Greed hits the Little Leagues

Winston-Salem, NC -- One of the more ludicrous stories that traveled across the news wire this week involved Major League Baseball (MLB) suing little leagues around the nation for the use of team logos and names. Because the team logos and names are trademarked, companies that produce the shirts, jerseys, and hats for Little League teams must cease production. If MLB is going to negate the use of their team names in Little League, wouldn't that create less enthusiasm and excitement for youngsters interested in watching their product? I know that MLB goes to great lengths protecting their patents and trademarks, and this use by Little Leagues may be a loophole, but c'mon, you're only casting MLB in a negative light; a greedy light for that matter.

One of the most anticipated parts of the Little League season was discovering which "team" you'd be playing for when the coaches would hand out the coveted shirts, hats, and pants before the first game. Growing up in suburban Maryland, every team wanted to be the Orioles. In my three years of Little League, I was the Braves(!), Giants, and Dodgers. I had a knack for the National League, what can I say. If you're going to take away that excitement and anticipation, MLB, then I hope the Supreme Court shoves it right back in your face. Baseball is a multi-billion dollar business. With different sporting options sprouting across the nation, the casual fan may choose to spend their entertainment dollars elsewhere. Not until somebody cuts a hole in that $6.5M revenue pouch will MLB try to "give back" to the fans.

P.S. -- I was always jealous of the Barnard Real Estate Services team jerseys. Not only did they have their names on the back every year, a la MLB style, but they had their first initial AND last name. Big Johnny always had to one-up us.

Financial Caution

Winston-Salem, NC -- As is the new trend in baseball front offices, more teams are locking up their younger players to long term contracts. The benefit to the player is that they achieve financial security without risking an injury. The gain that the club experiences is that the contract buys out the arbitration process (which could get expensive if the player produces in his first three seasons) and usually one or two years of free agency. Mark Shapiro initiated this trend by signing Grady Sizemore to a 6 year-$23.45M in early 2006. Sizemore is set for life with his $23M, and the club is able to save the potential tens of millions of dollars that Sizemore could have earned (by waiting for free agency and re-signing with the Tribe) when he hit the free agent market.

Before this new trend occurred, teams would salivate when eligible free agents hit the market. In the early part of this decade, we saw contracts spiral out of control. Now, teams are using extreme financial caution with free agents. Can you blame them? Let's look at the top 15 largest contracts in the history of baseball (courtesy of Cot's Baseball Contracts):

• Alex Rodriguez, New York Yankees, $275,000,000 (2008-17)
• Alex Rodriguez, Texas, $252,000,000 (2001-10)
• Derek Jeter, New York Yankees, $189,000,000 (2001-10)
• Manny Ramirez, Boston, $160,000,000 (2001-08)
• Miguel Cabrera, Detroit, $152,300,000 (2008-15)
• Todd Helton, Colorado, $141,500,000 (2003-11)
• Johan Santana, New York Mets, $137,500,000 (2008-13)
• Alfonso Soriano, Chicago Cubs, $136,000,000 (2007-14)
• Vernon Wells, Toronto, $126,000,000 (2008-14)
• Barry Zito, San Francisco, $126,000,000 (2007-13)
• Mike Hampton, Colorado, $121,000,000 (2001-08)
• Jason Giambi, New York Yankees, $120,000,000 (2002-08)
• Carlos Beltran, New York Mets, $119,000,000 (2005-11)
• Ken Griffey Jr., Cincinnati Reds, $116,500,000 (2000-08)
• Kevin Brown, Los Angeles Dodgers, $105,000,000 (1999-2005)

Out of the 15 contracts above, I can label four of them as "deals." I am going to throw out the new A-Rod deal because it's too early to judge that one. However, do you get the feeling that the new contracts awarded this year to Miguel Cabrera, Vernon Wells, and Johan Santana are already going to be busts? The Tigers have already moved Cabrera to first base. He'll be an expensive DH in a year or two. Vernon Wells stopped hitting after 2006, and now he's injured. I wrote in last week's blog about the declining numbers of Johan Santana. So, which of these contracts have turned out well for the team?

• A-Rod's first whopper netted him 2 MVP's. He'll be the home run king before his new deal expires.
• Manny's deal looked terrible in 2003 when he was placed on waivers. Since then, he's won 2 World Series with the Sox.
• Jeter is the cornerstone of the Yankee franchise. He hasn't let the Steinbrenner's down with that mammoth deal.
• This one is kind of borderline, but Beltran has played well in New York following his first year there in 2005.

Here are the gophers:

Helton, Zito, Hampton, Giambi, Griffey, and Brown.

Soriano's contract grade can be given an "incomplete." When he's healthy, Sori has put up big numbers for the Cubs. I'd say this contract is still too early to judge.

Still, throwing out A-Rod's new deal and Soriano's contract, four out of 13 (31%) of these whopper contracts panned out well. However, when the player is ineffective, it can set a team back for years -- Rockies (Helton, Hampton), Rangers (A-Rod), Giants (Zito), Orioles (Belle), D-Backs (Glaus, Russ Ortiz), Mariners (Sexson, Beltre).

Frugal teams such as the D-Backs, Marlins, and Rays are proving that spending your money in scouting and developing your players can produce better results than a high priced free agent. Mark Teixeira is going to earn big bucks this offseason, but it'll be a few tens of millions of dollars less than he would have received had it been before Sizemore's landmark deal with Cleveland in March 2006.

A Run-In with the Past

Winston-Salem, NC -- Growing up, unless they were the hometown team, I always rooted for a new team to win the championship regardless of the sport. In doing so, teams that built dynasties became my least favorite teams. In hockey, the Red Wings either won the Cup or were eliminated in the Conference Finals. They became public enemy number one when they swept my Capitals in the 1998 Finals. In basketball, when the Lakers won three consecutive championships, I grew weary of them. Seeing Shaq and Kobe winning every year was not only monotonous, but unfair. Nobody could stop Shaq. They quickly became my least favorite team in the NBA. Because the Capitals and Wizards don't have clear-cut rivals, the Red Wings and Lakers were and have been my least favorite teams in hockey and basketball, respectively.

Baseball and football are a tad bit different. Growing up in Maryland and pulling for the Orioles, I have always been a Yankees hater. More fuel was added to the fire when that chode Jeffrey Maier cheated and robbed Tony Tarasco of catching Derek Jeter's "homerun." In all of sports, there is no team that I 'd rather see lose than the Yankees. This year has been fun so far, but they're prone for a second half run so I'm not getting my hopes up. The Redskins-Cowboys rivalry has existed for decades. Since I bleed burgundy and gold, no team will supersede the Cowboys at the top of my hate list.

While the early 2000's saw three of the four teams win a championship (Yankees - 2000; Lakers - 2000, 2001, 2002; Red Wings - 2002), all four have never been good at the same time. Still, with the Red Wings on the brink of winning another Stanley Cup and with the Lakers one game away from reaching the Finals, I'm feeling a bit nostalgic, a la 2002. So, Sidney Crosby, please score some goals and make this a series! Tim Duncan, in last week's blog, I proved that not everyone hates you and your team. Let's win one in LA, send it back to The Alamo, win another, and then it's up for grabs in game 7. If not, I'll be cheering for Boston's Big 3 next week. Yankees, please continue down your current path of awfulness. Tony Romo, please keep dating Jessica Simpson. It's time for new teams to try on a ring!

Eye on Santana

Winston-Salem, NC -- This week has been especially good to the Braves as they just completed a four game sweep of the division rival Mets. The Mets traded four prospects and shelled out $137.5M for Johan Santana, the pitcher who is supposed to insert a plug into prolonged losing streaks. Santana, in his two Cy Young seasons (2004 & 2006), was particularly strong in the second half of those seasons. But, last season marked a strong contrast. Santana faded badly during the last six weeks of the season and ended up going 15-13 with a 3.33 ERA. Those numbers are still pretty good in the hitter savy American League. However, when you begin to grind into the statistics a little bit more -- as in ratios! -- you'll see that those numbers can be misleading. Check out Santana's production for the last three years (courtesy of Buster Olney's blog):

• K's / 9 innings: 9.44 (2006), 9.66 (2007), 7.79 (2008)
• K / BB: 5.21, 4.52, 3.87
• Opponents' OPS: .616, .678, .723

"One AL scout who saw Santana pitch this year: 'His stuff isn't even close to what it was [with the Twins].'"

I'd still take Santana over any starter if I had to win one game. Although, Tim Hudson would be difficult to pass over when he's "on." However, his minor inconsistency plagues me from picking him. Santana has the amazing ability to change speeds, as in using that devastating change-up after throwing a 95 mph heater. He's also a fantastic athlete as proven by his hitting ability this year in the National League. He'll continue to be an "effective" pitcher into his 30's, but how much longer will his dominance last? Scouts and writers believed that by switching to the National League, Santana's numbers would improve more with the lack of hitting talent compared to the American League. As Olney points out, the August 17th game last year where Santana recorded 17 strikeouts has been marked as a turning point. Since that start, Santana has an ERA above 4, allowed 20 HR's in 111 innings with only 102 K's (well below his average per 9 innings). The scarier part of the equation is his contract. Look at the annual totals after this season:

• 2008: $19M
• 2009: $20M
• 2010: $21M
• 2011: $22.5M
• 2012: $24M
• 2013: $25.5M
• 2014: $25M club option ($5.5M buyout).

By 2013, Santana will be 34, hardly a geezer for a pitcher. But if his numbers are already in decline, do you think the Mets front office is a tad bit worried? Glad I'm not a Mets' fan...

Drum Riffs

Winston-Salem, NC -- We haven't done a music blog in quite awhile, so to coincide with the beginning of this
warm weather, I thought that we'd do a new block of songs. When the weather is warm, I like to roll down the windows and crank some good tunes. Rather than find a particular theme in the countdowns previously posted in this blog, I thought that I would recognize songs that have cool drum riffs. In the summer, I, at least, tend to listen to more "uplifting" and fast-paced songs. It doesn't have to be the entire song, just a particular beat that makes you say, "that was cool!" I'll give it a whirl here:

• U2 - "Sunday Bloody Sunday" - The opening of the song is a drum solo. Who would of thought to put a solo there? The first of its time.
• U2 - "Bullet the Blue Sky" - The drums of this song play off of Adam Clayton's bass riff perfectly.
• Cheap Trick - "Ain't That A Shame" - An unknown song of theirs with an unknown riff in the middle.
• Phil Collins - "In the Air Tonight" - The transition after the opening stanza flat-out rocks.
• Foo Fighters - "My Hero" - I bet Dave Grohl had some input on the percussions of this tune.
• Rush - "The Spirit of the Radio" - Neil Peart, quite possibly one of the best drummers that ever lived.
• Frida - "I Know There's Something Going On" - This song was a recommendation as I'm not familar with it. I have no commentary.
• Bruce Springsteen - "Candy's Room" - An underrated song in Brice's expansive song catalogue.
• Wipeout - A cheesy song, but have you ever noticed that the words "dump" and "wipe" are used in the same sentence in this "hit?"
• Red Hot Chili Peppers - "Give it Away" - Just about all Chili Peppers songs have a good beat to them.
• Bow Wow Wow - "I Want Candy" - Cool beat, corny song.
• Wilco - "Heavy Metal Drummer" - Self titled.

Why hate the Spurs?

Winston-Salem, NC -- Radio personalities, television commentators, newspaper journalists, and bloggers have united in one common goal; dissing the San Antonio Spurs. My question is: why? The reasons that I can formulate in my head are as follows:

• They win every year (1999, 2003, 2005, 2007) or make a deep run in the playoffs.
• They lack personality.
• They're the only NBA team that plays defense in this golden age of 120+ point games.
• They knock off feel-good stories like this year's New Orleans Hornets, last year's 1st Finals appearance by LeBron James, and squashing the Nets' second attempt at their first championship in '03.

*****

Mike Wise, of The Washington Post, offers his opinion in his column today:

If they can send a reinvigorated Bryant and the Lakers packing in the Western Conference finals, they will have successfully removed Shaq and Kobe from the playoffs again while simultaneously ruining the best Finals story line David Stern could imagine: Lakers-Celtics Redux -- Kobe and the Lake Show vs. Kevin Garnett and Boston, 21 years after Magic's junior sky hook buried Bird. What is it about the Spurs, always beating the players and teams America wants to see win?

Another reason the country turns on San Antonio is because of Duncan's unemotional on-court
demeanor. He makes Alan Greenspan look like a hard partyer. Spock on antidepressants is more
exciting. But the real reason is that the Spurs continue to resemble the old geezers who show up at the YMCA each weekend, yell "Next!" and somehow figure out a way to hold the court against a bunch of uppity kids. After three straight blowouts in New Orleans, their season on the brink, the Spurs again made do in Game 7.
They basically made younger, superior athletes with fresher legs play their way, slowing down the game,
making every possession count. It was like taking a hyperactive kid off his medication, until he
became so antsy and frustrated he didn't know what to do except sulk and go away.
They specialize in making supernovas burn out before their time. And like Barkley said, they won't die.

*****

Unless it's a favorite team of mine, I never pull for dynasties or repeat champions; I'd much rather see a different team win every year, unless it's an arch rival of one of my favorite teams. But, I think, the Spurs are the lone exception on this list of mine. They are selfish, they play defense, which doesn't exist in the NBA, they aren't "thuggish," they play in a small market where the town really appreciates them, and most of all, they are humble. I was in San Antonio for the parade (purely coincidental) following their 2005 Game 7 NBA Finals victory over the Pistons, and the town was going crazy (even if it was their 3rd championship in 7 years). Tim Duncan may be boring, but he's the epitome of the ultimate professional athlete -- talented, humble, and produces. So before you start pulling for the circus-like Lakers and their 14 titles to win; stop, and remember The Alamo.

The Owner's Big 3

Winston-Salem, NC -- The owner of the San Francisco Giants, Peter Magowan, has decided to retire from his position of chairman and owner of the club. Measuring an owner's degree of success can be a tricky task because the team's win-loss record isn't the only factor. Attendance, spending, wins, and involvement in the community are all other factors to be considered. My general rule of thumb of determining if a particular owner had a successful tenure is based on three things -- "The Big 3" -- Ballpark (attendance), Marquee Player, and Rings.

• Ballpark -- What was the level of attendance at the ballpark? In this golden age of new edifices, did the owner (with help from his city) acquire the funds to build a new park?
• Marquee Player -- Was there a franchise player that the team was built around, and subsequently, somebody who could sell more game tickets, merchandise, and gain more national exposure?
• Rings -- Was the team able to build a successful contender, win a championship, then maintain it (the Marlins' Jeffrey Loria would fail in this category of "maintaining")?

According to my ratings, Magowan came within 6 outs (2002 World Series) of scoring an "A." Not only did he build a ballpark, but he built it with private funding. He didn't need to go the bureaucratic route and get thrown up a flag pole for funds. Magowan made, according to SI's Jon Heyman, the best free agent signing of the modern era in signing Barry Bonds in 1993 for 7 years-$43M. Despite the baggage, Bonds made Magowan a very rich man with the increase in merchandising sales, gate receipts, and coverage on ESPN. On the field, Bonds became one of the most prolific hitters in the game. And finally, while the Giants were yearly contenders through 2003, they came within 6 outs of winning a championship in the 2002 World Series.

The blemishes on Magowan's record are his ties to the steroids era and being a huge supporter of Bonds and his "lifestyle." I thought that he was in a difficult / powerful position last offseason on whether or nor to sign Bonds. By signing Bonds, he all but guaranteed controversy with the breaking of Aaron's sacred record. Another pitfall against Magowan is that he should have initiated the youth movement in 2005 when Bonds went down with season-ending knee surgery. Rather than trying to surround Bonds with more veterans and bloated contracts (see Zito (7 years-$126M)), the Giants should have begun rebuilding. Instead, they'll be set back three years. All in all, I'd give Magowan a solid B+ as a MLB owner. After all, he did save the Giants from moving to St. Petersburg, FL in 2003, an action that's unclassifiable.

Delgado's Classless Agent

Winston-Salem, NC -- To follow-up on Friday's payroll flexibility blog, I found this article in the New Jersey Star-Ledger about writer David Graziano's encounter with Carlos Delgado's agent, David Sloane. I used Delgado's contract as an example in my previous blog to illustrate how the Marlins are able to maintain payroll flexibility when everyone casts them as being a "poor" franchise. The agent who negotiated the outlined deal below with the Marlins hasn't negotiated another deal since Delgado's contract prior to the 2005 season.

You may believe that Delgado was unsatisfied with his deal and with being dealt to the Mets (where was the no-trade clause?) -- not the case! David Sloane is just one of the most classless individuals in the game, and the following transcript proves why agents don't "bring" anything to the game; they only "take" from the game.

From 5/11/08's New Jersey Star-Ledger by David Graziano:

*****

This afternoon, I got an e-mail from David Sloane, who is the agent for Mets first baseman Carlos Delgado and had a problem with something I wrote in my Sunday Notebook. about his client.

Now, I had heard stories about Sloane being unbalanced and unprofessional, but I was dazzled when I finally saw it on display.

His first e-mail to me came in at 11:58 a.m. It read, simply, "You're wrong on both the money and the terms" and attached the passage from my column that referred to Delgado's 2008 compensation:

"The money is almost a wash -- the Mets are paying Delgado $12 million in salary this year plus a $4 million buyout on his 2009 option for a total of $16 million, and the Mariners are paying Sexson $14 million. Delgado has a no-trade clause, and could veto any deal, but maybe he's sick of the New York circus."

Now, as I understand it, Delgado is making $16 million this year and the Marlins are paying $4 million of it as a condition of the 2005 trade that sent Delgado to New York. So when I wrote "the Mets are paying $12 million," I believed that to be accurate and still do.

So I wrote back to Sloane: "How so?"

His response came at 12:20 p.m.:"Ask your unreliable sources to look it up again."

As I mentioned, I'd heard about Sloane being belligerent and unprofessional, so I smiled and wrote back:
"Real classy and helpful. Thanks. If you can't tell me what I got wrong, I will assume I got it right and you're just living down to your reputation. As I understand it, he makes $16 mil this year and the Marlins pay $4 mil of it."
Yeah, I was egging him on, and maybe I shouldn't have, but I think what I wrote was pretty innocent, compared as you will see to where he ended up taking the conversation.

His response this time was fairly civil. It arrived at 12:33 p.m.:

"But that isn't what you wrote, you said he's making 12 & has a no trade which is wrong. But then why let a little thing like a fact get in the way of your journalism. As for my "reputation" you know what they say about people that can't take a joke."

I'm still not clear on the no-trade. It could be my mistake, in which case, if the agent wanted me to, I would happily correct it in next Sunday's notes. In most cases, I'd ask the agent to clarify. But in this case, the agent is obviously mentally ill.

I wrote back: "Sorry I missed your 'joke.' This is what I wrote:

'the Mets are paying Delgado $12 million in salary this year plus a $4 million buyout on his 2009 option'
I won't hold my breath waiting for your apology."

Glad I didn't. Because it didn't come. What did come was a total descent into immature madness by somebody who purports to be a major league player agent. Sloane wrote back at 12:40 p.m.:

"Apologize this retard, he's making 16 this year WITH an option for next year @ 16 or a buyout @ 4. Nice research by you but then I guess that whole concept of fact finding escapes you huh? They didn't teach that on the short bus did they?"

Seriously. Not making this up. I cut-and-pasted it.

Couple of thoughts here:

1. I don't respond when readers call me names, but I'm not surprised when it happens. But this guy is an AGENT. I mean, somebody you'd expect, even if vindictive and hateful, to act like a professional in his dealings with the media. I guess we don't have to wonder why he has no other clients.

2. If he thinks there's a chance in hell the Mets are picking up a $16 million option on Delgado for 2009, he's delusional on top of everything else.

Anyway, maybe I should have resisted, but I couldn't. I wrote him back again:

"That a joke too? You're a funny guy."

And then, at 12:46 pm, in apparent celebration of Mother's Day, David Sloane, the agent for Carlos Delgado, wrote back the following e-mail, which I present to you in its entirety: "So's your Mom."

And there you have it, folks. "So's your Mom."

My final thought, and I'll leave the rest to you guys to ponder: It's pretty darned impressive that Delgado got the contract he did with a nine-year-old for his agent.

*****

In case you missed the overall point; yes, Delgado is making $16M this year, but the Marlins are paying $4M of it. The Mets are paying $12M to Delgado this year. Sloane thought that Graziano believed the deal was only $12M total (putting Delgado at the lower tier of higher paid free agents).

Delgado ended up where he belongs... with the Mets, with one homer less than he should have after last night's blown call, and soon without a job after this year.

Hidden Cash in the Florida Marlins' budget?

Winston-Salem, NC -- I was asked this question the other day, "Where did the Marlins get the cash to sign Hanley Ramirez to a 6 year-$70M contract?" A couple of weeks ago, a contact of mine sent me a copy of the Florida Marlins "P&L" statement from last year (2007). The balance sheet below, compiled by Jorge Costales, CPA of http://www.2thinkgood.com/, is very revealing, and perhaps "misleading" to Phish fans. If the statement is illegible, click here for its direct link.

The Marlins, a classified "poor" team generated $36M of revenue last year. While they've experienced some losses during the past five years, in the end, the Phish still came out $44M in the black. This year, management slashed payroll even further (with the loss of Cabrera and Willis) to $21M from $30M last year. By offering Hanley Ramirez (who could be better than A-Rod one day) a contract with an AAV of $11.67M, the Marlins would increase their payroll by $11.2M ($11.67M - $467K 2008 salary) to $32M. If attendance, TV revenue, and revenue sharing remain the same, the Marlins are still very healthy financially. However, with the new ballpark expected to be ready by 2012-ish, the Marlins can backload the contract so the additional revenue created by the new ballpark will offset the pay-raise at the end of the contract. In the first three years of the contract, the Marlins could pay $4-5M/year. Therefore, team payroll would only increase slightly. And, if the new ballpark falls through, the Marlins could always trade Ramirez (and his market friendly contract) to a mid/big market team.

The Marlins utilized this approach when they were courting Carlos Delgado a few years ago. Here is the structure of Delgado's 4 year-$52M contract:

• 2005: $4M
• 2006: $13.5M
• 2007: $14.5M
• 2008: $16M
• 2009: $16M option, $4M buyout

When the stadium financing fell through at the end of 2005, the Marlins traded Delgado to the big market Mets following the 2005 season. The Marlins were able to escape the larger portions of the deal, though they had to pay the Mets $7M in the deal. I think a similar strategy is in order with the proposed Hanley Ramirez deal. But let's not be fooled; let the numbers (P&L statement) dictate spending, not the mouths of owners.

Mascot Bloopers

Winston-Salem, NC -- There's nothing better than a good ol' fashioned blooper on the baseball diamond. I'm still working on concocting the ultimate highligh reel, but this one was too good to pass up.

• The Cincinnati Reds mascot loosing his head during one of those cheesey mid-inning promotions.
• Upon his return to Philadelphia, Aaron Rowand was reminded of his historic nose-breaking catch in centerfield two years ago by ... The Phillie Phanatic -- the best mascot in all of sports. If anyone can find this video clip of the Phanatic mocking Rowand of the catch, please pass it along.
• Ever wondered how Atlanta's subway system, MARTA, received its name? Check out this video that was sent to me from ol' pal P.K. Agarwalla. If you don't know what MARTA (Metropolitian Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority) stands for, please e-mail me directly.

Finally, here's an excellent Mother's Day piece that I found in yesterday's New York Times. Not to get sentimental on you...

Moneyball to the NBA?

Winston-Salem, NC -- I ran into this fascinating article in the New York Times this week about the front offices of NBA teams hiring stat geeks to build their rosters. My question is: what took so long? The NBA and NFL are both number two behind baseball in terms of being statistics-driven sports. Just like in Moneyball with the Oakland A's expelling the use of the sacrifice bunt and stealing bases in their playbook, Mike Zarren, the Celtics' stats guru, calculated a transposed statistic: the 3-pointer in the corner. If the A's reduce the percentage of making an out (sacrifice bunts, % of caught stealing, etc.), and thereby increasing their on-base percentage, the percentages are in their favor that they'll score a run. Consequently, in basketball, aside from the layup, the most efficient shot is a 3-pointer from the corner. Here, rather than any other point behind the arc, is where the highest percentage of baskets are made. So, be sure to have a 3-point specialist on your team, a la Ray Allen.

Conversely, the A's roster is compiled of thrown away parts who are willing to sacrifice individual statistics for the good of the team. Their job is to get on base -- period. On defense, their role is create outs -- even if the other team is attempting to move runners forward to a base closer to home. Take the sure out over the stellar double play. As Zarren puts it in basketball terms in the article: "What’s one of the most misused, misinterpreted statistics? 'Turnovers are way more expensive than people think,' Zarren says. That’s because most teams focus on the points a defense scores from the turnover but don’t correctly value the offense’s opportunity cost — that is, the points it might have scored had the turnover not occurred.'" Outs are more expensive than moving a runner from first base to second base.

As far as the other statistics that the Celtics and Zarren uses to evaluate players, they are sealed and probably going to the grave with Zarren unless he sells his soul. Within 5 years, we'll see some stat heads manning the front offices of the NFL.