No Comment.

Well, this is just about the worse news that Tigers fans could have gotten this morning. Hint: it features a smiling mugshot of a plastered Miguel Cabrera

Let me just say this: Alcoholism is a disease, and it needs to be treated consistently and vigilantly. On the plus side, this just happened at the very start of spring training, with plenty of time for a program to be put in place. On the minus site, this is now a chronic problem, and is likely much worse than any of us thought when it reared its ugly head at the end of 2009 (and was seemingly eviscerated in 2010).

My advice is to call the Texas Rangers and find out what they do with Josh Hamilton. Get Miguel Cabrera a handler. He has clearly shown that he has a problem that is too large to deal with on his own.

Tigers Quick Hits

This is the time of year when little news tidbits fly all over the place like little gnats that you try to ignore or get past until one of them lands in your eye and you just can't ignore it any more and you need your significant other to lick it out, because apparently that's the best way to get a gnat out of your eye. True story.

So, in lieu of real, in-depth analysis and in light of the tid-bitty nature of all of these little news items and rumors, (which, by the way, I subconsciously prefer to spell "rumours," given the preference of my fingers to add that extra "u" every time I type it), I want to throw out some quick "Grand Scheme-style" thoughts on all the matters in hand.

Postseason Awards I don't want to dwell on this. I really don't. But Austin Jackson kind of got screwed out of the AL Rookie of the Year award. I don't want to take anything from Neftali Feliz. He's an incredible pitcher who had an incredible season for a playoff team. But is that all that this is about any more? Jackson, the full time player who hadn't set foot on a MLB diamond before the season, was incredible and more than worthy of the award. Feliz, who pitched in 70 games this year, also pitched in 20 games last year or roughly 30% of an MLB season for a reliever. His 31 IP in 2009 left him 19 inning short of losing his rookie eligibility for 2010. If he were a starter, I'd understand, but as a relief pitcher I think that it is silly. Feliz was a second year player. He just was.

Just as a warning, Miguel Cabrera is going to lose the MVP too. Sure, he was the Most Valuable Player on a team that would have been in last place without him. He single handedly carried the team's offense for months. Then again, Josh Hamilton had an amazing season, and I can't say that I begrudge him the award. But he also had a resurgent Vlad Guerrero and Nelson Cruz around him. I'm pretty sure that the Rangers were just fine when he was hurt for 30 games too.

Sigh.

Budget The Tigers' Budget is probably around $100M. Why do I say that? Here are the $100M+ Payrolls in AL Central History (via Cot's Contracts):

2008 Tigers: 137,685,196
2010 Tigers: 133,995,400
2008 White Sox: 121,189,332
2009 Tigers: 115,085,145
2007 White Sox: 108,671,833
2010 White Sox: 103,080,000
2006 White Sox: 102,750,667

For the other three teams in the league, their respective highest payrolls:
2010 Twins: 97,659,167
2009 Indians: $81,579,166
2010 Royals: $74,985,2010

Detroit is the #2 Market in the Central. Logic says that it stands to have the #2 budget--with the Twins very close or slightly higher because of comparable market strength and a new stadium. To think that the Tigers will budget 20-30% higher than the next highest team is silliness. Of course, this discount's Mike Illitch's late-spring happy feet to make a move, but that shouldn't be budgeted in, for obvious reasons.

Recent Additions
You already know my thoughts on the Peralta/Inge contracts. I think that the Tigers have settled on an average/below average defensive left side of the infield, with an average offense. The contracts are perfectly reasonable, and do have upside (Peralta is only 28, let's remember), so I don't HATE what's going on. Considering there are no internal SS options, no free agent SS option and We're at least 2-3 years from a viable internal replacement at 3B, I guess this is just fine.

Yesterday, the Tigers signed Joaquin Benoit to a 3 year/$16.5M deal which is way to much for a middle reliever and oh my god they could have just kept Brandon Lyon around last year for less then that, but Benoit was LOCK DOWN last year, but that was really the only year of his career where that was true Also: Shoulder surgery. So anyway, this certainly improves a bullpen that was so-so last year and lost some role players. Also, I think that Phil Coke needs to be addressed.

Benoit is Phil Coke's replacement in the bullpen, because apparently the Tigers are going to put Phil Coke into the rotation. This is a bad idea. Why? Because Phil Coke was a kick-ass reliever. He also started to struggle down the stretch. I'm not going to say durability issue, but he certainly seems more valuable in the bullpen, especially in a bullpen that also includes Benoit and Valverde. Those three in the back-end of the bullpen would be dynamite.

Other Positions
Catcher: Alex Avila is the man, but a backup/platoon is needed
2B: Will Guillen be able to recover and play here? Sizemore? Rhymes? Santiago? Internal options abound, although none of them are particularly exciting. I'd like to see some defense please, especially with the left size as it is.
LF/RF: Question Marks, but plenty of options. Boesch, Raburn and Wells have MLB experience now. Expect one to win/share one position, and a free agent to take the other.

The Non-Position Positions
WHO IS STARTING FOR THIS TEAM?!?! Ok, let me tone down my urgency. Verlander is a legit #1. Scherzer is also damn good. A solid #2. Rick Porcello, still just a pup, is really more of a #4 starter right now. The Tigers can duct tape a rotation together with the best of Phil Coke, Armando Galarraga and Andy Oliver, if they really want to, but that seems like a mistake. A 2/3 caliber, left-handed starter would have been killer here, but with Ted Lilly and Jake Westbrook off the market, pickin's here are slim.

Still, I think that the Tigers need 1 decent free agent starter to compete this year.

The Options
Everyone knows the big players on the free agent market: Carl Crawford, Victor Martinez, Adam Dunn and Jason Werth. The Tigers, at one time or another, have been connected to all four. Some are saying that the Tigers will make a play for two of the four. My thoughts player-by-player:

-Victor Martinez is a 2 day-a-week catcher at most. He is bad defensively. He is an excellent hitter, but would mostly need to DH. As a DH the value just isn't there. A 3-4 year contract for big bucks would be a big mistake here.

-Adam Dunn is an OBP machine. He would be an absolutely phenomenal addition to the Tigers lineup in the 3 hole. I'll also bet you a million dollars that if the Tigers signed him he would bat 5. He has a low batting average a strikes out a lot. People will get frustrated. Also, he is a DH only (realistically), and the Tigers have killed themselves with an overabundance of this type of player. Still, I'd take him for 3 years at $12/14M per. He's that good and the Tigers have the budget space.

-Jason Werth is beloved by everyone except me, apparently. I don't know why, but I've never like Jason Werth. I just don't buy that he is worth a huge contract for 4+ years. He's a late bloomer, sure, but has been a NL-only hitter in a hitter friendly ballpark surrounded by the likes of Ryan Howard and Chase Utley. He age is a detriment. Would I complain if the Tigers signed him? No. But I don't think that he is worth what he will sign for.

-Carl Crawford. Please sign Carl Crawford. I've been saying these for three years, back when there were rumors that the Tigers would trade for him. Most recently, I declared the season over in July and said that the Tigers should not make any rash deadline decisions that would jeopardize their chance to sign him. He is 29. He is awesome. He is worth every penny.

The Window
I think that I'm going to make a whole post out of this, but the Tigers have a window in which they need to win. That window starts in 2011 and probably peaks from 2012-2014. We're going to call it the Cabrera era. The CabrERA. Yes. Spend now to win now because that is what the team is designed to do. Let me spell it out for you:

Cabrera, Jackson, Verlander, Scherzer, Porcello. If you add 1-2 free agents to fill out that window then you are there.

Crazy other ideas, quickly
-Magglio Ordonez. I'd like to see him back, but only if you can get one of the other big hitters, or can't get any of them. $8M/season is ok with me.

-Carlos Guillen is your DH this year. Isn't he? Why eat that contract?

-Jarrod Washburn. I'm not kidding. Tigers fans' heads just exploded, I know. I think that the team should take a flyer on Jarrod Washburn, who said recently that he was thinking about coming back. His short time in Detroit aside, he is a good pitcher, has been for a long time, and is exactly the #3-caliber left handed starter they need. Might cost $2M. Totally worth it--just ask Aubrey Huff if it makes sense to write off a player after three months.

-Jim Thome has been talked as a cheap DH replacement. I love the idea, but only if you can get Crawford (or maybe Werth). In fact, the Tigers should sign him and just sit him on a bench just so he can't hurt them playing for the White Sox or Twins. Hmm...better sign Carl Pavano too.

-Is Zach Greinke a legitimate trade option? What would you give up to get him? I think in this "win-now" window (Greinke signed through 2012), that a package that reads something like Justin Turner and/or Daniel Fields isn't crazy. One in the hand...

------
I'm sure that I'll expand on some of these ideas over the course of the next few days/weeks. There is a lot going on in Tigertown, and that the team is dangling on a precipice where the right move(s) will set them on a championship track for the next 3-5 years. The wrong one will be a repeat of the disaster that reads 2007-2010.

Stay tuned...

Huff!

I'm glad this happened today instead of tomorrow when I'm on vacation with no internet...

So, the Tigers have acquired Aubrey Huff from the O's, which is a big time move. Mack Avenue Tigers and the Detroit Tigers Weblog were the winners on my RSS feeder. Mainstream Media via the Free Press, News, and Sun.

Tigers get a big (or medium sized, as is the case this year) lefty bat in exchange for Brett Jacobsen, the former 4th rounder low-level, decent upside minor leaguer. Baseball America rated him 10th in the Tigers System heading into this year. This is definitely the type of move you would expect a team in contention to make and at first glance it meets with my approval. His 72 RBIs would put him in the team lead, for what it's worth. He gives some positional flexibility as well, and although he is more of a 1B/DH he can play at 3rd (he can't possibly be worse defensively than Raburn) and could even give it a go in Left Field. For a guy who is only hitting .253, the Free Press tells me that he has hit .324 with runners in scoring position, which should be welcome news for Tigers fans on the heels of an 0-16 RISP day on Sunday.

It will be unlikely that I'll be able to do much more for commentary because I'm wrapping things up at work and then hitting the road, but this is a good move for the Tigers that should help tremendously with their offensive woes. The order is stronger and more stout because of this, the future hasn't been tremendously compromised and the team has a better chance to win. If that's not what you look for out of a trade, then I don't know what is.

Stick with some of the links above for updates, as there hasn't been a move on the 25 man roster yet.

The Bombshell and The Aftermath

I caught this news early this morning, but have been in meetings up to this point and haven't had a chance to comment. Normally I pass on the whole "hobby news" stuff, but the significance of Topps being granted an exclusive baseball card license is worth talking about. I'll try to avoid becoming "Dan the Economist" again, mostly because I can't scan in hand-drawn graphs of a market with a monopoly. Don't think I won't though, if it needs to come to that.

So here's the deal: Topps has an exclusive MLB license, meaning that they can produce baseball cards the way we think of them. Upper Deck does not have said license, but does have a MLBPA agreement, meaning that they can produce cards of players. As Gellman at SCU mentioned UD has said that it is more about the players than the logos on the jerseys anyway. Personally, I don't think that is the case in baseball. If I wanted a card of a star with some lame plain helmet or generic jersey, I'd go out and buy some Mootown Snackers, thank you very much. To draw on my inner Bo, for me and many, many others it is all about the team, the team, the team. Sure, I'm a Curtis Granderson collector, but more importantly I am a Detroit Tigers collector--and that is where things get murky.

I'm somebody who tends to obsess over two things (and I think that many of you can relate): completeness and continuity. I started off collecting Topps cards because that's what my Dad collected, and when I really got back into things, my goal was to go after the Topps team sets. That way, I could create a continuum of all Tigers teams and the evolution of the game, the players and the cards. As a kid, I always loved Upper Deck's cards as well, even if the were a little pricey for me. With 20 years under their belt, their significance in the card world, and their much larger checklist of Tigers, I've been going after Tigers team sets from Upper Deck too. So Topps was my bedrock and Upper Deck a welcome addition. Beyond that, I'll collect team sets for releases that look nice--A&G, Heritage, Goudey, Masterpieces (I collected that whole set), knowing that if they discontinue or I stop liking them, I still have my two flagship sets to fall back on.

In this way, the loss of Upper Deck hurts. I really enjoyed Upper Deck's base set. The photography, the full-bleed, the large checklist--it was a direct contrast to a standard Topps set, and added a new dimension to my collection. With that option now gone, I don't feel comfortable being at the mercy of Topps alone. Sure, they've made many good sets and provide us with Chrome and Heritage and A&G and more, but they also brought us Co-Signers and Moments & Milestones and a bunch of other lackluster sets that weren't worth my money or my time. Upper Deck did the same thing mind you--releasing set after set of half-baked, poorly designed junk, but when there are two companies that produce a ton of crap and a handful of gems, you can skim the cream off the top. With only one company, there is less cream to skim.

Such is the danger of a monopoly. The traditional economic model tells us that quantity produced will decrease and prices will rise. We know for a fact that quantity produced is going to decrease--as Topps alone can't possibly release enough products to make up for the loss of an entire company. Don't be surprised then when prices rise a little bit as the demand for cards is consolidated among the fewer releases. Oh, heck--for the wonks among us:



Here's what happens. With fewer products and the same demand (note how the downward sloping curve doesn't shift), Topps is going to be able to charge a higher price for its products. This will drive some collectors out of the market (the difference between X1 and X2 in the bottom graph). Now, in the competitive market, the card companies shared the total industry sales. With only one company, Topps can afford to lose some customers while still charging a higher price to yield greater profit--this is how monopoly works. They may not go out of control, especially because their license will need to be renewed by MLB, but don't be surprised if you see this sort of thing happening to some degree.

Even if prices don't change, the consolidation of the industry is bad if for no other reason than it restricts choice. I chose to buy packs of Goudey and Masterpieces. I chose to buy individual autographed or game used cards that I liked. I have a finite amount of money and will choose what to do with it.

That said, Topps' control of the baseball card market doesn't mean the death of the hobby. Rather, it may lead to a much-needed refocusing of the industry, that streamlines and simplifies product lines. There is such thing as too much choice, after all. That's why places like Costco and Trader Joe's are successful. It seems to me that Topps and Upper Deck both pushed mediocre products to fill a slot in the release calendar, fit a certain price point and hit a perceived market. If these products go by the wayside as a way to simplify collecting for the next generation, then I certainly won't complain. That said, a watchful eye needs to be kept on Topps, who can't be allowed to let their quality slip from it's current 2009 high point. I think that team and set collectors will still have plenty to chose from and happy collecting ahead of them with a product line centered around Topps, Heritage, Chrome, Bowman, A&G and Finest with a smattering of other releases mixed in.

Where Topps stands to gain tremendously in volume and low- to mid-level releases, it stands lose in the high-end market. The high-end is the player collector's domain, and Upper Deck has proven that they can consistently design and produce excellent products at this level. Topps has a choice. It can either choose to compete or it can concede the market to the non-licensed companies. As a Granderson collector, I am up in the air with this. I think that if the cards are well designed then they will sell and I will buy them. With the overhead of an MLB license out of the way, Upper Deck can spend more on design, production and acquisition of autographs, leading to a better selection of these items. Either way, these will continue to be cards that I, and many others, buy exclusively off eBay after some risk-taking entrepreneurial types bust cases. This may also reduce the pressure on Topps to compete in an area where they have had only limited success, allowing them to focus more on set design and less on an autograph checklist.

So that's where we are. As a team collector, I am saddened, because I truly liked a handful of Upper Deck's offerings and there is a 0% chance that I will buy them without my beloved Old English D on the cards. At the same time, I still have my Topps set and the continuity that I crave. As a player collector, I am apprehensive about how the unlicensed cards of my player of choice will turn out, but at the same time relieved that I won't be compelled to pick up cards from the various crappy releases that both companies came out with. In all, time will tell if this ends up being a good thing or a bad thing. I do feel like some simplification was necessary--a trimming of the fat if you will. If this brings kids back into the collecting game for example, then it is a good thing.

I also think that a monopoly necessitates rigid oversight--something that the blogging community needs to step up and provide. Don't forget, collectors are the market, and as much as Topps may have control over things, we still decide what is successful and what isn't. Topps' customer service has proved responsive and considerate in the last year. Their card releases have been excellent. They also (likely) will need to earn their license again, and if there is one thing that I know about monopolies, is that they will do whatever they can to keep them. Topps wants you to buy more cards and wants you to like them because they want to keep that license. Give 'em hell, folks because all the credit or blame will fall squarely on their shoulders.

A fond farewell then to Upper Deck, a company that defined the last twenty years of collecting, for better or for worse. If nothing else, my obsessive side is satiated by the fact that Upper Deck neatly runs from 1989-2009. That sounds like one big, beautiful team binder to me.