Closing the Book on Cliff Lee
by PhillyFriar on Jul 10, 2010 1:27 PM EDT
Email
PrintBefore I go back to the business of trying not to fail the bar exam, I thought it would be a good idea to close up this whole Clifton Phifer business.
I realize that the situation has been the JFK assassination of Phillies baseball since December: everyone has an opinion, a conspiracy theory, a million different thoughts on why the whole thing was handled well or poorly. I'm not going to debate the merits of the complicated Lee-for-Halladay swap (dajafi already did so in an extremely prescient piece back in December), the possibility that Lee could have been retained had Joe Blanton simply been non-tendered, or any of that; that's all water under the bridge at this point.
The brief discussion I want to have now is in regards to the prospects involved in the slew of Lee deals that have taken place since last July. Spoiler alert: Ruben Amaro may not have gotten top value for Cliff Lee. Check below the jump as we break it down.
July 29, 2009: Carlos Carrasco, Jason Knapp, Lou Marson, Jason Donald
How it looked then: Cleveland's haul in the original Lee deal was widely panned, with most prospect evaluators feeling that Mark Shapiro failed to extract full value for the 2008 AL Cy Young winner. While I agreed with that to an extent, I thought that the haul the Indians got was a tad underrated -- Carrasco, Marson and Donald were all Top 100 prospects heading into 2009, and I thought it was a nice calculated gamble for the Indians to "buy low" after all three had struggled a touch in Triple-A. Knapp was the centerpiece of the deal; the 18-year old flamethrower had turned heads in the South Atlantic League with swing-and-miss stuff, and the Indians insisted he be part of the trade.
How it looks now: Only Donald has acquitted himself well since the deal, hitting .280/.335/.434 with the Indians this year. Marson is back in Triple-A after OPSing .530 in the majors this year; Carrasco has regressed; and Knapp has been on the shelf all year with a bum shoulder.
December 16, 2009: Tyson Gillies, J.C. Ramirez, Phillippe Aumont
How it looked then: TGP linkage. CliffsNotes version: ehhh, not great.
How it looks now: With the obvious caveat that it's far, far too early to fully judge the deal, it is certainly fair to say that we haven't had a breakout among the above prospect trio that would validate Benny Looper's (possibly irrational) love for these guys. Aumont was converted to a starter and rushed to Double-A; he seems to have found his feet again in High-A, but I still think it's more likely than not that he winds up in the bullpen. Ramirez was solid if unspectacular in High-A, and the same has held true since his mid-June promotion to Double-A; in any case, the substantial bounce back I projected when I ranked him #3 among Phillies prospects in the offseason simply hasn't materialized. Finally, the speedy Gillies has been plagued with a hamstring injury all season, with only 113 plate appearances to his credit. He could still be fine in the long run, but it's beginning to look like a lost year of development for the guy I identified as the centerpiece of the Phillies' return for Lee.
July 9, 2010: Justin Smoak, Blake Beavan, Josh Lueke, Matt Lawson
How it looks: Smoak is the real crown jewel in this deal, as the switch-hitting first baseman has drawn comparisons to Mark Teixeira since his college days at South Carolina. The 23-year old has struggled a bit in the majors this year, but it's only his second full season, and scouts are still nearly unanimous in praising his hitting approach (he was a consensus Top 15 prospect heading into the season). Beavan is a potential back-end starter type who shows solid ground ball rates and excellent control, though his stuff is shorter than one might expect given his 6'7", 250 pound frame. Lueke is a hard-throwing reliever who looks like a decent bet to reach the majors, and Lawson is essentially a chuck in as a decent Double-A infielder.
What about the Yankees' package?: Far be it from me to question Jack Zduriencik, but I would have preferred the package offered by the Yankees. Jesus Montero won't stick at catcher, and he's not lighting the world on fire in Triple-A this year, but he's a 20-year old man child whose bat fits into the "special" category for scouts. Before the year, PECOTA projected a bunch of .310/.360/.530 seasons for Montero from about age 23 onward, and I think that's still a fair projection. In addition to Montero, David Adams is a sleeper second base prospect with impressive plate discipline, solid power, and above-average ability in the field, while Zach McAllister may have a shot as a back-end starter.
So... what does it all mean?
Justin Smoak is the best player involved in any of the Cliff Lee deals, and put simply, that shouldn't be the case. Theoretically, Lee's value was at its highest when he was dealt to the Phillies last July; it slipped a bit when there was only a year left on his deal back in December; and Lee should be worth even less now that he's a two-month rental. It hasn't played out that way, however, and this is where I think it's fair to question Ruben Amaro.
Even accepting the premise that Lee needed to be dealt back in December, it doesn't at all look like Amaro was able to maximize the return. Gillies, Ramirez and Aumont are a nice trio of prospects, and as I said above, I believe they were touch underrated at the time, but given what the Mariners were able to get for Lee seven months later, it's hard to fathom that the Mariners package was the best one on offer. It has since been established that the Yankees were willing to part with Montero and other prospects in a deal for Lee back in December, and this is where Amaro made a huge mistake. Even conceding that Montero won't stick at catcher, he must surely have been the best player on offer for Lee, and the simple fact of the matter is that a general manager should be seeking to maximize talent. Montero's presence in the organization had the potential to help in a number of different ways: (A) maybe he could have been included in the package for Halladay, say, in lieu of Michael Taylor and Travis d'Arnaud; (B) he would have been an excellent trade chip for the current trade deadline; or (C) he would have been in line to be the organization's first baseman of the future (on a salary of less than $25 million per year).
The sad truth of the matter is that the names being bandied about for Lee over the past few days lead to the inevitable conclusion that Amaro could have gotten more for Lee had he simply shown some patience and thrown open the bidding to all interested suitors. Surely there must have been a better deal out there? Referring back to one of the above links, Dave Cameron of Fangraphs -- a Mariners fan, no less -- said the following back in December:
This is the best Philadelphia could have gotten for Lee? Really? A pu-pu platter of interesting, high-risk guys not really close to the majors for a Cy Young-quality pitcher who is already well on his way to Type A free agency?
What should particularly frighten Phillies fans is the possibility that, with Benny Looper in his ear, perhaps Amaro really, honestly believed that the Mariners package was the best one out there -- and I think that, more than anything, is what bugs me about the whole situation.
But, what's done is done. Let's go ahead and close the book on this whole thing, huh?
69 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Really nice piece PF. Whether you believe the package he could have gotten from the Yankees was better than what he got from the Rangers or not, it’s hard not to concede that he totally outplayed Amaro on this one.
PhillyFriar, as you seem to be one of the more knowledgable minors guys here, I have a question for you.
Would you consider a Yankees trade for Jayson Werth that included Jesus Montrero a good trade?
by SportingFanaticism on Jul 10, 2010 2:14 PM EDT reply actions
I’ll put it this way — in the abstract, it would be a fantastic return on a two-month rental. As far as maximizing value is concerned, it’s a clear win.
The specific circumstances make it a little dicier — Montero would have no future in Philly (because of Howard’s contract), and dealing Werth would obviously deal a harsh blow to the chances of the 2010 Phillies.
All told, though, I’d probably pull the trigger. Then I’d do my damnedest to package Montero, Cosart and another piece or two for Dan Haren.
Mr Stark at ESPN said this when asked about the PHillies Lee deal (before the deal with the Rangers was done and it still seemed the Yankees were getting him.
I knew I’d get this question. The biggest question I’ve always had is why the Phillies, if they knew they wanted to trade Lee, didn’t do what the Mariners have done — shop him around for a couple of weeks and stoke the bidding to get the best offer. They were so concerned with public reaction and with keeping it quiet that they were moving him at all, that it looks as if they only targeted one team. By the way, I should mention that teams I’ve spoken with still like Tyson Gillies and J.C. Ramirez, even though Gillies has basically been hurt all year and Ramirez hasn’t done much this season until recently. But would either of them be considered as good a prospect as Montero? No way.
by SportingFanaticism on Jul 10, 2010 2:17 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs
Hadn’t seen this yet, so thanks for passing it along. All I can say is… wow. At the risk of twisting the knife here for all Phillies fans, this part absolutely, positively bears repeating:
They were so concerned with public reaction and with keeping it quiet that they were moving him at all, that it looks as if they only targeted one team.
That’s no way to run a baseball club. To be blunt, it’s a pathetic, cowardly mindset. I honestly don’t know what else to say.
Yes it’s no way to run a baseball club, but are you surprised to hear that it might be one of the reasons why it went down the way it did.
by SportingFanaticism on Jul 10, 2010 2:30 PM EDT up reply actions
What doesn’t make sense about that explanation is that they had bad PR anyway, and they knew they would have bad PR anyway. So I don’t think it’s as simple as that.
Maybe they thought if they did it all in one fell swoop the bad reaction could be mitigated a bit by the good reaction of obtaining Halladay. I don’t listen to places like WIP and the other one, did the average fan split their opinion because it was combined with obtaining Halladay at the time?
by SportingFanaticism on Jul 10, 2010 2:34 PM EDT up reply actions
What was the radio talk reaction like at the time, does anyone recall clearly? Just for curiosity sake.
by SportingFanaticism on Jul 10, 2010 2:35 PM EDT up reply actions
It hasn’t varied. WIP is the epicenter of Win Now philosophy. So it’s still stuck on What Might Have Been.
by Wet Luzinski on Jul 11, 2010 12:55 PM EDT up reply actions
This is what I was thinking.
I’d wager that the front office was hoping for that very mitigation, but badly underestimated just how popular Lee was among the masses after his World Series performance.
The Phillies organization has always been partially motivated by fan reaction—doesn’t anyone else remember Montgomery’s tirade about the fans on WIP and how hurt he was? I remember being just completely shocked that an owner would take things so personally, considering the nature of the business (or any business for that matter). Just reading the Bill Giles and other Phillies history books, there’s stories about similar stuff sprinkled throughout. Terrible way to run a franchise. Just ask Cleveland.
"Tortorella’s got it all wrong ... Gaborik shouldn’t be messing with our skilled player." -Peter Luukko
Giles was really terrible in that regard. I think Montgomery has changed things for the better though, at least to a degree.
Phillies’ stretch of 16 losing seasons in 17 years: 1984-2000
Period when Bill Giles was in control of the organization: 1982-1997
Things that make you go hmm.
Weren’t they a .500 club in 1984? As I remember it, they really went downhill from 1987 on – except for 1993, of course, which was incredible. Given the record during the five years before and five years after, that has to be one of the all-time one-hit wonder seasons.
by phillyinportland on Jul 11, 2010 3:08 AM EDT up reply actions
I’ve been saying this lately, but I actually really pity Gillies, Aumont, and Ramirez if they ever make it to Philly. They’re going to get the Von Hayes treatment if they’re anything short of superstars.
http://www.thegoodphight.com
What’s especially strange is that the package we got from Seattle was also, in my opinion, better than the package Cleveland got from us. So you have three trades whose sequence doesn’t seem to make sense, not just two.
Anyway, I agree that we should have gotten more for Lee, but I continue to think the margin was not so great as to get overly agitated about. Also, strictly speaking, it isn’t completely correct, methodologically, to conclude that the Smoak deal proves that our deal was wrong. For instance, if I own a $5000 car and sell it to someone for $7500, and then that person later sells it for $10000, that doesn’t mean that the $10000 deal was necessarily available to me, nor does it mean that it was foreseeable that it would become available to me.
Now, as a matter of fact, Ruben may have actually been offered Montero last year, and even if he wasn’t, it’s certainly arguable that he should have foreseen a better deal coming to him if he had waited. But that is based on other facts, not the fact that the Mariners got Smoak now, which is suggestive but not, strictly speaking, relevant.
So anyway, I think people are entitled to criticize Amaro. At the same time, some of the criticism (not here, but on other sites, radio, etc.) has gone badly overboard to the point of losing its connection to reality, and that needs to be countered as well. I’ve seen many people basically make the claim that Gillies, Aumont, and Ramirez are “worthless” or “filler,” and that just isn’t so.
There does seem to be some revisionist history with regard to the Phillies initial trade FOR Lee on the national internets, in that it somehow was better than what we received from Seattle. The intial trade the Phils made for Lee was a steal; unfortunately, it would appear so was Seattle’s trade for Lee. The Rangers, not so much. I think I actually would have preferred to see the Yankees overpay when it’s all said and done.
"Tortorella’s got it all wrong ... Gaborik shouldn’t be messing with our skilled player." -Peter Luukko
Is it possible that we failed to maximize Lee’s trading value because we inadvertently made our intentions clear about our budget to early in the winter meetings? I recall a Hagen article that said the Phillies meant business on their budget. A day later similar articles in the various national media outlets appeared. Once the Hallady deal went down, interested teams now had more leverage as they knew our finacial constraits necessitated Lee’s departure. If so perhaps this plus market factors severely limited our options and Amaro, whose hand was inadvertently forced by the ownership, in fact made the best move afforded to him.
Okay I didn’t read about the Yankees offer to us. Delayed kick to the groin nausea. Now it’s like I’m so confused.
meant to say
If so perhaps this plus market factors severely limited our options and Amaro, whose hand was may have been inadvertently forced by the ownership, in fact made the best move afforded to him.
I heard Amaro on the pregame show today. He denied finances were a factor in the deal despite being called out on it. He insisted it was to replenish the farm. He said the finances beyond 2010 did play a part, but not 2010’s finances. Then he went on to say he’s not sure Blanton’s contract was a good idea (I don’t recall his exact words).
if I own a $5000 car and sell it to someone for $7500, and then that person later sells it for $10000, that doesn’t mean that the $10000 deal was necessarily available to me, nor does it mean that it was foreseeable that it would become available to me.
That depends, did you shop around the car and the $7,500 deal was the best offer you got, or was the $7,500 offer the first off your got and you were working with someone you knew through a mutual friend so you took that offer without exploring other opportunities.
It always seemed to me that the Phillies went to the Mariners, got an offer, and took it, without bothering to see what they could get from other teams. So in your analogy – i you take the first $7,500 offer from a friend of a friend without shopping it around then it is possible you got not the best deal.
We aren’t privy to the ins and outs, but is there any indication the Phillies called up the Rangers and said We’ll give you cliff lee if you give us Justin Smoak?
by SportingFanaticism on Jul 10, 2010 2:45 PM EDT reply actions
Shucks, that was supposed to be a reply. Sorry about that
by SportingFanaticism on Jul 10, 2010 2:46 PM EDT up reply actions
Well, read my example again, because it already covered those points. What you have to prove is that: If you had shopped around, would a better deal have been available? That is, what were the actual facts about the market at the time you made your deal, the outlook of the market in the future?
One can prove that the investigation you employed wasn’t thorough enough, which isn’t good, but you cannot prove that this actually caused you any harm in the end unless you prove the first point.
I understand your argument, but I think the fact that Montero was offered — a fact that’s been confirmed by Ken Rosenthal, Joel Sherman, and Buster Olney, among others — handles the first point. Pretty much any prospect evaluator would argue that Amaro left a superior package on the table by foregoing a deal with the Yankees (see, e.g. Ben Badler).
Interesting and well-written piece, PF. One thing that might have prevented Amaro from throwing the bidding open to all interested suitors is that there was no way Amaro would have approved a trade with the Yankees, at least I don’t think he could have. Just a month or so after losing the World Series to the Yankees it is inconceivable that he could have turned around and traded Lee to them, even if it was for the best offer out there, as it probably would have been. Think how hard it was to justify trading Lee to begin with, and then add in “Oh, he’s going to the team that won the World Series and will now be virtually unbeatable.” That doesn’t justify trading Lee to Seattle but maybe it explains a little about why the focus was on a team like Seattle and why the return was three decent prospects from the only team Amaro was willing to deal with.
by phillyinportland on Jul 10, 2010 2:50 PM EDT reply actions
I find that kind of thinking nonsensical personally. It’s a long 162 game season, and there’s no guarantee either, let alone both, of those teams meet in the world series again. To me that’s the kind of fan reaction motivated thinking that Stark was referring to. If the Yankees made an offer and it was the best offer, the phillies should have taken it as it was the best move for the organization, fan over reaction aside.
I suppose you might have a better argument if the Braves made the best off for Lee (hypothetically) since it’s the same division, but worrying about a potential world series match up that might never happen is, to me, a ludicrous reason not to take a best available deal.
by SportingFanaticism on Jul 10, 2010 2:57 PM EDT up reply actions
Sporting is probably correct, but I agree that Portland has correctly analyzed the situation from the Phillies viewpoint.
Remember, the Montgomery partnership is somewhat unusual in sports…they want to win, they are locals, they are relatively knowledgeable, but they also want to make lots of $$$. Thus, the sensitivity to locals’ feelings who purchase lots of tschotskes. This trumped getting the “best deal”
Of course, the Lee trade caused an outcry anyway (so much for that effort).
Yes I am old. I remember the Phils good old days and their bad old days. Course, the good old days I'm thinking of were in 2009.
Homer's Epics: An Odyssey for the Salary Cap, The Quest For the Goalie Grail
I don’t think the “Montgomery partnership” makes that much money. Relative to the rest of MLB, of course.
Here’s how Forbes has ranked them in operating income, over the last three years:
2008: 22nd
2009: 18th
2010: 18th
I don’t understand Forbes’ methodology, and I don’t think all of their numbers are necessarily reliable, but they’re better than anything else we’ve got, and this is a consistent trend. The Phillies’ ownership group, relative to the rest of MLB, is not particularly concerned with making money for itself.
Isn’t MLB one of the more notorious in regards to closed books and creative accounting in professional sports?
by SportingFanaticism on Jul 11, 2010 1:14 PM EDT up reply actions
Isn’t that a nonsense question? Yes, baseball is “notorious” in that regard, though I don’t know if it’s any more “notorious” than the other sports. They all have closed books. That’s irrelevant to the question of whether a ranking based on applying the same accounting methodology to the same types of incomplete data from all of the teams in the same sport would be something one is allowed to just ignore when it conflicts with one’s prejudices. The point here is not to come up with the raw numbers but to determine relative ranking and trends.
In retrospect, my tone was a little crankier than it should have been there. The point is just that problems with data that pertain to the sport as a whole are irrelevant, in and of themselves, to a ranking of teams within the sport.
If the numbers are unreliable then I find the rankings unreliable, even relatively. Unless you have transparency in the numbers then you never know who is fudging what and to what degree. Maybe the phillies are better at making things look worse than they are than a different team.
I’m just saying, I take those rankings with many grains of salt, even relatively, due to the lack of transparency and this history of MLB
by SportingFanaticism on Jul 11, 2010 4:19 PM EDT up reply actions
That’s purely speculation on your part then. Yes, the rankings are imperfect evidence. But if you have imperfect evidence on one side of the scale, and ZERO evidence on the other side of the scale, then you must conclude that the former is more likely to be correct than the latter. It is legitimate to question whether the former has been proven, but it is not legitimate to intimate that there is any affirmative basis whatsoever for suspicion as to the latter. The worst you can say about the Phillies’ ownership is that, even though all known evidence points to the fact that they are relatively non-profit-oriented, we cannot be certain about it.
In other words, if someone says that “the Montgomery partnership wants to make lots of $$$” (relative to their counterparts throughout MLB), then that is an intolerable statement because there is no affirmative evidence to support it. It has to be rejected flat-out.
If someone says that “the Montgomery partnership is less interested in making lots of money than most of their peers” (which I did not), then that statement can certainly be questioned but it cannot be rejected out of hand.
If someone says “there is more evidence that the Montgomery partnership is relatively less interested in making lots of money than there is that it is relatively more interested in making lots of money,” that statement cannot be rejected at all. It is a demonstrably true statement.
(which I did not)
Well actually, I did not in one comment, but I guess I did in the other. I thought I’d put a qualifier in there. So to correct my earlier statement, “all of the data we are aware of suggest that the Phillies’ ownership group, relative to the rest of MLB, is not particularly concerned with making money for itself.”
In other words, if someone says that "the Montgomery partnership wants to make lots of $$$" (relative to their counterparts throughout MLB), then that is an intolerable statement because there is no affirmative evidence to support it. It has to be rejected flat-out.
It certainly does not have to be rejected. It cannot be fully supported, true, but it is not so unreasonable that people whose “job” can best be described as “maintaining and increasing their fortunes” should want to make a lot of money off of the Phillies.
And SF’s point that the non-transparency of the numbers in general makes the ordinal rankings extremely suspect is a good one.
No, we’re not talking about the desire to make money in absolute terms, otherwise the whole discussion would be pointless. Of course all the owners want to make money, the question is whether do they rank in relative terms.
For the same reason, the non-transparency of the numbers is not a good basis for questioning the ordinal rankings, unless there’s some reason to think that different teams would skew their numbers in disparate ways that would “benefit” some of them at the expense of others. But why would that be?
In any event, most of the important info is publicly available anyway, regardless of how they close their books. Player payroll is obviously public. I think the TV contracts are often public because you can look at the financials of the cable companies. Stadium-related payments are usually public because it’s related to government agencies, municipal bonds, and things like that. Gate isn’t very difficult to calculate, since ticket prices are public. Advertising revenue can be estimated fairly accurately. I suppose there could be some variance on everything else, but how big a difference could that “everything else” make?
I think they want to remain competitive without LOSING money. They’ve already made tons of money once they sell this team.
Well
Thanks for ruining my Saturday, PF.
I agree with everyone here. I need a Yuengling and a good cry.
A disgraceful performance by Amaro
I had thought Ruben Amaro to be one of the best young GM’s in baseball. The Lee trade, however, forced me to radically reconsider my position. Amaro got molested by the hapless Mariners. To use a libations analogy (and to mitigate Amaro’s culpability in all of this, let’s say he was incredibly drunk when he made the deal), it’s as if Amaro traded a bottle of Cristal (Cliff Lee) for the a warm six pack of Piels Pounders. Von Hayes looks like Ted Williams compared to the trash we got for a CY YOUNG winner.
...But if he pulls the rug on his quarterback, Reid must do it knowing that he let McNabb down more than McNabb ever let him down.
Phil Sheridan--Philadelphia Inquirer
One move caused you to reconsider your opinion? How many moves did he make before you made him one of the best young GM’s in baseball?
by SportingFanaticism on Jul 10, 2010 7:48 PM EDT up reply actions
One.
He got Lee from Cleveland.
...But if he pulls the rug on his quarterback, Reid must do it knowing that he let McNabb down more than McNabb ever let him down.
Phil Sheridan--Philadelphia Inquirer
Ok, so low standards for greatness
by SportingFanaticism on Jul 10, 2010 8:09 PM EDT up reply actions
In my defense, Cliff Lee IS a great pitcher.
And as far as “one move causing you to reconsider your opinion,” the captain of the Exxon Valdez was considered to be an excellent sailor…until a few ill-advised Johnny Walker Blacks and a few inconveniently placed rocks in the seabed caused Exxon to reconsider its opinion. In baseball, as in Alaskan ecosystems, one terrible move can screw things up for a long, long time.
...But if he pulls the rug on his quarterback, Reid must do it knowing that he let McNabb down more than McNabb ever let him down.
Phil Sheridan--Philadelphia Inquirer
Those darn rocks. Always so inconveniently placed.
Lee is indeed a great pitcher. Amaro hasn’t done enough, in my opinion, to be classified as a good or bad executive. Getting Lee was great—giving him up was bad. Getting Halladay was also great.
There are some things that Ruben does well. One of the main ones is what you might call the mid-level contract extension. The Blanton extension, the Ruiz extension, the Madson extension – all of these were very nicely executed, like the executive equivalent of stroking a single to the hole through a hit-and-run. He’s also made a number of mistakes, mostly having to do with FA signings. The Howard extension is, I think, arguable, but very risky. I think he’s drafted pretty well so far, but it’s hard to draw any firm conclusions on that right now.
Overall, I don’t think he’s a very good GM, but he isn’t a Cam Bonifay-style team killer either. Maybe he’ll get better with time. I can’t say I’m happy with his performance, but he also isn’t running the team into the ground, so he’s got that going for him.
But fleshing out the baseball parallel a bit more – so as a rookie will there be any regression to the mean! Once the Howard contract went down I thought "whoa, there’s a bit of wild in that thar pony.’’ So part of me is a bit anxious for the weeks to come and what the team will look like down the stretch.
Im with philly portland on this one. Why would Amaro trade his best pitcher to the team that just beat his team in the world series. Everyone says they would have understood if he did. But, I am not so sure. There would have been more outcry from philly fans had this trade gone down I am sure of it.
There would have been more outcry from philly fans had this trade gone down I am sure of it.
And that’s a silly reason not to make the best trade offered to you.
If fan reaction is a factor that leads you to not make the best trade you’re offered, then maybe you shouldn’t run a baseball team
by SportingFanaticism on Jul 11, 2010 12:53 PM EDT up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
Next Game
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- Kate Upton’s new MLB 2K12 ad is really something
- Five tips for Showtime’s second season of ‘The Franchise,’ featuring the Miami Marlins
- The 10 best things about being a Detroit Tigers fan
- Surprise! A’s finally end the Yoenis Cespedes derby with $36 million deal for Cuban star
- The time Whitney Houston sang to Jim Bowden
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
