Whither A-Rod?

[I debated whether or not to post this in the Cubs blog, since it's all about baseball and the word "Cubs" will appear again in this post. But ultimately I do try to keep that blog Cubs-related, and anyway I don't think you can reasonably expect to totally avoid sports if you're reading my blog. I kinda like sports.]

Now that the elimination of the Yankees has almost entirely wiped away the depression I was feeling post-NLDS, it's time to start thinking about certain possibilities for next year. In particular, it's time to start wondering about the fate of the game's most productive soon-to-be-free-agent-maybe, Alex Rodriguez. The body of the Yankee "dynasty" is still warm, but with Joe Torre apparently about to succumb to George Steinbrenner's win-or-you're-fired ultimatum (although it's a little odd to see everyone reporting this as "Torre to be fired!" when in fact his contract is up at the end of this season and he simply won't be renewed), it may be time to discuss the inheritance. The question, naturally, is: who's going to "inherit" A-Rod?

Noted horse's ass Scott Boras hasn't yet convinced A-Rod to opt out of the remaining three years on his contract, but one gets the feeling that the Yankees will have to offer a pretty hefty contract extension - something along the lines of five or six years at maybe $150-$175 million total - for Boras not to push Rodriguez to test the market, especially when he seems to have convinced himself that he can land A-Rod a contract worth $30 million a year for perhaps as many as ten years. (Personally I think Boras is deluding himself here; Rodriguez's contract with the Rangers, worth a "mere" $25 million per, was such an albatross that even the Yankees insisted on the Rangers covering a good 28% of it in the trade that sent A-Rod to New York. Why would anyone sign him for more money than that, especially now that he's already in his early 30s? Even if we accept Boras' contention that A-Rod is a super athlete who can play well into his 40s and at a productive level, it's hard to imagine any franchise making that kind of long-term gamble, even those with the payrolls to afford A-Rod in the first place. Would you want to be paying anyone $25 million at the age of 42?)

So: where might A-Rod end up? Based on payrolls alone, I think there are only a few real possibilities.

Angels: 4 to 1
Playing in a sizable (if unexcitable) market in Los Angeles, the Angels have the pockets to spend for A-Rod and an owner in Arte Moreno who has indicated a desire to land a big-name free agent. The story on the Angels has for years been that they need another big bat to complement and/or protect Vlad Guerrero, who himself is not getting any younger; A-Rod would certainly do that. Third base and short were both occupied by good players (Chone Figgins, Orlando Cabrera) in 2007, but no one who couldn't be moved for a guy who just had perhaps the best season by an American Leaguer since Ted Williams in 1949. Anaheim is also a perennial contender in the West and would be willing and able to add payroll around him; surely A-Rod won't make the Texas mistake twice.

Mets: 6 to 1
The Mets already have an awful lot of money tied up in big boppers, but they play in New York and seem to have their finger on the pulse of every big free agent deal. There's just one problem with the Mets, or more accurately two problems: David Wright and Jose Reyes. The media is already trying to sell a Reyes-to-Twins-for-Santana deal, however, so the shortstop's days with the Mets may not be that much longer. It would give A-Rod a chance to prove he could win in New York without having to deal with the Yankee "mystique" hanging over his head constantly. The only question is, are the Mets going to have the pitching to be serious contenders, or would it just be this year's Yankees - a Murderer's Row lineup submarined by awful pitching - all over again?

Dodgers: 15 to 1
The Dodgers already have a lot of money tied up in Rafael Furcal at short (snicker), but A-Rod could keep playing third and Nomar could either depart or move to first while James Loney is shipped out in a bid to get Johan Santana. My only question here is, do the Dodgers have the payroll to go after Santana and A-Rod? And even if they do, would they really want to tie up that much in two players? By 2009 they'd probably be paying them $45 million a year. Not that that's not a great start to a team.

Cubs: 50 to 1
With all due respect to Ryan Theriot, the Cubs' shortstop position would be right there for the taking should they attempt to bring A-Rod to town. The presence of Lou Piniella is certainly a point in the Cubs' favor - and in fact it's the key one that has led the Cubs to be the #1 fill-in-the-blank for people doing the whole "talk about where A-Rod will be next year" routine in various humorous sports blogs like Deadspin - but the up-in-the-air ownership situation is a strike against this happening. It's also unclear whether a new owner would be interested in committing that kind of money to one player, especially with some of the contracts already on the books.

Red Sox: 500 to 1
While Johnny Damon felt no guilt about skipping Boston for the Yankees, I get the feeling Red Sox management knows their fanbase well enough that they wouldn't want to bring A-Rod to town at this point (hello, ball-slapping incident from the 2004 ALCS), nor would the fans want him - plus after the J.D. Drew fiasco, is another high-priced Boras client really going to be Boston's next move? A-Rod could take over third from Mike Lowell, who seems like his career rejuvenation is a product of Fenway Park and not much else, and/or would be an upgrade from the disappointing Julio Lugo (although then what do you do with him?), but the fact that the aborted A-Rod trade in the winter of 2003 led indirectly to the Red Sox winning the 2004 World Series won't be lost on the Boston faithful. (By the way, remember Steinbrenner's unbelievably arrogant, douchebag remark about how John Henry hadn't done enough for Boston's fans in failing to see the A-Rod trade to completion, allowing the Yankees to swoop in and get it done? How stupid does that look now that the Sox won the World Series that same year and the Yankee fans are ready to chase A-Rod out of town after a few early exits?)

Giants: 5,000 to 1
I've heard San Francisco bandied about as one possible destination. But do you really want to follow the act that is Barry Bonds? Also, I'm unconvinced that SF could afford A-Rod and still be able to build around him, which they'd need to do since the core of the team now is ancient. And I don't see A-Rod heading for another fixer-upper. Again, Texas taught him a lesson: don't sign anywhere just for the money. With that in mind...

Yankees: OFF
The odds for this could be anywhere from 1:1 to 10,000:1. I'm not really sure. It depends on A-Rod's mindset regarding how he's been treated in New York. He's paid lip service to the idea of being committed to winning a World Series in NY, but a large portion of the media and fans there seem to have convinced themselves that A-Rod is a big playoff choker who won't ever lead New York to the glory that Jeter did. (Never mind that the far bigger problem of the last four years has been pitching - the ERA of the Yankees' staff has been over five in three of their last four playoff series - or that Jeter vanished in the '04 ALCS as well as this year's Division Series.) If you're A-Rod, do you want to stick around for that? He seems to want to be loved and I'm not sure Yankees fans are ever really going to want to accept him, even if the Yankees do win a World Series with him.

At the same time, A-Rod is surely aware of the way history will perceive a guy who played for (at least) four different teams and bounced around. Five full years in Seattle, three in Texas, four in New York... what logo would appear on his Hall of Fame cap? Staying in New York long-term would at least settle that debate, and he could keep taking shots at the playoffs. On the other hand, if he re-ups and has another bad October, it might get too stifling, even for him. And does New York even offer the best chance to win right away? With Torre gone and a pitching staff being rebuilt from the ground up, it's possible the Yankees' next serious title bid is a handful of years away. He can probably wait, but how will those years change the public perception of him?

If A-Rod opts out and leaves New York, he runs the risk of being branded with the mark of coward; another athlete dogged with the shame of failing under the country's brightest lights. But if he stays there and doesn't succeed, virtually the same thing happens. By contrast, if he goes somewhere where the pressure to win isn't quite as ludicrous, and gets over the hump there, I think people will forget about the fact that he couldn't win in New York, and assign the blame where it's really due - to that horrendous pitching staff. (The Yankees didn't finish higher than sixth in league ERA from 2004 to 2007, and that's just the regular season where it's easier to get away with it.)

Wherever A-Rod does end up, hopefully it's away from the Yankees and their fans, who don't deserve him. He's a great player who has had a handful of bad series; he's only played 39 postseason games total, less than a third the total of Derek Jeter, whose supposedly super-clutch postseason stats merely reflect his regular season statistics, which happen to be pretty good. A-Rod's postseason stats don't match his regular season stats right now, but we're talking a pretty small sample size - 39 games? That's a six-week slump, hardly unheard of. If the Yankee fans are dumb enough to run a .300/40/120 guy - and often better than those numbers - out of town because of a couple bad playoff series, they deserve to see him go off and win a title with the Mets or Angels or Dodgers. It'd only be fitting.

I do think there's a good chance A-Rod ends up back on the Yankees, though. Boras will have some idea before he tells A-Rod to opt out if there's any team that's going to pay more than $25 million a year; when there's not, Boras will work on extension talks with the Yankees, who have said they won't negotiate if Boras has A-Rod opt out of the current deal. Is there a chance someone throws 27 or 28 per year on the table? Sure. I think it's unlikely, though.

Shut up, Scott Boras

Scott Boras may be a good agent for the players he represents, even though a lot of GMs don't like him - and rightly so, I think. But when did he get it into his head that anyone cares about his opinions on the game itself? First there was the whole nine-game World Series with two games in warm weather, "neutral" sites, presumably so that Boras' clients could have more games to showcase themselves (and the warm weather so they could hit better in the playoffs). All told, it was clearly self-interested, and possibly the worst idea associated with baseball since the White Sox threw the 1919 World Series.

Boras' latest "brainstorm" is less offensive, but about as stupid.

"We need to give the fans something to identify brilliance defensively," Scott Boras said.

Boras proposes the "EP," for exceptional play. The official scorer would be asked to distinguish between an exceptional play and a routine one in the same way he is asked to distinguish between a hit and error.

Seriously? Seriously. This is retarded. First of all, how many more things do we need to farm out to the official scorer to make a judgment call on? He already has to do it on hits and errors, now he'll have to do it on every play? And this is going to be way, way more controversial, since it seems to me that the definition of an "exceptional play" is going to vary widely.

Also, as anyone who knows anything about baseball should be aware, plays that look the most exceptional can often be the result of a fielder with less range. For example, if you're not good at moving to your right, and a ball is hit to your right and you have to dive for it, and then you get up and make the play, that might look exceptional. But you are not a better fielder than someone who makes the play easily because they can get to their right quicker. In fact, you are a worse fielder. Over the long run, this statistic will probably just overinflate the perception of someone like Derek Jeter - by virtually all accounts a mediocre fielder whose awesome-looking plays are sometimes attributable to his lack of range - while further devaluing fielders who aren't flashy because they don't need to be.

Of course, then you have someone like Andruw Jones, who does make legitimately great plays on a fairly routine basis. The interesting thing about Jones is that offensively, he's having a terrible year - .211, with an OPS of just .720. He'll have about 30 home runs and 105 RBI, but for a guy who went 51/128 in 2005, that's not that impressive. But then, Andruw Jones' biggest selling point is that he's a defensive stalwart in center field. Hell, check out some of the plays that guy makes! If only we had some sort of, I don't know, made-up statistic that counted up the exact number of awesome - no, exceptional - plays that he makes in a year. Why, a quantifiable stat like that would really drive up his market value despite a down offensive year, wouldn't it? And hey, it just so happens he's a free agent after this season! And it really just so happens that his agent is - wait for it! - Scott Boras.

Guess what? I've just made up a stat. It's ShaF, which is short for "Shamelessness Factor." Right now Scott Boras is working on a ShaF of about 68.2.*

*For reference, the highest lifetime ShaF belongs to Pete Rose, who recorded a 97.4, mostly between the years of 1992 and 2007.