Say hello to another great new feature at The OC. Each week, our braintrust of bloggers will come together to give their best judgment calls on three of the most important baseball topics from the past week. Here’s hoping that we’ll be just as judicious as your favorite Major League umpires. Wait… nobody has a favorite Major League umpire? Am I the only one that got Diamond Dreams by “Country” Joe West??? Maybe we should just get to the questions…
Strike 1: What would you do about the extended playoffs? Is one extra team in each league a good call?
Daniel Moroz: I recall The Book having a piece a while back in which they showed that the first Wild Card team was, on average, the league’s 3rd best team, so it doesn’t dilute the playoffs to let them in. But a theoretical second Wild Card team would have only been the league’s 5th best team, so you’d be lowering the quality of the eventual World Champions, on average. That doesn’t sound too enticing to me, but (1) the eventual Champion isn’t always the best team anyway, (2) the regular season isn’t a perfect showing of talent either, and (3) I’m not up in arms over the whole thing anyway. I wouldn’t mind re-seeding once the playoffs start and then having the 4 and 5 seeds play the play in, instead of it having to be the Wild Cards though.
Matt Yoder: As good of an idea as adding the original Wild Card team was, adding a second Wild Card team is as bad, if not worse. When has there ever been an outcry because the second best non-division winning team didn’t make the postseason? This is nothing more than a ratings/money grab because Bud sees the drama in a one-game playoff or play-in scenario. Much like the NCAA tournament pre expansion, the MLB postseason isn’t broken – don’t fix it.
Joe Lucia: I hate the idea of expanded playoffs, as I outlined in a post last week. I think it dilutes the pool and takes away an advantage from the better teams. Some people will point at the fact that this would create competition for another playoff spot, when in reality, what it’s really doing is taking away competition for one spot. The second best team in the league could conceivably be eliminated in one game if they run into a hot starter.
Pat Lackey: I’m of two minds here. On one hand; I think that the current system as set up is inherently unfair to the division winners as it puts the wild card on even footing with them. Making the wild card teams play a best-of-three to win the wild card actually flips that on its ear and rewards a team for winning its division. It would certainly add some life to a division race like, say, the 2007 AL Central where the Twins furiously made up ground on the Tigers and finally passed them on the last day of the season, but no one cared because both teams had locked up playoff spots well in advance. It’s hard to compare records because of the unbalanced schedule, but as Daniel noted, Tango’s done the work to prove it. So while you could argue that you’re rewarding division winners by punishing the wild card winners, you’re also punishing one of the better teams in either league.
Garrett Wilson: Much like communism, an extra wild card team is a good idea in theory. The problem though is in the implementation of the scheme. The only way I can see the extra team being added is if the two wild card teams basically have a quick three-game play-in round of sorts with the division winners getting some days off. But that isn’t all, I say the first two games should be played as a doubleheader and all three games take place at the wild card team with the best record. The other option I have heard a lot of is a one-game playoff, which I hate. To play a 162 game season then have a one-game “playoff series” makes no sense and basically gives the advantage to whichever team can set their rotation best for that game.
Strike 2: Rangers closer Neftali Feliz has been brilliant, but he was just sent to the 15 Day DL. How big of a loss is this for Texas?
Pat: I know this was repeated ad nauseum at awards time last year, but over the course of 2010 Feliz only threw about as many innings for the Rangers as Stephen Strasburg threw for the Nationals. The Rangers have a reasonably good bullpen; so long as Darren Oliver and Arthur Rhodes don’t turn into pumpkins (very, very old pumpkins; you know, the squishy one that you think is fine until you pick it up and the stem snaps off and it drops and explodes and then there’s orange goo and seeds all over your kitchen floor and … ewwwwww) while Feliz is out and as long as the injury isn’t worse than the Rangers are letting on, I think that Texas will be fine.
Joe: Because of Ron Washington’s need to only use Feliz in save situations, as opposed to points in the game where his best reliever really is necessary, all this means for the Rangers it that they need to try to blow their opponents out so there’s no use for a closer. But in all honesty, the Rangers bullpen is devastated by injuries right now, and without their best reliever, they could really be screwed in key situations late in games.
Daniel: Not really. It’s really a negligible move if he’s only out a couple weeks. He was going to pitch, what, 5-6 innings? Meh.
Garrett: Losing Feliz shouldn’t hurt the Rangers much. He isn’t out for all that long and, frankly, closers are overrated anyway. If they are smart, they can use this negative as a positive and have Feliz rehab as a starting pitcher and put him in the rotation when he comes back. That would make too much sense though.
Matt: In the short term, it’s not that big of a deal, as Daniel and Garrett alluded to. It’s not like they will lose the AL West in the next week and a half. The 15 day DL stint doesn’t scare me as a Texas fan, it’s the right shoulder inflammation that would cause me to lose sleep at night. Maybe it’s nothing serious, but one just has to Google search names like Strasburg and Prior to see what injuries can do to great young pitchers.
Strike 3: Ryan Braun received a massive extension from the Brewers, do you think that was a wise move by Milwaukee and is Ryan Braun really worth all that money?
Garrett: I’m glad for the Brewers that they were able to lock up Braun for so long, but this is more of a PR move than anything. I mean, they already had Braun locked up through 2015, so it wasn’t like they were on the verge of losing him. I just think it is insane for any team, much less a small market team, to commit to any one player for that long. If you don’t believe me, just ask the Colorado Rockies how they feel about paying Todd Helton so much money so late into his career.
Joe: I know I’m in the minority on this one, but I like the deal for Milwaukee. Braun is a fantastic player and still hasn’t entered his prime yet. The Brewers did lock him up a little too far in advance, but for a franchise that is going to be losing Prince Fielder at the end of the year, they needed a big move like this to show the fanbase that they’re serious about winning. Now, they need to actually put a solid team around Braun and give him less players like Carlos Gomez, and more players like Fielder and Casey McGahee.
Matt: Milwaukee strikes me as one of those teams that wants to be a big market team with name players, but can never make it stick. CC Sabathia rolling through Miller Park for half of a year is the perfect symbol for the whole franchise. There’s no way Braun is worth that kind of money over such a long period of time. He may be a franchise player, but only if you plan on your franchise finishing in the middle of the NL Central for the next ten years. It strikes as an overpay to keep one of their marquee players from leaving, even if he’s the only one.
Pat: The Brewers are gambling that with inflation and rising TV money and such it won’t be such a hindrance in five years. The bigger problem I have with it is that Milwaukee has more or less designated Braun as the proverbial franchise cornerstone and I just don’t think he’s that sort of player. He’s good. Actually, he’s very good, but he’s still just a left fielder that’s worth in the neighborhood of 4-5 wins a year. Is that the guy that a team with a limited budget should be breaking open the bank for? Is Braun the guy that will keep fans coming to the ballpark in down seasons, just to watch him play? Milwaukee is obviously banking on yes and I guess I can’t say for sure because I’m not a Brewers fan, but again, I’m just not so sure Braun’s that guy.
Daniel: Probably not unless salaries skyrocket in coming years. Signing a player who’s value comes almost entirely from his bat for his age 32-36 seasons, four years before the fact (and, additionally, well before he was even going to become a free agent), doesn’t seem like a great move. It actually seems more like a PR move – one that might have looked better right after Prince Fielder left, and not this far in advance (but maybe I’m wrong there). I really like Braun, but the Brewers aren’t exactly a large market team and they’re taking on a lot of (perhaps) unnecessary risk.
