Fernando Tatis chases Gibson

From Baseball Musings, the five active players who have the most active career HRs without a walkoff job:

Ty Wigginton - 110
Aaron Rowand - 108
Fernando Tatis - 103
Garrett Atkins - 91
Xavier Nady - 87

I can't help but notice that three of these players (Wiggy, Tatis, Nady) have logged time for the Mets...

Also, it surprises me that Tatis only has 103 career dingers, given that his sole claim to fame is related to the long ball. That said, his only standout season was the 1999 campaign, in which he cleared 34 balls over the wall. More recently (since 2002) Tatis has registered just 511 at bats, so it's not like he's had ample opportunity to build on his totals.

The last-minute surprise addition of Gary Sheffield and today's signing of Wily Mo Pena could clog up the Mets outfield reserve scene a little bit, but Fernando should still have plenty of chances to get that elusive walk-off homerun in 2009. He has been used as a pinch hitter three times this season and over the weekend made his first career start at second base to spell Luis Castillo, both of which seem to indicate Jerry Manuel is determined to work Tatis into the lineup.

I've never been terribly enthusiastic about Tatis' presence on the Mets roster. Sure, you could do a lot worse for a 4th outfielder -- just look at what the Giants were getting out of Dave Roberts the last couple of years -- and he's probably a little better than Endy Chavez at the plate, or Jeremy Reed, or Angel Pagan, for that matter. It's just hard to get excited about Fernando Freakin' Tatis, ya know?

It's anybody's guess how often and in what situations Tatis will continue to see action this season, especially given the plethora of other options on hand. But a walk-off homerun is an exciting enough event to hope for, and if nothing else, I now have a reason to hope Tatis is the next one to deliver one for the Mets.

Hard to live down

From today's THT Daily Extremes, on how Milton Bradley's incipient two-game suspension may affect
fantasy value:

He will continue to play until an appeal is heard, if healthy, of course.

Redding aboard?

My gut reaction when I saw that the Mets were close to a deal with Tim Redding was disappointment tempered with fond remembrance. Either of the final two spots of the Mets rotation would seem to be open for Redding, who reached career highs in starts, innings and strikeouts as the only double-digit winner for the cross-division Nationals in 2008, and who should be perfectly capable of eating innings for the boys in orange and blue in 2009.

Although he racked up a 10-11 record for a team that finished 43 games under .500, Redding's other numbers last season were fairly unimpressive. His 110 runs allowed were the fifth most of any pitcher in the National League, so his bloated win total is pretty clearly a result of having received the ninth best run support among NL pitchers. Scoring runs doesn't figure to be a big problem for the Mets, so I'm not overly concerned about what will happen on the nights Redding starts.

Still, even though signing Redding shouldn't financially restrict Omar Minaya from chasing bigger fish like Andy Pettitte, Derek Lowe, or the Mets' own unsigned free agent starters (Oliver Perez and Pedro Martinez), Minaya's acquisition of talent that would seem to slot in behind, rather than in front of projected No. 3 starter Mike Pelfrey is tough to digest.

On one hand, I don't expect Redding to negatively impact my favorite team's fortunes in 2009 all that much because I don't even really expect him to be in the rotation for length of the season. Redding's salary will reportedly be $2.5 million and if his performance (or lack thereof) warrants it, the Mets can cut ties with Redding for a relatively reasonable payoff.

Even if he stays in the rotation for the whole year, I won't be too upset. Steve Trachsel held tenure with the Mets for six seasons and even though he seemed to be on the wrong side of a quality start most nights, his consistently mediocre performance was something to look forward to. In October 2006, I watched in a sold-out Dodger Stadium as Trachsel went inning for inning with Greg Maddux and kept the Mets in the game long enough for the Mets to break through to the Dodgers pen.

The Mets went on to win that game and advanced to the NLCS, where Trachsel was ineffective against the Cardinals, and the Mets lost the series in seven games. The Mets didn't bring Trachsel back in 2007, and I don't think he was missed by most fans, but my memories of Trachsel are mostly positive. He was never brilliant, but it wasn't his fault that he lacked talent. He took the ball when it was his turn, and never complained or lacked effort.

Two years of the Barry Zito era in San Francisco have been ample reminder that making long-term commitments can hamstring a GM's roster flexibility. A three- or four-year deal, which is what Scott Boras is seeking for Lowe and Perez, would provide either starter an opportunity to carry the Mets to a pennant, but either contract would also cost the team significantly more cash and could lead to a distastrous fallout should performance fall short of expectations.

Carl Pavano, Kevin Brown, and more recently Zito and Adrian Beltre are examples of players whose additions cost their teams millions of dollars but perhaps more costly was the hope lost among fans of the Dodgers, Yankees, Giants and Mariners who watched these players fail to live up to the hype. Mets fans remember the recent signings of Martinez and Billy Wagner and couldn't be blamed for having muted optimism as Frankie Rodriguez comes to town as the newest hired gun.

It was because Martinez and Orlando Hernandez were injured, after all, that Trachsel's number was called in Game 3 of the NLDS. Whereas the two talented, former World Series winning aces were sidelined for the Mets only postseason activity of the last eight years, slow and steady Steve Trachsel was ready when his number was called. The pricier, flashier pitchers that Minaya savors are still out there for the chasing, but there are no guarantees that Lowe will remain subtly effective, or that Perez can ever deliver on his potential.

Maybe Tim Redding will be the No. 4 starter the Mets never knew they needed, and if they're wrong, $2.5 million won't be too tough to stomach, I guess.

Teixeira Helps, But Yanks Need More Bats

It's late December, and the Yankees are doing the Yankee thing. Last week the Bombers locked up free agent prize Mark Teixeira after securing the fearsome lefty-righty combination of C.C. Sabathia and A.J. Burnett.

Sabathia was the best-known (if not the best) free agent pitcher available for hire -- winning a Cy Young Award and then going 11-2 with a 1.65 ERA as a mid-season acquisition while pushing your new team to its first playoffs in 26 years tends to raise one's profile -- and Burnett is an intriguing commodity in his own right, having thrown a no-hitter in 2001 but toiling in relative obscurity in Miami and Toronto since coming into the league. The general perception seems to be that Burnett is a flaky, all-or-nothing type of performer, but it's difficult to ignore his recent production, as he fanned 231 batters in 2008, the third highest total in MLB, trailing only his new teammate Sabathia and the Giants' young flamethrower, Tim Lincecum.

Signing them both cost the Yankees over $240 million, and for the most successful and prolific franchise in the history of American professional sports, it's just another offseason. Depending on where one stands on the Yankees, the signings of Sabathia and Burnett were either tittilating or repulsive. It is expected by both fans and detractors that the Yankees will constantly re-invent by loading up on free agent offerings. It's happened recently with Mike Mussina, Jason Giambi, Johnny Damon, Gary Sheffield, and Hideki Matsui, to cite just a few examples.

Even (and perhaps especially) in this economic climate, the Yankees prefer and are well suited to chase free agent talent rather than wait for internal assets to develop. Yankee fans and players embrace a culture of must-win baseball, and after missing the playoffs for the first time since 1993, there's no time like the present to loosen the purse strings if it helps usher in a new era of supremacy. The Yankees did not become a force to be reckoned with on and away from the baseball diamond by standing pat. They spend money to make money, and what better way to fill seats at their new, team-financed stadium than by bringing in fresh talent?

Joe Girardi certainly won't mind heading to Spring Training with perhaps just one rotation spot to fill. In the wake of Mussina's retirement and given Andy Pettitte's weird quasi-holdout situation, adding Sabathia and Burnett will alleviate some pressure for younger Yankee starters Joba Chamberlain and Phil Hughes, who could slot in as the No. 4 and 5 options behind the new signees and Chien-Ming Wang. It's worth noting, though, that even the revered Wang (whose record stands, remarkably, 34 games over .500 after only 97 big-league appearances) will be watched closely in his first season after foot surgery. Picking up a pair of aces may well propel them to the playoffs sooner rather than later, but bolstering their offensive output will be particularly crucial for the Yankees in 2009 and beyond, and adding Teixeira is (or should be) just the first piece of the puzzle.

Landing Teixeira was no accident. The 28 year-old first baseman is represented by that fabled wrangler of moolah, Superagent Scott Boras, and the Yankees are one of the few teams that can afford his cosmic salary demands ($180 million). Carrying the Boras brand usually gets a player paid, and in Teixeira's case it's a testimony to both his talent and his track record. After winning the Dick Howser Trophy as the top college ballplayer in 2001, Teixeria was the fifth overall draft choice that same year, and might have been drafted even higher if the Phillies hadn't been burned previously by one of Boras' other draftees (read the amusing summary here on Wikipedia). Teixeira broke into the bigs with Texas two years later and the modest successes achieved in his rookie campaign (60 extra-base hits, .811 OPS in 146 games played) helped the Rangers feel comfortable cutting ties with aging and expensive Rafal Palmeiro, along with their more infamous Boras property, Alex Rodriguez.

Teixeira has continued to excel, if inconspicuously, racking up two Gold Glove Awards and producing at least 30 homeruns and 100 RBI in every season since. The case could be made that he's a perfect fit for the Yankees, who have proven themselves quite deft at acquiring Boras' clients and working to keep them comfortable (A-Rod, Johnny Damon and Teixeria are the big names printed on pinstriped jerseys, but Xavier Nady and Kennedy tithe to Boras as well). Because he performs consistently and quietly, Teixeira projects to be a more bankable and certainly less notorious acquisition than other recent Yankee free agent splashes like Pavano and Giambi. No matter how you slice it, Teixeira was quite a cherry on top of a winter that has already been sweet to Yankees fans.

The spotlight will definitely be on Teixeira, who will be expected to provide lineup protection for A-Rod as the two players play out the rest of their contracts in pinstripes. Gone is Giambi, gone is Bobby Abreu, and after a season in which Jorge Posada and Derek Jeter showed their age and Robinson Cano's early struggles raised eyebrows, who knows where else the runs will come from in 2009? Nick Swisher could bounce back from an uninspiring stint with the White Sox, and Matsui can be counted on for .290-15-80 if he's healthy, but the Boras Boys will need some help if the Yankees are to score runs for their new hired guns.

Should the Yankees find themselves in third place after, say, 50 games, don't be surprised if they go hard after Magglio Ordonez or Matt Holliday to build up a new Murderer's Row. Both sluggers will be free agents after the season (as will be the Angels' Vlad Guerrero), and the Rockies and Tigers may be eager to deal in order to get some type of compensation for their departure.

Such bold moves might have to wait until the winter if the teams invovled can't strike a deal, but that shouldn't stop the Bombers from opening up the bank. After all, it's the Yankee way.

Popping the Question: who -- or what -- is an MVP candidate?

As the season enters its final month, predicting baseball's playoff teams is a tricky exercise. Following the pennant races requires daily scoreboard watching and magic number recalculation. This is especially true in the National League, where every club except Washington, Chicago and Pittsburgh is within five games of the Wild Card spot.

Amid constant realignment of standings, flurries of last-second waiver deals and potentially devastating injuries, there is still so much baseball left that the process of forecasting October matchups may seem a trifling matter, although knowing this doesn't stop us from staying up late at night, wondering if Josh Rabe will get postseason at bats against lefties, and how Jeff Weaver might figure into the Cards' playoff rotation, for example.

No less daunting a challenge, and thus all the more ripe for debate, is the task of identifying the player in each league who is deserving of the MVP award.

Ah, the Most Valuable Player. Just typing the words brings frustration. The award's winner must perform at a level of superlative excellence, yet the methods for identifying excellent performance are superlatively undefined. Must he come from a playoff team? Has he driven in lots of runs? Produced without lineup protection? Does he dazzle in the field? Can he raise his game against rival teams? How clutch is he? To get to the heart of the MVP debate, we must decide what qualities are important in a candidate, and then we can attempt to quantify these qualifications.

Of course, this is easier said than done.

Consider the phrase in whole: Most Valuable Player. Not a single word of the three clarifies our expectation of who should be among those discussed as candidates. After all, what constitutes a "player?" Does this designation apply only to fielders who "play," or do "players" designated as hitters fit the bill? What about pitchers? Are they not "players?" Before we can differentiate among different types of "value," gauge their varying capacities to be measured, and extrapolate a ranking of these metrics, arguments for who is eligible as a "player" stand to complicate the discussion.

Just as the Wild Card has impacted the dynamics of September (and October) baseball, discourse on the MVP award has shifted accordingly. Over the coming days and weeks, I will study the threads of logic and preference that have produced the MVP finalists of the last dozen seasons. By focusing on the top end of each ballot, I hope to determine what qualities are favored in the selection of certain candidates over others as most valuable. My findings will be based on data available at Baseball-Reference.com and Retrosheet.org, and other sources, as noted.

(Note: While it may be difficult, I will try to avoid treating the voting bloc of the Baseball Writers' Association of America (BBWAA) as a monolithic entity, and parse the behavior of its members into distinct categories as best I can -- with the data available. Any reader who is able to provide me with links or information about confirmed, actual complete MVP ballots as submitted by BBWAA members would be extremely helpful, as my own research efforts to collect such data have produced few successes.)