparently what teams are doing. If you really want him, give him that fifth year.

Wednesday Whispers

He should look a little thinner next season.

Sorry that I've been AWOL for a few days. I was sick this past weekend, and I had to go to class and drive back to Louisville for the holidays. Anyway, there should be a couple things up today, but I don't know about tomorrow. Friday and Saturday should have a few things up as well.

- Robinson Cano is looking good this off-season. The question is can he continue to be as disciplined when he goes back to the city that never sleeps.

- It seems that Junichi Tazawa will be a Red Sox. Because the Red Sox have to have everything go right for them.

- Rocco Baldelli won the Conigliari Award for his determination and spirit. That might have been the easiest award selection of the year.

- Peter Schmuck says the Orioles will have to change their organizational philosophy to sign AJ Burnett. Considering their philosophy seems to be to lose, changing it might not be a bad idea.

- The Canadian economy is leaving Ricciardi in a state of uncertainty. So is his starting rotation.

- The Royals' top 10 prospects are filled with the guys from the last draft. I agree with the author -- that either means they have nothing on the way or their draft was that good.

- The Tigers will pass on Tazawa because of the gentleman's agreement. If they really cared about the agreement, wouldn't they have not gone over and scouted him?

- Furcal visited Oakland yesterday, but it doesn't sound like anything's imminent.

- The Angels are switching their attention to CC. Told you they don't need Tex.

- The Braves are switching their focus to AJ Burnett. Post idea!

- The Marlins' new stadium will open in 2012, just in time to save Maybin from being shipped off but too late for Andrew Miller, Dan Uggla, Jorge Cantu, Matt Lindstrom, Ricky Nolasco, Josh Johnson, Anibal Sanchez, and the Manatees.

- The Pirates signed the two Indian pitchers. Good, now the Pirates have more pitchers who won't make it to the majors.

- Would you rather have 50 fields or CC?

Do the Angels Really Need Teixeira?

When did they get the cool American flag Angels hats? I want one.

Before you say it, let's not go into whether they would be better with him or without him. We all know the Angels would like to have the clean-up hitter and Gold Glove first baseman, but Nick Cafardo and others have stated the Angels need Teixeira. But do they really?

First, Teixeira is going to cost $20M for the next 8-10 years. That's a lot of money and a lot of years. If you want to give such a deal to someone, Teixeira is the man to give it to. He's talented, durable, and plays a position where guys usually age fairly well. However, just because he might be the best bet doesn't mean you should give it to him. There are still risks. What happens if he slips on some ice outside of his house and breaks something? What if he gets hurt? A knee ligament or hamstring could easily pop and cause chronic problems. Do you need that headache?

Second, the Angels haven't had that big hitter in years, and yet, they still win. Teixeira didn't get them to the playoffs. This is a team built to win, and they have the talent to do it, even without the slugger.

Third, there are other options. Internally, Kendry Morales is ready now. Matthew Brown? Mark Trumbo? Next year, Adam LaRoche could be on the market. Is Teixeira better than all those players? Definitely. But is he worth that huge contract when there are other good options that would be much cheaper?

Fourth, the Angels could use the money for pitching. Next year, they'll have a staff of John Lackey, Ervin Santana, Joe Saunders, Jered Weaver, and someone else. Let's not talk about Peavy. Nothing seems to be going on there. But, with the staff they already have, they just need a decent guy for spot 5. They even have Nick Adenhart, who struggled last season but that happens when the guy is 21. Let's say that John Lackey's feelings are accurate and he gets an extension. Next season, they could add one of Josh Beckett, Rich Harden, or Brett Myers to make the staff better.

Fifth, the biggest concern is Vladimir Guerrero. If they can't bring him back, then they need to replace him. Next year, Jason Bay, Rick Ankiel, Matt Holliday, and Xavier Nady could be available. Matt Holliday would require a Teixeira-like contract, so let's cross him off the list because I think we'd all prefer Teixeira. But the others could fill in and give you around as much production as Guerrero has over the past few seasons. With a better defensive outfielder, that opens up the DH spot.

Do the Angels need Teixeira? No, but I do believe they'd prefer to keep him. He'll probably be in the MVP discussion for the next 3-5 years and be pretty good for the remainder. He does fill the hole the Angels believe they have in their perfect team, but if he didn't make the difference this year, when will he?