Book Pre-Order
Thu, Dec 7, 2006
by Geoff Young
I’ve got to run some errands and take care of book stuff, so no baseball content today. I just wanted to give a quick thanks to everyone who has been donating, buying goodies at the Ducksnorts Online Store (I’m working on some new designs that, barring another computer crash, should be available early next week), and keeping the level of discussion here at an alarmingly high level — I can’t tell you how many times I read through the comments and want to add something, only to find that one of you has already said it better than I could have.
On another note, someone asked the other day about pre-ordering the Ducksnorts book for the holidays. Since I haven’t yet worked out all the publishing details (gotta finish writing first), drop me a line if you want a “Ducksnorts Book Coming Soon” gift card stocking stuffer type thing — be sure to include your name, mailing address, and how many you need — and I’ll hook you up right away.
That’s all for now. Feel free to talk about whatever else is on your mind; I’ll jump in when I can…
Picking up where last year's version left off, the Ducksnorts 2008 Baseball Annual provides in-depth analysis of and commentary on the San Diego Padres. Get your copy today.
December 7, 2006 at 7:19 am
Count me in…I am going to pick a couple up as stocking stuffers and gifts for friends…maybe you can get rich off of me Geoff.
Picking up a discussion from yesterday…While I will be the first in line to say we need a bopper in the middle of the line-up (Linebrink for Burrell please), just a quick observation…from 1985 (when the KC Royals had Steve Balboni hit 35 bombs) through 2001 ask your self how many World Series winners had a 35+ HR guy on the roster.
Do Da Do Da Do Da Do (Theme from Jeopardy)
The answer is none…Steve Balboni in 1985 and Luis Gonzalez in 2001 (57 hr’s)…in between, no WS winner had a guy hit 35+ bombs.
The Pads can win the WS without a BIG BOPPER, but we do need more guys that can hit 25-30. At present, we have two (Cameron and AGon). That ain’t gonna get it done.
December 7, 2006 at 7:23 am
Did not see this reported here yesterday…
Gonzo to play for the Dodgers…1yr/$7mm
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/.....id=2688711
December 7, 2006 at 8:19 am
Rule 5 update:
So, it looks like we lost Joakim Soria to the Royals in the Rule 5 draft, he was the #2 overall selection. I’m sure they’ll be more inclined to keep him around than most teams would, considering how pathetic their pitching staff is.
Padres selected Kevin Cameron from the Twins. Cameron put up solid numbers (6-4, 2.98 ERA, 1.19 WHIP) at AAA Rochester last year. Looks like he’s been strictly a reliever.
In the Minor League portion, the Padres picked up 2B/3B Brandon Powell from the Nats. Powell was an 8th round pick of the Royals in 2003. Powell was 280/341/463 at High A Potomac last year.
Interesting that the Cubs are taking a shot with the Rays former #1 pick Josh Hamilton. Supposedly he may be part of a trade to the Reds though.
December 7, 2006 at 8:25 am
I’ve never been to clear on the rule 5 rules, do the players selected have to make the new teams 25 man roster of 40 man roster?
December 7, 2006 at 8:32 am
They have to stay on the active, 25 man roster.
Hamilton is a really interesting Rule 5 pick. When he was drafted (ahead of Beckett) people talked about him as one of the best prep players ever.
December 7, 2006 at 8:36 am
So i take it that the Padres plan on having Powell fill the last bench spot.
December 7, 2006 at 8:42 am
Steve, Powell went in the minor league portion and does not have to be on the 25 man roster…
Only players taken in the major league portion of the Rule 5 draft have to stay on the 25 man roster. That means that Kevin Cameron will pitch for the Pads and can’t go to the minor leagues…if he sticks.
December 7, 2006 at 8:42 am
No, Powell was from the Minor League portion of the draft - the rules are different for that part.
I think he has to stay on the AAA or AA roster all year, or some such.
Supposedly the Minor League portion is used mostly to fill organizational holes. Those drafted in the Minor League part are rarely prospects.
Kevin Cameron would have to stay a Padre all year or be offered back though.
December 7, 2006 at 8:51 am
Ah got it, thanks guys.
December 7, 2006 at 8:57 am
North County Times’ Shaun O’neill suggested a Linebrink for Coco Crisp swap in today’s paper? Good deal? Crisp may not hit any more HRs than Sledge would. I
December 7, 2006 at 9:06 am
Re: 10 I would rather do linebrink Willy Mo if it was possible.
December 7, 2006 at 9:12 am
Let’s talk OF defense in LF…how critical? DR gave us good D out there, but LF is not as cavernous as CF/RF. Obviously, power is the #1 concern of the FO for that position as it stands right now…who are the worst defenders available that qualify for power, and do we think the FO is willing to forego LF D for O to that extent?
December 7, 2006 at 9:12 am
Statistically, Crisp is a little better than Pena and likely a better defender.
But, I think I like Pena better too. He’s just intriguing for some reason.
December 7, 2006 at 9:14 am
If we were willing to forego “D” in LF, wouldn’t we be looking at Klesko again?
December 7, 2006 at 9:21 am
Who says they’re not looking at Klesko? I think they are and are just not announcing it yet.
December 7, 2006 at 9:22 am
Crisp is an intriguing option. He’s young, he’s one year removed from a near-breakthrough season, and he’s a good enough defender to play center field. I’m not sure I’d move Linebrink for him, but this isn’t a bad time to make a play for Crisp.
On an unrelated note, I’m just starting to delve into the question of why the Padres can’t seem to score at Petco Park. One of the most startling findings so far is that Petco doesn’t suppress run scoring any more than the Q did during its final 3 years.
December 7, 2006 at 9:23 am
Re: #14 Klesko cant hit it out of petco
December 7, 2006 at 9:25 am
Re: maybe they would throw Kotarris in the deal as well j/k.
December 7, 2006 at 9:35 am
Continuing the home run discussion…
I looked at the team rankings of total home runs for the seasons after 2001 last night. In the last five seasons, around half of the eight playoff teams placed in the top third, while no more than one or two placed in the bottom third. In fact, if I recall correctly, only in 2005 and 2006 did two playoff teams finish in the bottom third of home runs; both times, the San Diego Padres were one of the two teams.
December 7, 2006 at 9:47 am
Bryan…that is exactly right…so while a bopper is not necessary, if we don’t have one, we need more 25hr guys…
December 7, 2006 at 9:51 am
16: I’ve always thought that visiting teams have much less of a problem hitting the ball out of Petco but maybe that’s just perception, not reality.
December 7, 2006 at 10:02 am
You know what I can’t get enough of these days? The ongoing “Can Barry Bonds find a job” saga. Riveting stuff. I expect he’ll end up swallowing his pride and accepting a low-base, incentive laden deal in the AL.
December 7, 2006 at 10:05 am
#21: Anthony, that is a suspicion I have as well. It’s one of the things I’ll be checking next. One of the most fascinating things I’ve found so far is that over the past 6 years, the “extremeness” of various parks has become less pronounced, so that Qualcomm/Petco has seemed more extreme by comparison as a result of not moving toward the center.
Apologies if this gets too esoteric for some folks, but here are the most favorable parks in terms of scoring runs 2001-2006:
2001: Jacobs Field, 1.584
2002: Coors Field, 1.440
2003: Olympic Stadium, 1.382
2004: Coors Field, 1.412
2005: Coors Field, 1.285
2006: Great American, 1.153
And here are the number of parks that are +/- 10% of league average over that same period:
2001: 14
2002: 13
2003: 13
2004: 19
2005: 22
2006: 23
Still digging…
December 7, 2006 at 10:16 am
How about a trade with Houston that doesn’t involve Houston:
Greene and Linebrink for Jason Lane and Adam Everett, the undisputed(?) sabermetric king of SSs - defensively speaking, of course. Lane is an OF rightie with power, and didn’t Houston lose a key bullpen guy?
December 7, 2006 at 10:17 am
24: Ugh; How about a trade with Houston that doesn’t involve PEAVY
December 7, 2006 at 10:21 am
Supposedly we talked about a Greene/Linebrink for Everett/Ensberg swap at the deadline…
December 7, 2006 at 10:28 am
I think Barry will end up back with the Giants, no one else will take him. How much of an a-hole does a guy have to be when he’s about to break the most hallowed record in baseball and is still an offensive threat yet no one wants anything to do with him?
My Petco theory is that Padres pitchers have come to rely on it to keep the ball in the park and will be more likely to groove a strike in order to prevent a walk. Visiting pitchers would be less likely to change their gameplan for one start. Padres pitchers did allow more homers and fewer walks at home last year but I’m not sure if the difference is really significant:
Home 1.10 HR/9 2.82 BB/9
Away 1.07 HR/9 2.94 BB/9
With all the talk about Petco killing homeruns I would have thought the Home number would be much lower.
Another possible factor is Padre hitters are coached with Petco in mind, visiting teams aren’t. If Petco is getting into our hitter’s heads and not into the visiting team’s, that’s a problem.
December 7, 2006 at 10:36 am
re: 27
Barry’s winning personality isn’t the problem.
Teams don’t want the steroid/BALCO issue and the negative attention of the home run record around them.
December 7, 2006 at 10:48 am
The jump in home runs at Petco last year was astronomical, and not just for Padres pitchers. After being the most difficult park in baseball to hit a homer in each of its first 2 years of existence, Petco leaped all the way up to #16 (i.e., middle of the pack) last season. I suspect there is some truth to the “can get away with mistakes up in the zone” theory as well as the buildings beyond the outfield changing the wind currents theory.
December 7, 2006 at 10:51 am
Don’t discount the fact that we brought in the fences in right-center as well. Remember what Towers said “When I saw Hernandez hit a stand-up triple, I new something had to be done.”
December 7, 2006 at 11:10 am
5 years-55 million for Gil Meche? Wow, I guess our 6 years-72 million offer to Zito is still game (Buster Olney’s guess sometime toward end of season).
So Ned “Proven Veteran Guy” Colletti is bringing in Luis Gonzalez? “You’re doing a helluva job, Logan, but do you actually expect me to play any of our highly touted positional prospects? I think it may help Martin to give Lieberthal 65 to 70 starts.”
December 7, 2006 at 11:12 am
Re: 31 not that surprising that AJ Burnett money
December 7, 2006 at 11:15 am
CM, good point about the fence. From what I can tell so far, that and the presence of Cameron in center had more of an impact on the number of triples (which were way down last year) than homers — I’ll have to look at some charts, but I can’t recall more than a few shots leaving that part of the park (Carlos Delgado hit one, I know, but I can’t think of any others off the top of my head).
December 7, 2006 at 11:21 am
You may be right Geoff, but it has to be a factor that is considered.
December 7, 2006 at 11:22 am
Branyan hit that monster shot but I don’t think the fence was a factor
http://www.hittrackeronline.co.....=2006_5156
If there were even 5 extra homeruns because the fence was moved in I’d be very suprised. I wonder if anyone has done any wind tunnel testing?
December 7, 2006 at 11:30 am
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/.....id=2689475
Bonds
December 7, 2006 at 11:32 am
Kevin, Peter Gammons just said that St. Louis and Larussa both deny this and that it does not make any sense. Simply just information made up by Barry’s “very good agent”.
December 7, 2006 at 12:03 pm
I have three thoughts as to why homers increased at Petco Park this season.
1) We had more power hitters than in 2005. Adrian Gonzalez, Mike Piazza, and Mike Cameron replaced Nady/Nevin/Sweeney, Ramon Hernandez, and Klesko/Nady. Even Josh Barfield hit more home runs than Mark Loretta did in 2005.
2) We brought in more pitchers who give up more home runs. Chris Young was never shy about giving up the longball, and groundball man Brian Lawrence was gone. Peavy gave up more dingers as well.
3) It was unreasonably hot at times during the summer (which I think may explain why it was unreasonably cold last week; or the Chargers needed the cold weather to prepare for Buffalo). Maybe the temperature had something to do with it, maybe not.
December 7, 2006 at 12:09 pm
Just saw this on the Kevin Cameron “kid” we got in the Rule 5. His GO/FO ratio last year was 2.19.
Being a groundball pitcher, he seems a worthwhile gamble for the pen.
December 7, 2006 at 12:25 pm
Here’s BP’s look at the Rule 5 draft …
http://www.baseballprospectus......cleid=5751
December 7, 2006 at 12:44 pm
re: 22, 27, 28
Nate Silver at BP has also been wondering why an offensive talent like Bonds has seemingly drawn so little interest and thinks there might be another factor beyond the cheater/a-hole baggage he carries….
“So it looks to me like there’s “something else” here, and that “something else” is the prospect of Bonds going to jail. If you’re thinking about signing Barry Bonds, the first person you talk to isn’t Bonds or your owner or Jeff Borris — it’s your team’s attorney. ”
December 7, 2006 at 12:52 pm
Peter: re “$$ do not equal wins”. Last year the teams with the top 5 payrolls averged 11 games above .500. The 5 teams with the lowest payrolls averaged 12 games below .500. Those teams in the top half of payroll averaged 3 more wins than those in the bottom half. 4 of the teams in the top 5 of payroll were in the top 7 in wins. The nine lowest payroll teams generated losing records. CBSsportsline.com
December 7, 2006 at 12:58 pm
Re: 42 your right poorly spent money does not equal wins but money sure would help, imagine if the A’s kept Giambi, Tejada, the big three, jermain dye ect…
December 7, 2006 at 12:58 pm
#31: That Meche deal is unreal. It makes the Eaton signing look downright prudent. At least Eaton’s contract isn’t likely to completely cripple the Phillies.
December 7, 2006 at 1:01 pm
I guess the Royals figure they can’t cripple their team if it already sucks.
December 7, 2006 at 1:34 pm
Is that really the best use of money for a team that has no shot at contending? Then again, I thought Detroit was crazy to sign Pudge but they ended up in the WS.
December 7, 2006 at 1:40 pm
What about that Ordonez deal, even with the injury clause?
December 7, 2006 at 1:42 pm
Those were risky deals, but at least Pudge and Ordonez had done something in the past. Meche is 28 years old. The next time he makes 20 starts in a season and posts a league-average ERA will be the first.
December 7, 2006 at 1:45 pm
last year the Padres were tied for 8th in wins with the 17th largest payroll(right in the middle).Only Oakland and Minnesota had more wins with less payroll. Great money management: but I sure hope SD doesnt drop to the bottom 5 in payroll this year. With half the rooster earning well under 1$$, management must be thinking of the cost when these players will be able to demand more. As for long term contracts–the last 5 years salaries have averaged 4.9% increases. The 5 years before that the average was +14.1%. It makes me think of the rent versus buy a house decision. Just don’t buy a house with a bad foundation.
December 7, 2006 at 1:58 pm
Re: I cant agree with you more, the padres keep talking about how this market has got out of hand and they are going to wait till next year when it calms down but next year players will demand more then the past year and so on and so fourth.
December 7, 2006 at 2:05 pm
#50: The players can demand nothing. They can seek more, but they’ll only get it if irresponsible owners give it to them.
December 7, 2006 at 2:10 pm
#35: Anthony, I’ve only glanced at the hit charts, and at most I can see three home runs that might not have left the yard in 2005.
Here’s another interesting tidbit. Although the Padres have been outhomered by the opposition since moving to Petco, it’s nowhere near as pronounced as it was during their final 3 seasons at the Q:
Percentage of total homers at Petco that came off the bats of Padres hitters:
2004: 43.2
2005: 45.8
2006: 44.9
Percentage of total homers at Qualcomm that came off the bats of Padres hitters:
2001: 38.8
2002: 43.7
2003: 36.7
Obviously, the 2004-2006 teams are better, but that’s kind of the point, isn’t it?
December 7, 2006 at 2:15 pm
Re: 51 which the owners have proven year after year that they are, thats why baseball needs a salary cap.
December 7, 2006 at 2:26 pm
#53: That is one approach, although it has the potential to bail out teams like the Orioles. Another approach is for individual organizations to find ways to work within existing frameworks and succeed without excessive spending. As Malcolm noted in #49, the A’s and Twins have done well with that model; the Padres appear to be headed to down a similar path as well.
On another note, may I just say that I love the fact that nobody is satisfied with an 88-win season. Five years ago, we would have killed for one. I’m glad those days are behind us.
December 7, 2006 at 2:41 pm
Re: 54 its true that the A’s and twins have had sucsess but when was the last time the Twins and A’s won the world series? 1991 (Twins) and 1989 (A’s) both before there was major FA spending.
December 7, 2006 at 2:43 pm
think of all the talent that the A’s let go of because they were not willing to pay them thier markey value.
December 7, 2006 at 2:53 pm
I dont think $ buys ws rings, think Yankees 7 straight not!!!! lets go for 8, but $ generally seem to correlate to overall wins. I’m finally going to the USED book store down the street to buy “moneyball” based on what Oak did last year. Dont worry Geoff I’ll buy your book new.
December 7, 2006 at 2:59 pm
Intresting note, the last time a team with an opening day payroll lower than the padres to win the world series was the Twins in 1991.
Twins = $ 22,431,000
Padres = $ 22,585,001
A’s = $ 33,632,500 (who had the highest payroll the leauge)
December 7, 2006 at 3:03 pm
The only team in the past 15 years to win a world series with an opening day payroll in the lower half of the leauge was the 2003 Marlins.
December 7, 2006 at 3:11 pm
Steve, that’s interesting to me. Last year the Cardinals had the 11th highest. Can you list the payroll rank of the ws winners for the past 10 years?
December 7, 2006 at 3:37 pm
2006 - Cardinals – 11
2005 – White Sox – 13
2004 - Res Sox – 2
2003 - Marlins – 24
2002 - Angels – 15
2001 – D-Backs – 8
2000 – Yankees – 1
1999 – Yankees – 1
1998 – Yankees – 2
1997 – Marlins – 7
1996 – New York – 1
1995 – Braves – 3
1994 – N/A
1993 – Blue Jays – 1
1992 – Blue Jays – 3
December 7, 2006 at 3:41 pm
2002 kind of seems like a break point of teams not in the top 10 winning the WS, which may also show irresponsible spending on the Cubs, Yankees, Red Sox, Mets, Rangers ect…
December 7, 2006 at 3:51 pm
#61: Thanks for the list, Steve. Good to see there’s more hope now for teams that don’t spend like crazy than there was from 1992 to 2000.
December 7, 2006 at 3:57 pm
Except that the winning teams were so for down the list. I can see how the wildcard series would make a difference, but only from 94. 2002 is the exact year that players’ salaries stopped increasing by double diget %’s.
December 7, 2006 at 4:08 pm
Re 64: which shows that irrasonsible spending is bad but responsible spending (Angels, Cardnals, and White Sox) is good, a team has to spend money to win they just have to be careful with it.
December 7, 2006 at 4:31 pm
65: And there hasn’t been a lot of responsible spending this off season. Does anyone expect the Cubs to win the WS? Or the Dodgers? Rangers? I don’t know where they rank in payroll but they’ve been throwing a lot of money around and aren’t done yet. In our division I’m a lot more worried about Arizona and even Colorado than LA and SF.
December 7, 2006 at 4:34 pm
Unrelated to anything, but fascinating nonetheless, the Padres have won 15 games more at home since moving to Petco Park than predicted by the Pythagorean theorem (1.83 exponent). They’ve managed to post a winning record at Petco all three seasons despite being outscored there in each of those seasons.
That’s just weird.
December 7, 2006 at 4:42 pm
Wow, so I guess there is a home field advantage. Wouldn’t that indicate they have a better record in close games? And wouldn’t that be consistent with having a strong bullpen, particularly Trevor in the 9th?
December 7, 2006 at 4:55 pm
It’s not obvious to me what “irresponsibile spending” means???
Here’s another quote from an article at Yahoo …
Five years ago, baseball reported an annual revenue of $3.5 billion. This year, commissioner Bud Selig says, the sport made $5.2 billion. Because salaries have not increased commensurate with the spike in revenues over the past five years, the market is correcting itself and returning some of the largesse to the players.
… which is part of what I was trying to say yesterday … revenues have gone *UP* *much more* that I was aware of … the new CBA has given some teams the confidence to bring their payroll into alignment with this new level of revenue … I gotta believe the Padres revenue is similarly higher now than 5 years ago … which I don’t mean to imply that they need to spend it on players who aren’t worth it … just that they (and we) need to embrace “the new economy” … the value of your #3 starter is ~$10M/year … and rising …
December 7, 2006 at 5:28 pm
To me Irrasponsible spending is…
A-Rod
Giambi
Chan ho
Hideki Arabu
Pavano
AJ Burnett
Soriano
Randy Johnsons extension
im sure there is more
December 7, 2006 at 5:49 pm
Don’t the Padres only have something like 32 guys on their 40-man roster? And, if that is so, why did they leave a guy like Joakin Soria, who is only 22 and throws up to 95, unprotected? They could have easily added him to their 40-man roster, I believe. Unless I am mistaken about them having open space on the roster…
December 7, 2006 at 6:26 pm
I imagine spending will be similarly high next year, but next year there are more good players available (at least from the lists I’ve seen of potential free agents). Here’s the list from mlbtraderumors (with age in parentheses):
1. John Smoltz (41)
2. Michael Young (31)
3. Carlos Zambrano (27)
4. Joe Nathan (33)
5. Mariano Rivera (38)
6. Chris Carpenter (33) (signed extension)
7. Jorge Posada (36)
8. Curt Schilling (41)
9. Bobby Abreu (34)
10. Ichiro Suzuki (34)
11. Andruw Jones (31)
12. Carlos Guillen (32)
13. Jeff Kent (40)
14. Mike Lowell (34)
15. Vernon Wells (29)
16. Jason Jennings (29)
17. Jake Westbrook (30)
18. Ivan Rodriguez (36)
19. Trevor Hoffman (40)
20. Freddy Garcia (32)
21. Kenny Rogers (43)
22. Torii Hunter (32)
23. Jason Isringhausen (35)
24. Omar Vizquel (41)
25. Marcus Giles (30)
26. Eric Byrnes (32)
27. Paul Lo Duca (36)
28. Bob Wickman (39)
29. Corey Patterson (28)
30. Adam Dunn (28)
31. Randy Johnson (44)
32. Scott Linebrink (31)
33. Doug Davis (32)
34. Michael Barrett (31)
35. Milton Bradley (30)
36. Jon Lieber (38)
37. David Eckstein (33)
38. Aaron Rowand (30)
39. Juan Uribe (29)
40. Bartolo Colon (35)
So it looks like they’ll just be more people that it would be worth investing in, as opposed to this year where Gil Meche gets $55 million and Juan Pierre gets $45 million. (sorry for the length).
December 7, 2006 at 6:30 pm
#68: I’ll bet the bullpen has something to do with it. I’m looking for 1-run records home and away — not sure if those stats are made available to the public. Anyone know?
#69: LM, you raise an excellent point. It may well be that we need to adjust our perceptions somewhat.
#71: Johan Santana notwithstanding, the vast majority of guys aren’t able to make the jump from Low-A to MLB. That said, the Royals are terrible so what do they have to lose?
December 7, 2006 at 6:34 pm
72: I should also point out that some of those guys will sign extensions, which could make the FA class a lot less impressive.
December 7, 2006 at 7:16 pm
Instead of seeing the payroll rank of teams that won the World Series, I’d be more interested to see the rank of teams that led their respective league in wins. We all know that anything can happen in the postseason, and looking at who the best team was for an entire season instead of just the month of October might be more telling.
December 7, 2006 at 9:37 pm
RE: #75 Great point from 2002 to present the White sox where the only non-wild card team to win the series (man thats an odd fact).
The only problem is what good is winning the regular season tittle if you dont win the world series, I can name off both teams that have played in the world series since I was prob about 10 but I could not tell you which team led the leauge in wins.
December 7, 2006 at 10:24 pm
76: I agree totally. I was trying to remember who led each league in wins recently and it was actually really tough. However, my point is that a high payroll probably has more correlation to high win totals in the regular season than it does success in the postseason. I’d like to do the research myself, but I can’t find anywhere that has payroll figures from years past.
December 7, 2006 at 10:26 pm
RE 72: I’d love to see Vernon Wells take Cameron’s place after next season (no offense to Mike at all, he’s great, but aging). And let’s put Jennings in Petco for half his starts versus Coors. Holy Cow! I bet he would be amazing, plus the dude can hit even if he does have hips like an old woman.
December 7, 2006 at 10:37 pm
What if Vernon Wells took Dave Roberts’ place this season? Stick him in right, move Giles to where he belongs in left, and all of a sudden we have one of the best defensive outfields ever, a great lineup, and a 90-win team on our hands.
/dream over
December 8, 2006 at 6:08 am
re 79: I heard Gammons or someone (Phillips maybe? if so, probably not accurate) mention this morning that the Blue Jays might have to move Wells to get some pitching, since they struck out on the pitching FA’s they wanted (guess they don’t want Zito).
If that’s true, would you trade Peavy or Young for Vernon Wells?
re 76: the Cardinals weren’t the wildcard either, so that’s 2 years in a row w/o the WC winning the WS
December 8, 2006 at 8:14 am
Re: 80 thats right the wild card team had a better record, my bad.
December 8, 2006 at 3:10 pm
I hope PMac gets to join the Padres.