June, 2007

FTDOTC Mailbag

It's been a quiet year so far.  Some might say too quiet.  So, while the league yawns collectively through another long season, it seems like a good time for another FTDOTC Mailbag.

Question: Why has the league seemed so stagnant this year?  Not much chatter, not many trades, no really HUGE trades...

Has the league seemed stagnant?  Really?  I hadn't noticed.

Saying the league has been stagnant this year is like saying Rosie O'Donnell is a little bit repulsive.  Lately, it seems the message board has grown cobwebs, trade talk is a true rarity, trash talk is even more of a rarity, and scheduling a head-to-head series has been about as pleasurable as scheduling a vasectomy.  I've given this a bit of thought and have come up with the following possible reasons for this season of malaise:

• Most of the loudmouths have been neutered.  Peburn is back in last place again with the most pitiful team in league history.  Tom is wallowing in last place.  Skizm is running away with his division, so his patented rampages have been limited to railing against the Republicans.  And prankster Steve has been preoccupied with a bad back.  As for the biggest loudmouth of all, I've tried to stir up some discussion this year, but none of the tricks in my bag seem to work this year.
• The absence of good rivalries.  All of the Ozzie League playoff teams have been decided, leaving zero drama for the rest of the season.  The only OL race left is for the Butler Division, but whoever loses that race will still make it to the playoffs.  And while all the Eck League pennant races are too close to call, we're talking about a league filled with antisocial deviant loners who'd rather match wits against a computer than a real person, who routinely take four weeks off from playing games each chapter, who treat their games like inconvenient nuisances, and who shy away from opportunities to socialize with the rest of the league.  It's hard to get fired up about anything that happens in the Eck League.
• The absence of a true "villain."  For years, we could all root against Marazita.  Then, along came Tom.  Then Peburn.  But today, there's no one filling that crucial role of League Villain.  BDBL history is filled with Jedi masters who used their mind-trick powers for evil purposes.  But the only Jedi in the league today appears to be Tony Badger.  And the problem is that Badger is a nice guy.  He's polite, friendly, humble and self-effacing.  What the hell kind of evil Jedi mastermind is that??  It's literally impossible to get fired up about rooting against Tony Badger -- and I'm his biggest rival!  I suppose the league could rally together to root against me, but what's the point in rooting against someone who never wins in the end?
• All of the "big" trades have already happened.  The Blazers and Hammerheads both blew their loads before Opening Day.  Roger Clemens has already been traded...twice.  Even the biggest, most expensive name on the market last winter, Johan Santana, has been traded.  There simply aren't that many big-name impact players available in any given year.
• The Eck League pennant races are too close to call.  As a result, every team in the EL (outside of Atlanta, and maybe Allentown) is a "buyer."  There simply aren't that many sellers in the BDBL right now, which makes it tough to trade.
• You ever hear of the phrase: "Be careful what you wish for?"  For years, we've been making rule after rule after rule in an effort to cut down on the number of ridiculous dump trades that occur every year in this league.  Maybe we've finally accomplished that goal.  Or maybe...
• We're becoming too good at this game.  All the controversy from seasons past erupted because some people didn't have a clue what the hell they were doing.  Their cluelessness led to irrational decisions, which destroyed the integrity of the pennant races, which then sparked tons of juicy controversy and debate.  But the longer we play this game, the less clueless we all become.  As a result, we don't see nearly as many nonsensical, head-shaking decisions as we did in seasons past.  Of course, it's still early.

Question: In a game where the flukiest things can happen (for example, Mike Magnante's grand slam in the World Series!), why is so much emphasis placed on winning a World Series?  It would be nice, but shouldn't things like all-time wins or division titles mean more?  It takes luck to win a World Series, but skill to win so many regular season games.

Quick: Who won the most games in Major League Baseball in 2004?

Don't remember?  I had to look it up myself.  (It was the Cardinals.)

Now: Who won the World Series in 2004?

That's easy.  How about the MLB Champions in 2001?  Or 1991?  Or 1978?  Or 1969?  I can name any year, and chances are, you'd be able to name the team that won the World Series.  But if I asked you which team won the most games in the 1980's, or which team won the most NL West titles during the 90's, those answers probably wouldn't come to you as quickly.

As sports fans, we're programmed to value league championships above all else.  Only one champion is crowned each year.  Only one team gets to fly a championship banner in their ballpark.  Only one team takes home a shiny trophy.  Only one team gets a parade.  And history only remembers that one team.  That's why more emphasis is placed on winning a championship.

Now, what does it mean to be a champion?  That's a completely different question.  Most people believe that a championship team was the best in the league in that particular season.  But because we're all enlightened sabremetricians, we all know better than that.  What a championship really means is that the winning team was among the best in the league that season, and their players performed as well as (or better than) expected during a short tournament at the end of the season.  Or, the winning team's opponents performed really poorly during that short series.  Or, the winner just got lucky at the right times.  That's all.

Without a doubt, it is far more difficult to be good (i.e. win consistently, year after year) than it is to be lucky (i.e. win one short tournament in one particular year.)  And it takes far more skill for a GM to build a consistent winner than a one-year-wonder.  But no one remembers the good; they only remember the lucky.

Which segues nicely into the next question...

Question: Is there something the four champions of this league all have in common?  (Team-wise, I mean -- not their striking good looks...except for Tom, of course.)

We've only had eight champions in the BDBL so far, so I think any sort of statistical study involving only those eight teams wouldn't reveal anything of significance.  The good folks at Baseball Prospectus, however, published a book last year that covered this topic in depth.  In a study involving every post-season team dating back to World War II (I believe), the BP writers found that only three factors correlated highly to post-season success:

• A power pitching staff, as measured by normalized strikeout rate.
• A good closer, as measured by WXRL.
• A good defense, as measured by FRAA.

We don't have WXRL or FRAA numbers for BDBL teams, but we can do the best we can with the stats we have, to see if this formula (which BP calls the "Secret Sauce") works in the BDBL as well:

1999 Zoots: Out of 24 teams in the BDBL, Stamford ranked #2 in K/9 (7.5.)  John Wetteland (1.62 ERA, 36 SVs in 66+ IP, 47 H, 16 BB, 67 K) was the epitome of a "good closer."  And the Zoots ranked #2 in the BDBL in fielding percentage at .987 and featured several above-average-ranged fielders.

2000 Zoots: Led by Randy Johnson and his 433 strikeouts (no, that's not a typo), the Stamford pitching staff ranked #1 in the BDBL in strikeout rate (8.4 K/9) by a wide margin.  The Zoots didn't really have a "good" closer, however.  Wetteland (4.27 ERA, 14 SVs, 71+ IP, 82 H, 31 BB, 56 K) was hardly dominant, and was a non-factor in the post-season.  Instead, John Johnstone, Donne Wall, Bobby "Shotgun" Chouinard and Yorkis Perez formed a "bullpen by committee" that turned out to be highly effective in the playoffs.  In the field, Stamford ranked #1 in the BDBL with a .988 fielding percentage.

2001 Zoots: Once again, thanks to the Unit (348 K's), Stamford ranked #1 in the BDBL in K/9 at 8.2.  Jose Paniagua (4.57 ERA in 84+ IP, with 44 BB's) and Bung-Hole Kim (5.28 ERA in 73+ IP) shared the closer's duty throughout the regular season.  Then, in the playoffs, SUS's Lou Pote and Mike Fetters took over the closer's role.  In the field, Stamford ranked #3 in the BDBL in fielding percentage at .985.

2002 Ridgebacks: The 2002 Ridgebacks ranked #1 in just about everything, including K/9 (an ungodly 8.9, driven once again by Randy Johnson and his 363 K's.)  Allentown's closer that year was Felix Rodriguez, who despite posting a 2.22 ERA in 69 innings, was hardly a "great" closer.  And in the field, Allentown ranked near the bottom of the league with a .980 fielding percentage.

2003 Zoots: With no more Randy Johnson, the Stamford pitching staff averaged just 6.8 K's/9 in 2003 -- good for sixth in the BDBL.  Their closer that year was the legendary Bung-Hole Kim, who posted an astounding 0.93 ERA in 86+ innings.  And in the field, Stamford ranked seventh in the BDBL with a .985 fielding percentage.

2004 Infidels: With 6.8 K/9, Ravenswood ranked 9th in the BDBL (but, oddly enough, 2nd in the OL.)  The Infidels closer was Paul Quantrill (2.23 ERA in 84+ innings, with 24 SVs and only 46 K's.)  Ravenswood ranked near the bottom of the league in fielding percentage at .982, but ranked 6th in balls-in-play average (.285.)

2005 Ridgebacks: Allentown ranked #2 in the BDBL in K/9.  Their closer was Billy Wagner (2.28 ERA in 51+ IP.)  And they were about league-average in both fielding percentage and balls-in-play average.

2006 Mustangs: The 'Nova pitching staff was below league average in K/9 (6.6.)  Their closer was the world-dominating Mariano Rivera (1.00 ERA in 27 IP for Villanova.)  And the Mustangs defense ranked in the middle of the pack in terms of balls-in-play, but ranked #2 in the BDBL in fielding percentage (.985.)

So what have we learned?  Well, having a strikeout-heavy pitching staff seemed to work well for Stamford and Allentown, but didn't seem to matter much to Ravenswood or Villanova.  Having a dominant closer was important for a few of these teams, but other teams such as the 2000 Zoots managed to win with a cobbled-together group of laughable mediocrities.  And defense seems to have had little correlation to winning for this group of champions, other than possibly the 1999-2000 Zoots.

So, I don't think that any "Secret Sauce" applies to the BDBL.  (Nor am I totally convinced that there is any "Secret Sauce" for MLB.)  One factor, and one factor only, is shared by all eight of these BDBL champions, however, and that is luck.  "Luck" in terms of getting unexpected performances from certain players, "luck" in terms of opposing players performing extraordinarily poorly at the worst possible moment, and "luck" in terms of unlikely events happening at just the right time:

• The 1999 Zoots hit just .226/.293/.311 as a team in the OLDS, and were outscored 23-19.  But they won that series because Gary Gaetti -- who led the OL in fielding percentage at third base -- made a crucial error in Game Five, Omar Vizquel stole second base despite being picked off, and Rafael Palmeiro hit a timely home run.  Stamford then won the OLCS over Litchfield when Luis Alicea -- who hit .180 during the regular season -- connected for TWO home runs in a 2-1 Game 7 Stamford victory.
• The 2000 Zoots won the OLDS when Litchfield second baseman Mark Grudzielanek committed a costly error that led to a four-run ninth inning in Game 3.  They won the OLCS when Los Altos slugger Albert Belle went 1-for-17 in the series, while Brad Ausmus hit .300 for Stamford, with four RBIs, including the game-winner in Game Six.  The Zoots were then down three games to none in the World Series, but they then strung together four wins in a row, as the Chicago Black Sox offense (which led the BDBL in runs scored with 987 that season) managed to score just seven runs in the final four games.
• In 2001, the Salem Cowtippers hit .285/.375/.473 as a team, with 949 runs scored.  And their pitching staff led the OL in ERA at 3.75.  But in the OLCS, Salem hit just .220/.308/.331 as a team, while the pitching staff posted a 5.29 ERA.  Salem was swept in four games by Stamford, who then went on to win their third straight championship when they scored SIX runs in the ninth inning of Game 7 to win by a score of 12-6.
• In 2002, of course, the Ridgebacks won Game 7 when Ellis Burks lined a double into the gap with one out in the ninth against Salem's best right-handed reliever, David Weathers.  And, of course, Allentown nearly lost that series because reliever Mike Magnante (who had zero at-bats in MLB and the BDBL) hit a grand slam home run to force a seventh game.
• In 2003, Allentown slugger Manny Ramirez went just 3-for-26 with zero RBIs.  That's just two more hits, and one fewer RBI, than Stamford pitcher Clay Condrey collected in the series.  Condrey also out-pitched Curt Schilling in Game 4 of that series, giving Stamford a crucial win (and an asterisk.)  Stamford went on to win yet another Game 7 by one run when pinch hitter Edgardo Alfonzo tied the game with a home run, and career backup infielder Alex Cora doubled and scored the go-ahead run.
• In 2004, the Ravenswood Infidels went into the playoffs with the worst record out of all eight playoff teams.  But they won the OLCS when Salem's starting rotation of Curt Schilling, Brandon Webb and Barry Zito inexplicably collapsed in three straight games -- all in the first inning.  Then, they won the World Series over a dominant Black Sox team when the Chicago pitching staff posted a 7.33 ERA for the series.
• In 2005, the Salem Cowtippers were handed yet another World Series defeat when Juan Cruz (who had dominated all season out of the Salem bullpen) came in to protect a 5-3 Salem lead in the 8th inning of Game 2, only to allow three hits to the bottom third of the Allentown lineup.  Brian Roberts -- a little-used bench player who hit .227/.314/.294 for the Ridgebacks that year -- then connected for his FIFTH hit of the game (off of Mariano Rivera, no less) to bring home the winning run.  Two games later, Cruz came into a 7-7 game in the 8th inning, walked the bases loaded, then served up a two-out, two-run double to pinch hitter Gary Matthews.  Dominant closer Mariano Rivera then gave up the game-winner on a bloop single by Carlos Guillen.  Allentown then won the series when Salem ace Roger Clemens served up back-to-back homers to Craig Wilson and Corey Koskie in the second inning while Randy Johnson shut down a lefty-dominant Salem lineup.
• Finally, in 2006, the Villanova Mustangs barely eked through the ELDS with a 2-1 win in Game 7 over the SoCal Slyme.  SoCal put two runners on base in the 8th, but Rivera then came in and slammed the door.  After a ninth-inning error put the tying run in scoring position for the Slyme, Rudy Seanez ended up getting the save with a timely strikeout of Torii Hunter.  The win was made possible by a second inning home run by right-hander Reggie Sanders against righty pitcher Jose Contreras.  Contreras had held opposing righties to a sub-.400 slugging percentage that year.

As you can see, the one thing all championship teams have in common is timely performances from unlikely heroes.  And if I can ever figure out how to acquire some of these unlikely heroes, maybe I'll actually win one of those trophies I keep hearing about.

Question: How would you make DMB a better game for our league's purposes?  (Saying it's perfect as it is isn't an answer.)

Well, it's no secret that I'm not a big fan of the way that DMB handles short-usage superstars and split stats.  I understand why DMB handles these players the way they do, but I think they miss the boat by alienating a large portion of their user base.  Anyone who plays in a league such as this one (and I would assume that is the majority of people who purchase the DMB game) would appreciate a more realistic performance from players with extreme splits and/or extremely small sample sizes.

In a perfect world, DMB would allow a toggle switch (similar to the one they have for the warm-up rule, injuries, etc.), where all players would have separate event cards that portrayed a more realistic reflection of their abilities.  These event cards would be built in the same way that the DMB projection disk is built: using historical records from both MLB and the minor leagues.

Aside from that, I'm fairly happy with the game as a whole.  There are a couple of small features that I've been lobbying for through DMB for many years.  I'd like to see some managerial stats made available (number of hit-and-run, bunts, squeezes, etc., along with their success rates), and I'd also like the ability to create my own play-by-play calls.  But those are very minor things.  For the most part, I'm happy with the game as-is.

Question: Do you think BDBL owners value prospects too highly?

Several years ago, I wrote an article on this page titled, "Reaping the Benefits of Your Farm."  In it, I showed how even an average prospect such as Jason LaRue or Jacque Jones could save a team as much as $7 million over four years.  Last August, I wrote an article titled, "The MVCs of the BDBL," where I showed that the truly elite prospects could save a team as much as $16 million in a single season, and as much as $45 million over five years.

So, obviously, there is great value in certain prospects.  When you play in a league with a salary cap, every penny you can "save" below market value increases your odds of success.  If you pay $63.5 million for $63.5 million worth of talent, odds are you'll finish with a .500 record.  But if you can pay the same amount of money and get $80 million in talent, well, then you've got a pretty good shot at a trophy.

The problem is that these elite prospects are very, very hard to find.  In yet another FTDOTC study, I showed that if you owned every player on Baseball America's top-20 prospect list, 18% of the hitters and nearly HALF (45%) of the pitchers would become completely useless wastes of roster space.  About two-thirds (63%) of the hitters and one-third (34%) of the pitchers would enjoy at least one all-star season over the next five years.  And only 30% of the hitters and 11% of the pitchers would enjoy at least one MVP or Cy Young season.

So the best way to ensure future success is to stockpile as many elite prospects as you can, and then roll the dice.  However, while I believe BDBL GMs correctly understand the value of a prospect, I think they oftentimes underestimate the odds of that prospect becoming an impact player.

Every GM in this league believes that his top prospect will become the next Albert Pujols or Roy Oswalt.  Like the people of Lake Wobegon, we all believe our children are above-average.  But it just doesn't work that way.  Even the best, most "sure-thing" prospects often turn into colossal failures.  And it's that simple fact of life that leads to the perception that prospects are valued too highly in this league.

Question: Historically, which division has been the toughest to make the playoffs?

There are several ways to approach this question.  First, you have to look at the average number of wins it has taken to finish in first place in each division.  Obviously, if you only need to win 90 games to clinch your division, then that is much easier than needing 100.  So let's start by looking at the records of second-place teams throughout league history:

Historically, the Butler Division has been the toughest division in the BDBL to win, as the first place team needed 94 wins to capture the division.  Conversely, the Benes Division has been the easiest to win, with the first place team needing an average of just over 81 wins.

Of course, we also have a wild card in this league.  Therefore, a team could also make the playoffs simply by finishing with more wins than any other second-place team in the league.  We also have an unbalanced schedule, so the teams that play in the weakest divisions have an advantage by playing four more games each against the chumps of the league.  So let's take a look at the average number of wins for third- and fourth-place teams in each division:

This shows that it's been easiest to win a wild card playing in the Griffin Division, and the Butler Division has historically been the most difficult division in which to win the wild card.

Of course, since we've had several divisional realignments throughout league history, I'm not sure how any of this is meaningful.  But the question has been asked and answered.

Question: Have you ever considered expansion?

I've brought it up in the past, but it hasn't been received very well.  I think people are generally comfortable with 24 teams, and they don't see a need to expand any further.

If we did expand, we'd have to add SIX teams, to keep the consistency in our divisional alignments.  We'd then have five teams in each division, which would make it more challenging to win a division title.  It would also be fun to go through an expansion draft, and to see some new faces in the league.  Also, expanding to 30 teams would mean that we'd have the same player pool as MLB, which would mean our stats would line up more with "reality" than they do now.

Those are the plusses.  On the minus side, you'd lose the tradition of four-team divisional races, and tracking historical league records (like all-time franchise wins) would get a little messy.  We'd probably also have to deal with some undesirable owners for a while until we could find the right balance.

Question: Who would you rather listen to during a game: Joe Morgan or Tim McCarver?

Man, that's a tough one.  Neither one is tolerable in any way, shape or form.  From reading FJM for so long, it's become clear that Morgan just doesn't care about his job anymore.  (I'm not sure he ever did.)  First and foremost, he's paid to be a "baseball analyst," yet he openly admits that he rarely watches baseball games, he does no research or prep work before or after games, and the older he gets (and the more criticism he collects from people like Ken Tremendous), the more fearful he seems to be to state any opinion whatsoever.  I wouldn't mind that he's not a "stathead" if he'd at least do his job.

McCarver just irritates the crap out of me on every level.  His voice is grating, his personality is grating, and he looks like a muppet on steroids.  He tries and fails to be funny by making really corny puns and painful analogies, using pop-culture references that are at least 30 years old in an effort to prove how hip he is.  He is always condescending, and will never, ever, ever admit when he's made a mistake -- even when the replays clearly prove it.

The tie-breaker, for me, is that McCarver works for the Fox Network, while Morgan is on ESPN.  I'd rather poke my eyes out with a toothpick than watch a ballgame on Fox.  And I like Jon Miller a little better than Joe Buck, I suppose.  So I guess...if you put a gun to my head and made me choose...I'd have to go with Morgan.

Question: Who will be competing for a BDBL crown NEXT season?

I can't answer this question without starting with the standard disclaimer: It's far too early to speculate.  But let's do it anyway, just for kicks.

I wanted to do some real analysis using 2007 MLB VORP or something, but I ran out of time.  So instead, I'll just eyeball the rosters and see which teams look like frontrunners at this (VERY) early stage.

Any conversation about 2008 frontrunners begins with the the Allentown Ridgebacks, simply because of this pitching staff (stats as of 5/23):

Be afraid, Eck Leaguers.  Be very afraid.

In the Ozzie League, Manchester's rotation looks pretty good so far:

But the problem with Manchester is that Sabathia will cost them $20 million all by himself, while Allentown's rotation will cost just $15.9 million combined.  With Miguel Cabrera (.323/.400/.545), Alfonso Soriano (.296/.348/.468) and (oddly enough) Carlos Pena (.300/.365/.592), however, the Irish Rebels have more offense than the Ridgebacks at this point.

If you're looking for a team with a good balance of pitching and hitting, look no further than the Cowtippers.  Salem's starting rotation looks pretty good at this (very) early stage:

And, at a total of $16.9 million in salary, those five starters will make just $1.4 million more than Jason Jennings.  Offensively, the Cowtippers will return almost their entire lineup, including Derek Jeter (.350/.425/.470), Kenji Johjima (.303/.329/.517) and Geoff Jenkins (.292/.353/.562).  B.J. Upton (.321/.398/.545) and Dan Johnson (.315/.424/.519) may be useful as well if their early success continues.  And if Lance Berkman (.250/.397/.343), Scott Rolen (.247/.339/.367) and Conor Jackson (.274/.389/.407) ever snap out of their season-long slumps, they could become assets as well.

The Undertakers were the odds-on favorite to win the 2008 championship coming into this year, but as I chronicled on this page last month, they've run into a few problems along the way.  But while the entire Los Altos pitching staff has suffered through some sort of tragic disappointment, and Rookie of the Year candidate Alex Gordon is hitting a paltry .185/.301/.298 through May 30th, don't cry for Jeff Paulson just yet.  With a lineup that includes Chris Duncan (.277/.353/.510), Adrian Gonzalez (.300/.366/.547), J.J. Hardy (.301/.350/.574), Hunter Pence (.355/.389/.589), Jeremy Hermida (.255/.333/.473) and Kevin Youkilis (.358/.432/.570) making a combined $1.9 million, the Undertakers are still in a position that most of us would envy.  And with Chris Carpenter saving the team $20 million with his timely injury, Los Altos will have plenty of money to buy a decent pitching staff by Opening Day.

I could keep going, but those look to be the major players at this point.  But like I said, it's so early, it's hardly worth worrying about.  Speaking of which...

Question: How does the free agent Class of 2008 look at this point?

Have I mentioned it's still early?  I did?  Good.  Then with that said, 2008 is looking like the Year of the Pitcher so far:

Brad Penny: 70 IP, 60 H, 0 HR, 23 BB, 43 K, 2.06 ERA
John Lackey: 72.1 IP, 68 H, 4 HR, 20 BB, 61 K, 2.36 ERA
Andy Pettitte: 71.2 IP, 71 H, 3 HR, 23 BB, 38 K, 2.51 ERA
Josh Beckett: 57.2 IP, 43 H, 2 HR, 13 BB, 54 K, 2.65 ERA
Tim Wakefield: 61.1 IP, 54 H, 6 HR, 26 BB, 36 K, 3.36 ERA
Jeff Suppan: 73 IP, 78 H, 7 HR, 21 BB, 37 K, 3.58 ERA
Livan Hernandez: 73 IP, 73 H, 4 HR, 34 BB, 36 K, 3.58 ERA
Curt Schilling: 71 IP, 80 H, 8 HR, 15 BB, 60 K, 3.68 ERA
Mark Buehrle: 56 IP, 49 H, 8 HR, 14 BB, 40 K, 3.86 ERA
Aaron Cook: 72.1 IP, 75 H, 5 HR, 24 BB, 27 K, 4.11 ERA
Randy Johnson: 35.2 IP, 34 H, 5 HR, 7 BB, 47 K, 4.54 ERA
Freddy Garcia: 51 IP, 58 H, 8 HR, 15 BB, 44 K, 4.59 ERA
Roger Clemens: TBD

With that amount of pitching talent on the market, don't expect to see a repeat of last winter, where irrational exuberance led to irrational bidding for mediocrities like C.C. Sabathia and Jason Jennings.  With so many quality pitchers available, we should return to the good ol' days of fiscal sanity.  I'd be surprised to see any of them get more than $15 million this winter.  But you never know...

On the hitting side, there are a handful of impact bats available so far:

Magglio Ordonez: .358/.429/.684
Barry Bonds: .275/.497/.608
Troy Glaus: .278/.392/.546
Jorge Posada: .360/.414/.567
Orlando Hudson: .295/.371/.480
Travis Hafner: .260/.415/.462
Aramis Ramirez: .290/.342/.543

As always, the bidding for Bonds (who will be 43 years old next year) will be interesting.  If he continues to post an 1100+ OPS, and plays a full, healthy season, will the bidding once again reach $20 million?  With this league, anything is possible.  No one was frightened off by Bonds' age, fragility and steroids scandal before, so why should 2008 be any different?  Suffice it to say that Ordonez, Bonds, Hudson and Hafner will get substantially more on the open market than they would have gotten if their teams had signed them for just one more season.

Then, we have a group of former superstars who are slumping so badly this season that they don't look like they'll make the auction at this point:

Jason Giambi: .262/.385/.441
Pat Burrell: .226/.400/.404
Bill Hall: .256/.315/.428
Jim Edmonds: .232/.305/.348
Mariano Rivera: 16.2 IP, 18 H, 3 HR, 4 BB, 18 K, 5.94 ERA
Michael Young: .248/.288/.383
Paul Konerko: .227/.313/.401
Kevin Millwood: 35.1 IP, 46 H, 5 HR, 18 BB, 26 K, 6.62 ERA
Chris Carpenter: injured

These players will likely become the next wave of Round Two draft picks.  All in all, it looks like a very strong draft if you're in need of a pitcher (and who isn't?)  Otherwise, the draft pool looks very, very shallow at this point.