Dis-parity

Well, that experiment failed miserably, didn't it? As my friend Matt pointed out, three times a week was something of a pipe dream. I barely make it to work three times a week and they PAY ME.

Yet, for a guy who added an entry almost daily for a decent chunk of last season, three times a week seemed like cake.

A bit more realistically, I'm going to shoot for twice a week, at least until the season begins. Those two days will be Tuesday and Friday. I should be able to manage TWO blogs a week, right?

The recent Santana deal dovetails nicely into my proposed discussion on parity, or the illusion of parity, which is what we really have in baseball and what we will always have in baseball without salary caps. I've often stated that the most hated man in America would be the commissioner who takes office, instills a salary cap, watches as all the owners and players strike, brings in minor leaguers to replace them, and then holes up for five to ten years as time passes and the country accepts this new version of the game. He (or she) would be the most hated man in America, yes, but would eventually be the most loved.

That person would also be shot before they could ever put such a plan in action.

As both Peter Gammons and Buster Olney (two of the best baseball reporters in the game) have said in recent columns, the Santana deal underscores that the rich keep getting richer. While it's nice that there was some semblence of a trade involved, the bottom line is that the Mets signed Santana as a really expensive free agent, one which cost them players as well as money. Ultimately, the prospects were secondary as there are plenty of teams with better farm systems than the Mets. The money is what mattered.

That's what I find most unfortunate about such situations. I've heard plenty of Red Sox fans defend their team by siting trades they've made. "We traded for Josh Beckett," they say, "we didn't get him as a free agent." Yes, but the only reason you got him was because you were able to take on Mike Lowell's giant contract as well. It's like the Yankees claiming they put their team together through trades and pointing to getting A-rod from Texas. Sure, there's some amount of trade involved, but it only happens because of the money involved.

Which brings us back to the Santana deal. There were exactly three teams in the running and, not surprisingly, they were three of the richest teams in the league. At the time, if he had gone to the Red Sox it would have been all over but the crying. Now, though, you have to wonder if Boston would have pushed harder, what with Schilling supposedly out for at least half the year. Had the Yankees gotten him, I think the Tribe's chances of going to the post-season would have diminshed greatly, as the wild card spot would have been spoken for (even though I think we'll win the division again this year). Thankfully, he went to the NL...

...but how thankful can we really be?

As pretty much everyone has pointed out, Santana's giant deal has priced Sabathia right out of the Indians' hands. I'd love to think that a love of Cleveland will keep C.C. there, but I can't help but think about Jim "they'll have to tear this jersey off my back" Thome.

The issue isn't whether or not the Tribe CAN pay Sabathia that kind of money, it's if they should. I have little doubt that they could come up with $20 million a year to keep C.C. around. But SHOULD they? Should they spend 1/3 of their entire payroll on one guy, one guy who only plays every fifth day? What kind of bats could you get for that money? What kind of a closer could you get next year for part of that money? Is the investment worth the return?

People who call the Indians cheap for not forking out big cash for players are missing the point. It's not a matter of having the money or even being willing to spend it, it's a matter of comparison shopping.

Which means all eyes turn towards Buffalo in hopes of seeing one or more guys who can step in, guys some Tribe fans would have had us trade during the off season, guys who could be the only thing that keeps this team competitive beyond 2008. But more on that Tuesday.

My prediction? If C.C. does hit the open market, I think he'll go to San Francisco. It's close to home for him, he'd dominate in the NL, he'd get to bat, and San Francisco has shown they're willing to spend money for pitching. And, honestly, by 2009 Sabathia could turn that team into a legitimate competitor.