Tiger Geist

There’s been a lot of talk about whether Justin Verlander should get a bigger contract then Felix Hernandez.  As you probably have heard, Verlander (apparently) has signed a 5 year, $80million deal with detroit, topping Hernandez’s 5 year, $78 million deal.

The arguments are around who is the better pitcher, and mainly the fact that Felix H is three years younger then Justin V.  On paper, yes, Hernandez deserves a better contract.  But in reality, there was no way he was going to get it.

Why?  Hernandez signed his deal, which bought out his arbitration years, and places him on the free agent market when he’s 28.  Verlander, on the other hand, will be 31… which is not the optimal age for another long term contract.  After the completion of his new contract, Felix might get another 4 or 5 year deal for a massive amount of cash.  In fact, Hernandez could get hurt next year, tear both his shoulder AND his knee, and he has enough time to rehab an establish himself as a 28 year old worth a long term contract.  Verlander, on the other hand, will get his payout from Detroit and hope to get a few more two or three year contracts before he retires.  If he has an injury issue, he’s an ‘older’ player with an injured past.  Thats a huge difference.

So that’s why Justin Verlander was going to get more… because he wasn’t going to sign for less.  Knowing what Boston or New York might pay on the open market, Verlander had the power to hold out until the 2012 off-season and sign a MONSTER deal.  Yet there was still risk in that move, which is why he probably chose to sign a very nice deal with Detroit.  But there was no way he was going to take less then Hernandez.  Hernandez is in elite company… there will be few pitchers in the history of baseball who will out-earn him.  His age and major league service time puts him in a class by himself, and best of luck to him.  But this wasn’t about who is better — it was about age and leverage.  Hernandez got what he deserved, and so did Verlander. In fact, I’m surprised that Verlander didn’t hold out for more.

As a fan who is still upset that Jack Morris didn’t retire a Tiger, I’m very happy that Verlander is staying a Detroit Tiger for at least five more years.

As a baseball fan who spent a great deal of time listening to games on the radio, I’ve led a blessed life.  I spent a good number of years listening to a great play by play combo, Ernie Harwell and Paul Carey.  Even though Ernie might be (in a biased point of view) the best ever, I always enjoyed my three innings with Paul.

When I moved to San Francisco in 2000, Jon Miller was (and remains) the Giants play by play announcer, and I always felt he was very good.  But honestly, what did I know?  I knew Ernie and Paul Carey were awesome;  I knew the douchebags that replaced Ernie for a short time were awful (as I stare at a Bo Schembechler bobble head doll on my desk, even Bo knew he probably made a mistake)… all I knew that Miller didn’t repulse me and wasn’t nearly as bad as Rizzs/ Rathbun.  And honestly I really liked Miller, and was adament to Giants fans that they had a good one on their hands.  More recently, Jon Miller has done plenty of national ESPN broadcasts, so the rest of the nation has been able to sample his goods.

Fast forward to this week, where Jon Miller was awarded the Ford C Frick award from the baseball hall of fame.  Its an annual award; the winners aren’t technically ‘in the hall of fame’, but they do have their own wing.  Past winners include guys like Harry Caray… Vin Scully… and one Ernie Harwell.  Well deserved, and I’m glad I’ll be listening to Mr Miller for quite a while.

As a child, I always thought that Ernie was the greatest announcer ever; partly because I was very young, and partly because its all I knew.  The fact that he was a Frick award winner (and therefore always referred to as ‘a member of the baseball hall of fame’, though the more I read up on it, thats probably paraphrasing the award just a little) helped justify my feelings.  I always thought to myself… why did Baltimore ever let Ernie go?  I couldn’t grasp that concept.  Today, I remembered that Jon Miller had also been let go by Baltimore, in 1996.  I’m not sure why Harwell was so available in 1959, and it sounds like Peter Angelos wasn’t a fan of Jon Miller, but its amazing that one team let such great talents walk.

So Congratulations to Jon Miller, who I think is world class. He’s also a giant student and fan of Harwell’s, so in a way, the tradition lives on.

Random Baltimore Announcer stats:  I tried to break down how many Frick award winners worked for which clubs.  The list seems incomplete, because so many of these guys bounced around and worked a year here or there (or for partial years, home games only, etc) that getting a full work schedule from pre-1960 is difficult.  Many guys worked for both Chicago teams at the same time; same for New York (giants / dodgers / yankees /mets).  However, outside of the major markets, Baltimore had a ton of Frick award winners work for them at one point:  Ernie Harwell / Jon Miller / Bob Murphy / Chuck Thompson / Herb Carneal.  Carneal worked with both Harwell and Murphy (who apparently succeeded Harwell for a few years).  Thompson worked with Harwell in Baltimore in 1955, and returned to announce Oriole games from ~1962 – 1987.  Out of this award-winning group, you have a group of men who became famous ‘voices’ for their respective ballclubs:  The voice of the Tigers (Harwell), The voice of the Mets (Murphy), The voice of the Twins (Carneal), the voice of the Orioles (Thompson).  Miller is the hardest one to pigeon hole, since so many famous announcers have called New York and San Francisco Giants games; Lon Simmons (another Frick award winner) was a long time announcer who also did 49er games when the 49ers were the big men on campus in the bay area.  Miller is so good, however, that I feel if he stays dedicated to the Giants — and doesn’t wander out national waters — he can probably write his own legacy here.

Side Note:  Take a look through other award winners, and I do start to wonder about this award.  Sure, people love Harry Caray, but if you had to listen to game 7 of a world series, would you want Caray calling that game?  I’d rather have Will Ferrell’s impression of Caray then Caray himself.  So I found another list of broadcasters to see how Miller stacks up.  The American Sportscasters Association has a top 50 list, and Miller is in good company here, coming in at #19.  Then again, this list has Ernie Harwell at #16, and somehow lists Joe Buck…

Detroit signs former Arizona and Houston closer Jose Valverde to a two year deal, with a third year option.  Numbers are floating around… sounds like 2 years for $14 million, with a $9 million option for a third year.  Detroit forfeits its first round draft pick this summer (#19 overall).

I’m not a fan of the deal personally, but its probably a wash:  Kurt has a nice breakdown on the value of a closer like Valverde vs the value of the draft pick.  So you’re probably for it or against it, and it’ll take a few years to figure out if Detroit made the right move.  I like the idea that, if you’re giving up a draft pick, you get the third year option.  That third year seems quite high for a position Detroit seems poised to replace internally in 10 months, so I don’t understand that one at all.  It probably won’t kill them, unless John Smoltz Jr. is available at #19.

Here’s the interesting part:  The Tigers suddenly aren’t declaring chapter eleven.  Money?  Found some.  Maybe even over-paid a guy that you question if they even needed.  Did someone see Mike Ilitch in Vegas last weekend?  Maybe he bet it all on the Cardinals.

The latest move, along with some discussion that Detroit’s still looking for free agents, brings up these thoughts:

1) As fans, we might now have to come to grips about the possibility that Detroit really didn’t want Curtis Granderson around, or at least that he wasn’t worth his contract.  As of Wednesday this week, you could assume the Granderson move it was a salary dump.  Signing Valverde to a two year deal may signal otherwise.

2) Dombrowski must really have felt like he was selling high on Edwin Jackson.  Or he really likes Max Scherzer.  OR:

3) Detroit is nervous about the starting rotation.  This I can believe;  their system is NOT built around starting pitchers.  Bolstering the backend of the bullpen and the middle-relief corps could free Zach Miner to a starting spot.  I’m not convinced that anyone knows who will have the better year… Jeremy Bonderman or Eddie Bonine.  The rotation is a tossup.  Miner doesn’t do anything exceptionally well, but he does provide depth.  A good argument could be made that there are starting pitchers better then Miner available, for the same price or even cheaper then Detroit spent on Valverde.  Yes… so:

4) Dombrowski isn’t taking chances with “Glass” Joel Zumaya, green Ryan Perry, or some combo of rookies at the back end of the bullpen.  While Detroit seems to have a decent crop of relief pitchers coming up, this provides the Tigers the ability to not rush anyone.  Perry had a decent year in 2009, but you hate to see young players go up and down mid-season.

5) Detroit still has some holes to fill in their infield for 2011;  Brandon Inge’s replacement may not be in their minor league system… the jury is still out at shortstop.  Dombrowski might see some openings to trade pitching talent for some gloves.  I’m not exactly buying this one either, but I’m concerned that Detroit seems pretty well off in 2011 (for both pitching, payroll, and a top-5 talent in Miguel Cabrera) but they have a lot of holes in their farm system elsewhere.

6) I’m just going to say it now:  If Detroit can’t find the money to sign Justin Verlander to a long term deal, I’m going to be pretty pissed about this Valverde contract.  I’m ok with them waiting (long term contracts to pitchers aren’t always a good idea… right Dontrelle?) but if they end up $14 million short on a Verlander deal, there are going to be some pissed off fans.

7) What are Detroit fans going to do without the need to scream at their closer?  Valverde isn’t the best closer ever, but he should be more stable then Todd Jones or Fernando Rodney.  Say what you want about the contract and the draft pick, but as a closer, Valverde isn’t a bad option.  The Tigers have a closer… the Lions have a starting quarterback.  Joe Dumars better watch his step.

You’ll read a lot on this soon, for two reasons:  1) Roberto Alomar didn’t get voted into the hall of fame, and 2) no Tigers were voted in, and it seems increasingly less likely that Alan Trammell will get in.  (FYI:  Excellent articles by Jim Caple and Rob Neyer, which I may or may not agree on)

But why do I hate this?  Because based on the way the voter’s vote, the whole point of the hall of fame is becoming lost on me.

I understand the ’shoe-ins’ for the hall.  Greg Maddux will walk into the hall.  So will Ivan Rodriguez… etc etc.  Trust me, I understand that Alan Trammell is not Cal Ripken.  But I also understand that Jim Rice and Andre Dawson are not Willie Mays or Hank Aaron.  So this process is lost on me.

I’m also not a fan of the selection committee and voters waiting a few years and then stating “you know, even though I voted such and such an MVP, in contrast that wasn’t really that good of a year”.  That makes sense in terms of getting things right.  But in baseball, hall of fame voting is really the only time that they allow people to sit back and say “hey, did we get that call right?”  Balls vs strikes, safe vs out — will there ever be instant replay for this?  The game can be entirely decided by an umpire who has a split second to make the correct call, but the hall of fame voters get 15 years to decide on the players who lived on those split second decisions.

In the end, it is about making it right.  But here we go — before the world of instant feedback known as ‘the internet’, fans got most of their news from baseball writers.  The writers wrote about players and generated interest, and you learned about which players were good and which ones were great.  As a fan, you would go purchase a ticket.  You saw an MVP type season from the player on your team, or you went to the stadium to see another player from another team, just to say you saw that player play.  Fifteen years later, the same writers who said player X was great now says “comparitively, he was good, not great”.  The Writer gets the chance to change his mind.  The fan, however, doesn’t get a refund on their ticket.

So the fan has memories of great players, and now they’re told that they aren’t really that great by the same people who stirred up the interest in the first place.  So the writer gets it right.  In service organizations, “the customer is always right”.  Except in baseball.  The writers are always right, and they are allowed to change their mind.  You as a fan can keep the memories.

Who is right?  Whomever you think is right.  Its the Oscars vs the Golden Globes; i’m not claiming the voting is wrong.  For me, the voting process is killing my interest in the hall.  Maybe Alan Trammell or Jack Morris don’t deserve to be in the hall.  But they are the ones I have memories of.  Kirk Gibson will never sniff the hall without purchasing his own ticket, but I can’t think of a better baseball moment then his home run in the 1988 world series (of course with the Dodgers…).  Nothing Andre Dawson has done excites me, yet I still get chills and can spout off trivia while watching the Gibson vs Eckersley at-bat.  Maybe the Hall of Fame is perfectly fine; maybe it just isn’t for me.

Its very difficult to get a grasp on what happened in baseball in the last decade;  Barry Bonds & friends blew up what everyone thought they knew.  I’ve put together a few ideas on changes that I believe will happen in baseball over the next decade.

1) Overall defense will improve.  Buster Olney’s recent ESPN magazine article hits on how defensive metrics are becoming more commonplace;  teams can quantify the value of a Brandon Inge.  As being a better defender may lead to a bigger paycheck, more emphasis will be placed in this area.  Soon the idea of a 2009 Gary Sheffield playing in the national league will be obsolete.

2) New managers will bring new strategies.  In the same way the spread offense and the zone read option have fundamentally changed college football, new ideas by younger managers will be tried out in the next 5-10 years.  The old regime of baseball managers will be replaced by more stat-based managers, or guys who grew up playing video games.  What does Pittsburgh have to lose?

3) The baseball draft will be completely over-hauled.  I imagine a mix of both the NBA-style slotting system, as well as an NHL-style “draft a player and let them develop in college”.  This will include the international drafting system, or lack thereof.  Players will soon realize that the less money wasted in the draft is more money in their pockets.

4) Someone will begin to fiddle with statistics around injuries and the disabled list, and further derive the value of their potential players; the new Moneyball will be in the medical field.  There will be enough data to finally figure out the nature vs nurture.. er.. pitch count discussion.

5) Instant replay will work and work well… eventually.  Getting there will test fan’s patience for at least 5 years.

6) HDTV + ticket costs + concession costs + parking costs + the pace of the game != ticket sales.  Small market teams with new stadiums are going to struggle filling seats and selling suites…  for a while.  I’m not sure this is a merely recession issue.

At the end of the year, you get tons of ‘top 10 X’ of the year.  This new years’ we will probably see a ton of “best of the decade”.  I wanted to explore decisions Detroit should have made this year, knowing what we now know about the entire 2009 season.  I’m keeping this to general themes, not the “Don Kelly should never have been playing left field in the Metrodome in that one game in that one inning…”.  Detroit missed the playoffs by one game;  I don’t want to focus on one particular game decision, rather decisions that, over time, may have generated that extra win.  Or, playing devil’s advocate, knowing Detroit wasn’t going to make the playoffs, maybe some moves they could have done to improve the team in 2010 and beyond.  Let’s look at five hindsight decision:

1) Trade(s) that should never have happened: Jarrod Washburn / Aubrey Huff.

This is a two way tie.  First, the Washburn trade.  Detroit sends Pitchers Lucas French and Mauricio Robles in exchange for Washburn.  Washburn was generally ineffective in Detroit, eventually being shut down due to an apparently pre-existing knee injury. Why it shouldn’t have happened? Washburn had high ERA and had an excellent defensive outfield in Seattle; there was little chance he would keep up his run in Detroit.  The biggest issue,  as I wrote early September, Washburn’s knee injury was a known issue to everyone except the Tigers front office.  Based on the info available to the team at the time (and re-enforced by hindsight and what should have been a physical), the trade shouldn’t have been made.

Second trade:  Detroit sends pitcher Brett Jacobson to Baltimore for Aubrey Huff.  No sugar coating this one, Huff was awful for Detroit.  Why shouldn’t this have been made?  Huff did not play one inning in the field for Detroit.  Detroit was already full of DH’s playing out of position, and they didn’t have room for a backup third baseman for the ailing Brandon Inge.  The trade made sense for Detroit if Huff was brought in to make some starts in the field.  He did not.

Last condition of the trades:  From the way it was reported, Detroit picked up the rest of both player’s salary for the year.  That’s approximately 35% of Washburn’s $10million, and 25% of Huff’s $8million.  A lot of money for a team that appears shedding salary.

2) Trade that should have happened: Placido Polanco at the trading deadline.

This assumes that we knew Detroit wouldn’t have made the playoffs, that Detroit wouldn’t offer arbitration to Polanco, and Polanco would sign a long term contract in the offseason (all of which, of course, happened)  If you were San Francisco, would you rather have Placido Polanco or Freddy Sanchez?  If you were Detroit, would you like a chance to have Tim Alderson in your minor league system?

3) Player who should have had less playing time / Player who should have been promoted: Brandon Inge / Scott Sizemore

Brandon Inge had bad knees.  While he still seemed to play solid defense, he hit .186 after the all star break.  Detroit’s best minor league player (and apparent starting second baseman in 2010) never got a call up, not even in September.  Initially most of us thought “ok, that makes sense, Detroit has an awesome second baseman, no need to sit Polanco for Sizemore in a pennant race”.  It was also assumed that playing Inge was a necessity, since Detroit didn’t have a suitable replacement.

Well, hindsight shows this logic went out the window.  According to a 3-year, $18million contract signed this off-season to play third base with Philadelphia, Detroit already had someone able to pick up a few starts at third.  By shifting Polanco to third, Detroit would have found a few at-bats for their top-hitting prospect at Toledo.  If Sizemore’s defense was still a concern, Santiago could have been used as well (or as a late inning defensive replacement).

4) The Roll the Dice move: Keep Gary Sheffield, cut Marcus Thames.  Or cut both.

Look at their numbers… Gary Sheffield and Marcus Thames had nearly identical production in 2009.  Sheffield had a better on base-percentage and struck out less, albeit in an inferior league.  Given a re-do, I’d roll the dice on this one and keep Sheffield and cut (or attempt to trade) Thames.  Knowing now that Thames isn’t a 40 home run hitter, Detroit could have made a major marketing push in the early season for Sheffield’s 500th home run.  Or they could have just cut / moved both, if Detroit needed to find a roster spot for decision #5:

5) Find a backup corner infielder.

If we assume that Ryan Raburn is a decent fielder if he can focus on one area (infield or outfield, but not both), this could have helped out on more then one occasion.  If we assume that Brandon Inge could have used a rest, or the team could use some more offense from third base, or maybe Miguel Cabrera could use a day off…

There’s five.  Any others?

I started thinking the other day about what is the best way to handle Justin Verlander in the case of a possible rebuilding year.  The discussion was incomplete, because Roy Halladay was being shopped, but hadn’t found a new home.  That changed this week.

The more I spend analyzing the trade that was made, the more I talk myself into each team’s reasoning for doing it.  But I’m not interested in winners and losers since none of the teams involved are in the central division OR are the hated Red Sox or Yankees.  But it did finalize my thoughts on Justin Verlander and what Detroit should do with him.

The Verdict?  Keep him.

Verlander should be a Tiger, no questions asked, until June of 2011.  If Detroit isn’t competing, move him to a team that is willing to overpay.  If not, keep him and try to re-sign or get their draft pick.  If JV is agreeable to Detroit’s terms, sign him to an extension after the 2010 season.  Those are the best options.

Why?  Well, the trade pointed out a few things, as did the John Lackey signing.  Detroit can get a tremendous value on a top-ten pitcher for two more years.  Verlander should make less then half of the following pitchers:  Johan Santana; AJ Burnett; CC Sabathia; Roy Halladay; Barry Zito; Jake Peavy; Mark Buehrle; John Lackey.  In addition, (Assuming there is no long term contract signed), in 2009 alone Verlander will make less then the following pitchers:  Oliver Perez; Francisco Rodriguez; Josh Beckett; Daisuke Matsuzaka; Gil Meche; Zach Greinke; Dan Haren; Brandon Webb; Brad Lidge; Cliff Lee; Cole Hamel; Jaime Moyer; Joe Blanton (rumored at $8mil).. oh, and Jeremy Bonderman, Dontrelle Willis, and Nate Robertson.

If Verlander were to move to $7 million this year (doubling last year’s salary) and then $10million in 2011, he’s still a bargain.

An interesting quote from Jayson Stark on the blue jays caught my eye:

They had the best pitcher in baseball on their payroll for the past eight years — and never played one postseason game. They were the wrong team in the wrong division in the wrong era.

This is why holding onto Verlander makes so much sense:  as of December 2009, there is no reason to think that any central division team has a serious advantage over another team.  They all have flaws.  Most have moderate payrolls.  Verlander is becoming a guy no one wants to face; someone fans come to the ballpark to see (as previously stated, I will never miss another Verlander game when I’m in the vicinity).

In terms of prospects, I’m always nervous.  Each prospect in today’s Lee / Halladay trade has a downside; each team in the majors has a corner outfielder prospect they’re willing to move, or an infielder that seems too fat to lack mobility for their position.  Once 2011 rolls around, maybe then we can talk prospects.  But over-playing your hand like Toronto did last summer didn’t work out in their favor — while ESPN loved reporting that it was in team’s best interest to trade for Halladay and get two pennant races out of him, the teams didn’t seem to agree.

There you have it.  Verlander stays until Detroit can’t afford him, at which point Detroit listens for offers in mid 2011.

UPDATE:  Roy Halladay apparently is getting traded.  I’ll have a new post once we get full details on the trade to discuss how this relates back to Detroit.

Mike at Tigers by the Numbers asked an important question, namely, Is it time to trade Justin Verlander?  Its an interesting discussion point in the wake of the Curtis Granderson / Edwin Jackson trade.  Namely, Detroit’s return from the trade was three pitchers and a position player;  would Verlander allow Detroit to re-stock their farm system that seems lacking stud position players?

My position is no.  But part of my take on the Granderson trade was the hope that it positioned Detroit to sign Verlander to a long term deal.  If Detroit is unable to extend Verlander (either by their choice or JV’s choice), he’ll probably be moved by the trading deadline in 2011.  But let’s explore why Detroit shouldn’t move him assuming they could sign him.

First, trades don’t always work out.  When you have the best player at their position, you almost never get full value.  Minnesota had the best pitcher in Johan Santana, but were couldn’t get full value for him (though injury rumors surely didn’t help).  Oakland, on the other hand, has done a wonderful job getting talent for players they either couldn’t afford or felt they could sell high on (Mark Mulder, Dan Haren, Tim Hudson, Joe Blanton, Rich Harden, Huston Street).  Yet Oakland has struggled; their trades have not put them in a position for long term success.  The trades looked great on paper, however.  What worked best for Oakland was they drafted Mulder, Hudson, Zito, Chavez, Tejada (technically signed as a FA and not drafted), and Giambi.  That was the basis for their multi-year run, though their 2006 team was aided by the Mulder to St Louis for Dan Haren + prospects trade.  (Side Note:  its been stated that as interesting as “Moneyball” is, any strategy in Oakland would have been successful as long as they had the power trio of Hudson, Mulder and Zito).  As Mike mentions, the best hope probably is the 2002 Bartolo Colon trade.

In the Colon deal, Cleveland got a tremendous return package.  However, it was two full seasons before Cliff Lee delivered, three seasons before Grady Sizemore was an everyday player… and four seasons of waiting on Brandon Phillips.  A great return, but quite a while before results.  Can Detroit take a gamble that might payoff in 2013?

While Justin Verlander is cheaper and controlled longer then Roy Halladay, he isn’t Roy Halladay, and that’s what teams want.  Philadelphia wants Halladay, but they still haven’t pulled the trigger.  Maybe Verlander continues his evolution into one of the game’s top pitchers, but I don’t know if he’ll demand a top return this winter.

Last, Detroit’s in a great position to field a competitive team over the next few years, a chance to compete without going into rebuilding mode.  They have a truly special talent in Miguel Cabrera.  They’ve been able to manipulate the draft by over-slotting players other teams were afraid they couldn’t sign.  And Justin Verlander could anchor a pitching staff as a true #1 pitcher, one that most teams lack.  He has a power pitcher body and the proper mechanics to stay healthy (don’t you think the Giants are just a little nervous to give a long term contract to Tim Lincecum and his tiny frame?).  Convincing Justin Verlander to sign an extension before February 2011 should be Detroit’s main focus.

So the trade happened.  Everyone has an opinion on it, and I think bloggers are being really good about “how I feel” vs “value of the trade”.

I didn’t know the players Detroit is receiving very well before the rumors hit;  by all accounts they all are highly regarded prospects with high ceilings.  I’m not nearly as attached to Curtis Granderson as most fans, and frankly I hated his contract (for years 2011/2012).  I liked Edwin Jackson quite a bit and, while Max Scherzer could be better then Jackson, I’m still more comfortable going into 2010 with a rotation of Verlander / Jackson / Porcello.

Detroit didn’t improve their offense, didn’t seem to improve their ‘fielding’ defense, and the starting rotation upgrade quite possibly might not happen until 2011.  The bullpen is probably improved, and probably gives Dave Dombrowski more flexibility in his free agent pursuits.  Again, I’m not super high on Granderson, but if the best Tiger players last year were (no particular order) Cabrera, Verlander, Porcello, Jackson, Rodney, Granderson, Ordonez and Polanco… Detroit just traded two of those players and three might walk via free agency.  Basically, the trade is about potential.  Well.. potential and salary.  Because Detroit just took on some cheap talent and moved an expensive contract and a player they might not have wanted to (or felt unable to) sign to a long term deal.

What’s most interesting is Granderson’s contract.   2010:  $5.5mil;  2011:  $8.25mil;  2012:  $10mil.

Don’t those numbers look familiar?  Maybe the starting point that Justin Verlander is going to command in a long term deal?  Essentially, they can shift the money they planned on spending on Granderson into a long term deal for Verlander.  Based on stadium issues, I don’t know if we’ll see one signed this off-season or not.

That’s my take.  On potential, Detroit could end up doing well here.  And they might have just found their long term money to sign Justin Verlander, which probably should be their top priority in the next 14 months.  However, I don’t know that it allows them to put a better team on the field in 2010 then they had in November.  And I’m well aware of how popular Curtis Granderson is; I’m interested to see who Detroit markets heavily this winter to the fans.  I think it was a deal Detroit needed to make;  granted I’ve been in the US all of 3 hours right now, but I’m pretty confused as to why Arizona made this deal.  Not exactly liking it for New York either.

(NOTE:  Written pre-trade as I was still out of the country when I wrote but didn’t post this)

Billfer is doing an excellent job covering the Winter meetings, as well as covering the mystique in a Tiger firesale this winter.  A few other national writers have chimed in as well, but (granted, reading this from afar.. as in India and Great Britain this month), I’m still confused.

As deepthroat said in “All the President’s Men”… Follow the money.

I get the revenue sharing, the attendance figures, etc.  I get that Detroit is getting a ton of cash from their very lucrative TV deal.  What I don’t understand is this very question:

If a team can make so much money, why would they ever bother to build a new stadium?

The answer is, of course, that stadiums provide an incredible amount of income.  And that is where I’m having a disconnect at the moment.  If the Tigers can’t get sponsorship deals or sell suites, then they’re losing a ton of expected income (based on the reason they built the stadium in the first place).  We simply cannot discount this; this is where the local economy has a direct impact on the team.  Also, the attendance figures don’t necessarily mean anything; what the team needs when they lay out the season expenses is the season ticket numbers (pre-sale) and the suite numbers.  They don’t want to predict the team’s expenses based on what they think the attendance figures might be.  A cold April or a third place team in August can kill any prediction;  what they need is people who pay up front.

Why would Oakland care to get a new stadium if they can get tons of money before selling a seat?  Why would St Louis build a new stadium when they have one of the best fan bases in the country, and averaged about 3million in attendance for the 10 years leading up to their new stadium?  Things are not as dire at the Tigers headquarters, but it is not all roses.  The local economy has a giant affect on the team’s income, and much of that relates to the stadium.  And in essence, most of this additional stadium money is not from fans, its from corporations.

While it doesn’t signal a firesale, the reason behind not significantly cutting payroll can’t simply be discounted as “revenue sharing and local TV money”.  If it was that simple, everyone would still share football and baseball stadiums.  The sponsorship and private suite dollars are huge.  Maybe the team can survive without the stadium income.  But that’s where the ‘free agent’ money comes from.

We’re missing something here.  And of course, its all smoke and mirrors.  NO ONE KNOWS.  That’s the problem with most major sports, but with baseball its the biggest:  No one talks, no one opens their books.  We can’t assume that anything we’re told from the league is true… because, you know, they’ve been pretty truthful about everything in the past.  And the amount of money coming in from stadiums can be staggering;  this is one of the main labor issues in the upcoming NFL CBA — Dallas and Buffalo have different revenue streams in terms of stadium numbers.  These types of revenues are not shared, and almost exclusively never discussed in public.

On the flip side of this, if estimates that Detroit is losing money but its manageable (personally, I think they’re going to lose a ton in 2010), then its quite possible they made a giant windfall leading up to 2008/2009 with the opening of Comerica Park.  So I’m not exactly shedding any tears for the team.