MLB, MLBPA disagree on whether to play 162 games in 2021

The constant labor disputes in Major League Baseball are so tiresome. I don't even have the energy to comment on this too much, but since it's the news of the day in the sport, here's a link that describes what is happening.

In a nutshell, the owners want players to be vaccinated for COVID-19 before they arrive at spring training, and as far as they're concerned, they don't care if that means backing up the start of the regular season until May.

The MLB Players Association disagrees. Players believe they've proven they can follow the protocols and play a full season -- with full pay, of course.

So, get ready for another knockdown, drag-out taffy pull between unreasonable people.

If I thought owners were legitimately trying to delay the season for health and safety reasons, I could respect that. Alas, I don't buy it. I think owners want to delay the season because they don't want to take the financial hit of more games being played without fans in the stands.

I believe we will see fans in the stands before the 2021 season comes to an end. In fact, I think we'll see it by the summer. But it won't happen in April.

Like any fan, I want 162 games. I will return to the ballpark as soon as it is allowed. Hell, I'd go to the ballpark today, if there were a game to be played. I'm hungry for baseball. I miss it as much as I do in any other offseason.

It's going to piss me off to no end if the season is delayed or shortened because of purely financial reasons.

Opening Day is July 24; let's hope this all works out

Must admit, I'm surprised the league-imposed 2020 Major League Baseball schedule is going to be 60 games. I figured the owners would want a 48- or 52-game schedule, but I suppose by playing 60, they increase their chances of winning in court when the MLBPA inevitably files a grievance arguing that owners didn't bargain in good faith.

Anyway ... the latest news ... the union informed the league Tuesday that it will comply with the imposed outline for the 2020 season. Players will report to spring, err.., summer training on July 1, and the season is expected to begin July 24.

The two sides still are working to finalize health and safety protocols. The league is expected to conclude its regular season Sept. 27 -- for those scoring at home, that means 60 games in 66 days. The usual 10-team playoff format applies, and that should be over by the end of October.

If the league and the players can avoid having this whole thing shut down by stupid COVID-19. Let's hope the infections are kept to a minimum, and that we can have baseball. Well, hopefully, there are no infections, but I'm not sure how realistic that is.

MLBPA votes down 60-game proposal

The MLB Players Association voted, 33-5, on Monday to reject Major League Baseball's proposal to start the 2020 season, sources say.

The vote was conducted by the union's eight-member executive committee, plus one player representative per team.

The proposal called for:

• a 60-game season
• a 16-team expanded playoff
• prorated pay for players
• no additional salary guarantees should the season be canceled because of COVID-19
• the union to waive its right to file a grievance claiming the owners did not negotiate in good faith

The guess here is that fifth and final statement was the sticking point.

Where do we go from here? Well, we wait for MLB commissioner Rob Manfred to tell the players "when and where" the 2020 season will begin, if it begins at all.

I think there are three ways this could go. MLB could cancel the season, fearing that COVID-19 could torpedo the playoffs in October, thus cutting off a large source of revenue that owners are counting on.

Or, Manfred could call for a season of 48 games, get the regular season over as quickly as possible, and hope for the best with the usual 10-team playoff.

Or, owners could be altruistic, have Manfred mandate a 60-game season and hope the playoffs get completed.

As a baseball fan, I hope the last option will happen, but rationally, I know better. We are looking squarely at one of the first two options I mentioned.

A 75% yes vote would be required to pass any plan Manfred chooses to implement. If eight owners vote to cancel the season, there will be no season.

Finally, a glimmer of hope in the MLB negotiations

Major League Baseball commissioner Rob Manfred issued a statement Wednesday, and here it is:

“At my request, Tony Clark and I met for several hours yesterday in Phoenix. We left that meeting with a jointly developed framework that we agreed could form the basis of an agreement and subject to conversations with our respective constituents. I summarized that framework numerous times in the meeting and sent Tony a written summary today. Consistent with our conversations yesterday, I am encouraging the Clubs to move forward and I trust Tony is doing the same.”

Nothing has been agreed upon yet, but The Athletic's Ken Rosenthal and Evan Drellich posted a good article Wednesday night outlining the progress toward a deal that could start the 2020 season.

During the face-to-face meeting between Manfred and Clark, the owners offered a major concession: Players will get their full prorated salaries if the season is played. The league proposed a 60-game season that would start about July 19 or 20 and take place over 70 days.

The number of games remains a sticking point, according to The Athletic report. Players would like 70 games, of course, to maximize their earnings. The owners want 60 games, but with the season being played over a period of 70 days, perhaps there is room for compromise in there. Maybe 65 or 66 games in those 70 days?

If the season is 60 games, players would receive about 37% of their salaries, which is more than in any of the previous offers made by the owners. If 65 games are played, players would get 40% of their salaries, and I think that might be enough to broker a deal.

The league also has asked the union to consent to expanded playoffs in 2020 and 2021, and waive its right to file a grievance over scheduling. The latter would be a big concession from the union, but I don't think it's too big of an ask given that the owners have moved to allow full prorated salaries to be paid.

Let's hope this is the beginning of the end of this whole sad episode, and that we can have baseball back in about a month.

Rob Manfred takes his shot at title of worst commissioner ever

Rob Manfred on June 10: "We're going to play baseball in 2020, 100 percent."

MLB Players Association: "Tell us when and where."

Rob Manfred on June 15: "I'm not confident [there will be a season]. I think there's real risk, and as long as there's no dialogue, that real risk is gonna continue."

You can't help but hate the commissioner of Major League Baseball. After all, he hates baseball, a game many of us love. He's threatening to pull the plug on the 2020 season on the same day he's appearing on an ESPN special called, "The Return of Sports."

Oh, the irony.

Add his gross mismanagement of the restart negotiations to a list of transgressions that includes his push to destroy minor league baseball, his asinine handling of the electronic cheating scandal and his plans to implement a laundry list of ridiculous rule changes, and you have the worst commissioner in the history of baseball.

These talks on the potential restart of the season amid the COVID-19 pandemic have been a farce, with the owners repackaging the same offer over and over again. Every thing they've offered ends in the same place, with the players being offered between 33% and 35% of their prorated pay. They're not going to take that; get a clue, Manfred!

And it's asinine for the owners to say the players are acting in "bad faith." The owners have done nothing but act in bad faith for years, screwing players over with service time manipulation, refusing to sign middle-tier free agents, stocking rosters with Quad-A players to "tank" seasons in the name of better draft positions, and downplaying players' abilities in arbitration hearings.

Granted, none of these things are against the rules. Some say it's "smart business," but one man's "smart business" is another man's bad faith. Over the past few years, we've routinely seen players get outleveraged on the business side of the game, and what's the response? "Welp, the players need to negotiate a better deal."

OK, fine, and now the players are, in fact, taking a hard line to try to get a better deal. Can you blame them? I can't.

I'm left with the conclusion that the owners simply don't want to play this year, because they will lose money, and they are sending Manfred out there to do their bidding.

Newsflash: In the middle of a pandemic, nobody is making money this year. It's about mitigating losses and living to fight another day right now. MLB is going to have even more trouble when another day comes because of all the bad will it is building up with fans and players right now.

I mean, let's be honest about this. If attendance suddenly shot up, would owners tack on some of those extra revenues to player contracts? Of course not. The contracts were signed, and a deal is a deal.

The same is true when the opposite happens. There will be no attendance, so revenues are going down. But you know what? The contracts were signed, and a deal is a deal. Both sides have to abide by the agreed upon terms regardless of what the overall revenues are.

The players are entitled to earn the salaries they negotiated, prorated to the number of games they play -- if any -- this season.

If Manfred was any kind of leader at all, he'd explain this to the owners. The owners are stewards of the game, and they are responsible for its long-term well-being. Right now, they are hurting the game's long-term well-being in the name of trying to avoid losses in 2020.

It's a failing strategy.

MLB's latest proposal for a 76-game season doesn't help matters

Reports that MLB would not offer another proposal for resuming play apparently were false, as the league apparently sent the players association a new proposal on Monday.

Too bad it isn't going to bring us much closer to starting the 2020 season.

Here are the particulars:

• There would be a 76-game regular season, ending Sept. 27. Playoffs would conclude at the end of October, as per usual.
• Players would only be guaranteed 50% of their already prorated salaries for the regular season. If the postseason is completed without a "second wave" of COVID-19 in the fall, players would receive up to 75% of their prorated salaries.
• Draft pick compensation would be removed for the upcoming free agent class. In other words, if you sign a free agent next offseason, you don't have to forfeit a draft pick to the team that you signed the player away from. In the past, this rule has been cited as a reason why teams shy away from signing veteran free agents.

This deal is not going to interest the union, and here's why: Even if the postseason goes off without a hitch and this plan is seen through to its entirety, players would receive only 35 percent of their usual salaries.

By way of comparison, if commissioner Rob Manfred unilaterally imposed a 50-game season with players receiving prorated salaries -- which Manfred is allowed to do according to a deal agreed upon in March -- players would receive only 31 percent of their usual salaries.

If you're a player, do you want to play 26 more games -- and risk your health 26 more times -- for such a small increase in pay? I'm guessing not.

The owners' first proposal included 82 games and a "sliding scale" of salaries, and the players' cut in this 76-game proposal is only percentage points higher.

In other words, the owners are basically proposing the same thing over and over again: 82 games, 50 games, 76 games, it doesn't matter. All of these proposals have the players receiving roughly the same amount of salary.

The owners want the public to believe they've moved, going from 50 games to 76, but in the players' eyes, they haven't really moved at all.

It's still hard to be optimistic that we'll see baseball this summer, even with the country crying out for entertainment and some normalcy.

Why 'safety' won't determine when I return to the ballpark

If the 2020 baseball season is played, we know it likely will be played without fans. Even if the White Sox are allowed into Guaranteed Rate Field this year, you and I and other common folks probably will not be.

But what about 2021? As a season-ticket holder, I routinely receive surveys from the Sox. The most recent one covered a wide variety of topics, but the most interesting question addressed what fan attitudes will be like in the post-pandemic world. Or, maybe it seeks to find out what fan attitudes will be like in a post-COVID-19, pre-vaccine world.

I was asked to rate on a scale of 1 to 5 how safe I would feel about returning to Guaranteed Rate Field to watch a ballgame -- with 1 being "not safe at all" and 5 being "very safe."

I chose 5.

If baseball opened its gates tomorrow, with normal day-of-game rules in place, I would be fine going to a game. We all know that's not going to happen, but clearly, we're dealing with a hypothetical situation here anyway.

The Sox allow you to offer comments when you fill out these surveys, and I took the opportunity to explain to them that "safety" will be irrelevant when it comes to my decision on when to return to the ballpark.

I explained that I simply am not willing to come to a game if I'm going to be forced to practice social distancing. What fun is it to sit three or four chairs away from your friends? And, if you think I'm sitting there wearing a mask for three and a half or four straight hours, you can forget it. Restrictions on concessions and restroom use? No thank you. Nope. Sorry, no sale, not coming.

You see, I'm not going to pay my hard-earned money to come to the game if I'm going to have some off-duty cop barking orders at me about where to sit, where to stand and what to wear. That's not my idea of a good time.

I understand that the Sox may have no choice but to impose rules such as that, either at the direction of the government or league officials, but if that's the case, I will simply exercise my right to stay home.

The moral of this story is I'm not interested in anyone's Third World, totalitarian experience, with government-imposed crackdowns and some idiot governor who thinks he's king deciding what is best for me and my family.

I'll come back to the ballpark when it gets back to being the fun experience I've always known and enjoyed since I was a child. That has little to do with safety. It's about entertainment and value for my money, plain and simple.

MLB owners OK plan that could start 2020 season in July

Major League Baseball owners on Monday approved a plan that would allow for the 2020 season to start Fourth of July weekend -- without fans. Negotiations with the Major League Baseball Players Association will reportedly begin Tuesday.

The guess here is this will all fall apart because of a dispute between owners and the players' union about money -- this is ridiculous and petty, given that millions of Americans are out of work during the COVID-19 pandemic -- but more on that later.

Here are the nuts and bolts of the plan:

1. Each team would play 82 games against clubs within their own division, plus nearby teams from the opposite league.

2. Fourteen clubs would make the playoffs instead of 10 -- three division champions and four wild-card teams from each league.

3. Teams would play at their own ballparks, unless not allowed for medical or political reasons. Backup locations would be spring training sites. In other words, I hope the White Sox like Glendale, Ariz.

4. A universal DH is likely.

5. Rosters would expand from 26 to 30 players. Expect teams to carry extra pitchers, since the long layoff is harder on arms than it is on position players.

6. The All-Star Game, scheduled to be in Los Angeles this year, will not be played.

Spring training could resume in mid-June, if the owners and players can come to an agreement on what to do about salaries -- and given the first-rate jerks involved in these negotiations, I'm not counting on it.

In March, the players agreed to take a prorated portion of their salaries for the 2020 season, and union chief Tony Clark says that negotiation is over.

Owners, however, want players to get a 50-50 split of revenues during the regular season and postseason. Why? Well, without fans, revenues will be down, and owners want the players to help absorb some of that hit.

The players' union considers this to be tantamount to a salary cap, and frankly, there's no way in hell they are going to agree to that.

So, billionaires will be fighting with millionaires over large sums of money, as everyday people in America are trying to hang on with the economy in the toilet while enduring a once-in-a-century health crisis.

Aren't the optics great on that?

It's too bad because baseball has a great opportunity here. ... Most of us are going to be stuck at home -- notice I said stuck at home, not safe at home -- for the foreseeable future, and we would love some live sports to help us through. There's no question ratings will be up if a baseball season is played. What else do we have to do besides watch?

Now, that said, if the season gets torpedoed because the players have health concerns, I totally understand. I may not like it, I may be sad, but I'll understand. You can't really criticize someone, or a group of people, if they say, "I'm not doing this because it is a risk to my health."

However, if the season is not played because of disputes about money, all you can really do is shake your head.

Will home runs continue at absurd rates when baseball returns?

Pete Alonso led MLB with 53 homers in 2019.

Editor's note: I apologize for the radio silence on this blog as of late. I don't want to get caught up in the speculation of whether there will be a 2020 baseball season. I don't know. You don't know. Nobody knows, so why spend any time on it? I will try to do a better job in May of posting things that I find interesting about the great American game.

One of the things I'll be watching when baseball returns is whether home run totals continue to spike in video game-like fashion, as they did in 2019.

Most of us already are familiar with the absurd numbers. The 2018 New York Yankees set a single-season home run record, hitting 267 as a team. That record lasted one year, as four teams surpassed that total in 2019.

The Minnesota Twins hit an almost-unbelievable 307 homers as a team, followed by the Yankees (306), Houston Astros (288) and Los Angeles Dodgers (279).

Individual home run totals reached ridiculous heights as well, with 58 players totaling 30 home runs or more. How much of an outlier is that? Consider this chart:

Players with 30-plus home runs
2019: 58
2018: 27
2017: 41
2016: 38
2015: 20

A whopping 31 more players hit 30-plus homers in 2019 when compared to 2018. That total of 58 is even more than 2000, perhaps the height of the steroids era, when 47 players topped the 30-homer plateau.

Then there's this:

Players with 40-plus home runs
2019: 10
2018: 3
2017: 5
2016: 8
2015: 9

Ten players hitting 40-plus homers in 2019 pales in comparison to 2000, when 16 guys reached that milestone. But it's still a significant jump to go from three 40-home run hitters to 10 in one year's time.

Here's something else crazy to chew on while you're waiting out the COVID-19 pandemic: Before 2019, only 47 teams in the history of Major League Baseball hit 226 home runs in a season. In 2019, the league *average* was 226 homers -- that's equivalent to 25 home runs per spot in the batting order.

We already know we won't have a full 2020 season to use as a point of comparison, but if baseball resumes and we have, say, a 100-game season, if you see teams getting up to 140 or 150 home runs as a lineup, that's about the threshold where we'll be able to say the long-ball trend has continued.

MLB proposes changes to strike zone, intentional walks

Major League Baseball has made a formal proposal to the players union seeking changes to intentional walks and the strike zone, according to an ESPN report.

The changes are designed to increase the amount of offense in the game and (get ready to groan) "improve the pace of play."

Am I the only one annoyed that people still are bitching about pace of play in baseball? The Super Bowl took three hours, 47 minutes to play this past Sunday night, yet nobody seemed to care. Why does it matter if baseball games take three hours to play?

I'm a baseball fan. I want more baseball, not less baseball, so sue me.

End rant, now back to the topic. Here are the details on the proposed rule changes, as reported by ESPN's Jayson Stark:

• MLB's proposal would raise the lower part of the strike zone to the top of the hitter's knees. Since 1996, the bottom of the zone has been defined as "the hollow beneath the kneecap." But data shows that umpires have been increasingly calling strikes on so many pitches below the knees that, if umpires enforce the redefined strike zone, it would effectively raise the zone by an estimated 2 inches.
• The change in the intentional-walk rule would end the long-standing practice of requiring the pitcher to toss four soft pitches outside the strike zone. Instead, a team could just signify it wants to issue an intentional walk, and the hitter would be sent directly to first base.

I don't understand how or why the intentional-walk rule is under scrutiny from these "pace of play" people. There were 932 intentional walks issued in 2016, which will pencil out to one every 47 innings or so. That means there was an intentional walk issued in about one out of every five games.

Intentional walks are a small part of the game. They aren't causing games to run longer. Most baseball games don't have any intentional walks issued at all. Why are we even talking about this? Who cares? I'm for the status quo unless someone can convince me there's a reason for a change. I see no reason for a change. Make the pitcher and the catcher execute the intentional walk. That's part of baseball.

Raising the strike zone? I'm a little more open to that discussion. I don't care about pace of play -- at all -- but I would be in favor of more balls being put in play. I don't necessarily need to see more run-scoring, but it would be more exciting if fewer at-bats resulted in strikeouts.

My question is, would raising the zone achieve that aim? Stark's report indicates that perhaps there would be more hitters' counts if pitchers weren't getting so many strike calls at the bottom of the zone. Theoretically, more hitters' counts means more pitches to hit, more well-struck balls and more offense.

OK, fine, experiment with it in the minor leagues, then report the results back to me and I'll consider it. But I'm only going to be in favor if it makes the game more exciting. I'm not amenable to making rule changes just to make the games go by faster.

I still haven't figured out why baseball is the only sport routinely criticized for "taking too long." Football games can last four hours and nobody says a thing about it. It's ridiculous to me.

Major League Baseball plans to ban collisions at home plate

Rare is the case where I don't have a strong opinion on one of the hot-button topics in Major League Baseball. However, I have to admit I don't care if the league bans collisions at home plate.

The issue is back in the news after the league on Wednesday announced it intends to ban such plays by 2015 at the latest. Details of the new rules still need to be sorted out, but the owners are scheduled to vote on the changes at their Jan. 16 meeting. The players' union also would have to approve the changes for the rules to take effect in 2014.

How might those rules work? According to ESPN.com:

1. Catchers will not be allowed to block home plate.

2. Runners will not be permitted to target the catchers.

3. The question of whether or not the plate was blocked or the runner targeted the catcher will be reviewable, with an immediate remedy available to the umpires.

4. Catchers or runners who violate the new rules will be subject to disciplinary action.

The main reason I don't have a strong opinion on this is because I don't perceive injuries on home-plate collisions to be a major problem in the sport. Yes, San Francisco catcher Buster Posey suffered a season-ending leg injury on a such a play in May 2011. It was horrible to watch, and losing Posey ruined the Giants' season. However, Posey returned in 2012 and helped lead San Francisco to its second World Series title in three years.

I'm trying to think of another major injury that has happened recently on a collision at home plate, and I'm drawing a blank. I know the league is concerned about concussions. Former players in football and hockey have sued the NFL and the NHL, respectively, over concussion-related health issues. I'm sure Major League Baseball wants to protect itself from such a lawsuit, and that's probably among the reasons it is moving forward with this change.

If the league and the players decide the change the rules, that's fine. These plays at the plate don't happen all that often -- maybe two or three times per team during a 162-game season.

I'm just interested to see how it's going to work. I don't care that they're taking collisions out of the game. I don't need those to enjoy the sport. But depending on how the rules are written, this is likely going to add some tough judgment calls for umpires. We'll see if they can apply the new rules fairly and consistently, if the changes are approved as expected.

AL Central might be happy to see more Jason Vargas

The Royals signed left-handed starter Jason Vargas to a four-year, $32 million contract last week, no doubt hoping he'll fill the gap in their rotation left by the likely exit of Ervin Santana, who just turned in a terrific season for Kansas City.

While Vargas, with his 4.30 career ERA, including 4.02 last year for the Angels, probably can't match what Santana just did for the Royals (3.24 ERA over 211 innings), he can maybe improve what Kansas City got from guys like Wade Davis (5.32) and Luis Mendoza (5.36) across nearly 40 mostly poor starts.

To do that, Vargas is going to have to prove he's not the creation of his home parks. Toiling mostly for the Angels and Mariners, who both have pitcher-friendly homes, Vargas has a career ERA of 3.46 when he's sleeping in his own bed. When he hits the road, however, he's been reached for a 5.17 ERA.

There's some talk about how Kauffman Stadium, where the Royals play, is a good fit for Vargas. While the K might keep some home run numbers down, overall it isn't a pitcher's haven like the ballparks in Los Angeles or Seattle.

If the Royals think Vargas might have an advantage in some of the AL Central parks, the proof hasn't been in the pudding:

ERAs vs. AL Central Teams
6.31 vs. White Sox
5.40 vs. Indians
5.28 vs. Twins
4.60 vs. Tigers

It looks worse in each of those teams' home parks. Vargas has been slammed by the Twins for a .386/.440/.603 batting line against (9.16 ERA). The Sox have whipped him for a .283/.333/.554 line (6.45 ERA). The Tigers have mauled him at a .311/.354/.556 rate (8.71 ERA). Only the Indians have been held in check at home by Vargas for a .235/.291/.353 line (1.93 ERA).

Granted, you can divide numbers up into portions so small that they're meaningless. Vargas has pitched no more than 22 1/3 innings in any of those ballparks, though the aggregate picture when all of those innings are combined isn't pretty. Nor is the 5.31 ERA Vargas has turned in over 20 1/3 innings as a visitor to Kauffman Stadium.

Still, the Indians, who last year hit left-handed pitching much better than right-handed pitching, are probably looking forward to getting more cracks at Vargas. White Sox DH Adam Dunn, who at times struggles against left-handers, isn't going to be sad to see more of a guy who he has hit .429/.636/1.286 against in his career. (No type-Os there. Dunn has crushed Vargas.)

That's not to say the past keeps on repeating itself. Maybe Vargas will prove to be resilient. Perhaps now that he's reached his 30s he will remain durable, and is becoming crafty as we're sometimes wont to describe left-handers without great stuff.

I'm not seeing enough evidence of that to warrant the largess of this contract. Even understanding that in today's free agent dollars, $8 million per year isn't all that much, and might be within Vargas' reach to be worth that money, I don't know why the Royals had to rush out to make sure the ink dried on this deal before the end of November.

Not when there are so many better options still available, including a few options that might be better and much cheaper.

A position-by-position look at this year's free agent class

The free agency period has already begun in Major League baseball, so I figured we should take a look at the top players available at each position. I think I'm up-to-date on all the signings, but forgive me if I list someone who has already been inked to a deal.

The Philadelphia Phillies have been active early, picking up outfielder Marlon Byrd and resigning catcher Carlos Ruiz. Veteran pitcher Tim Hudson is also off the board; he was picked up by the San Francisco Giants on Monday.

For purposes of this list, I will not include international free agents, because I find players I've never seen play before impossible to rank.

As of Tuesday, Nov. 19, these are the best guys available, sorted by position:

Starting pitchers

1. Ubaldo Jimenez -- The right-hander made quite a contract push the second half of 2013. Jimenez had a better ERA than all pitchers not named Clayton Kershaw after the All-Star break. He regained the form he showed when he was with Colorado and was Cleveland's ace coming down the stretch.

2. Matt Garza -- Can you tell it's a weak crop of free agent pitchers this year? It must be if I have Garza at No. 2 on this list. The guy has plus stuff if he's healthy. That's a big if.

3. Hiroki Kuroda -- Might be a available on a one- or two-year deal. He tapered off in the second half this year, which hurts his value. Throws a lot of ground balls, which might make him appealing to teams that play in hitters' ballparks.

4. Ervin Santana -- He'll get paid because he had a solid year for Kansas City, but I wouldn't trust this guy. He has trouble putting together more than one good season in a row, which means it doesn't make much sense to offer him a multiyear deal.

5. Bartolo Colon -- Eventually the magic has to run out, right? Based upon his 2013 numbers (18-6, 2.65 ERA), he probably should be higher on this list. But the dude is 40. The decline has to start sometime.

Relief pitchers

1. Joe Nathan -- Speaking of old guys, Nathan will be 39 on Opening Day, but I can't find any relievers who are better than him on the market this year. The Tigers need a closer and are reportedly hot on the trail for Nathan.

2. Grant Balfour -- He's always had the power arm. He's got a great fastball, and he's effective as long as he controls his craziness on the mound. Throws a lot of fly balls and pop ups. Teams with short porches in their home stadiums should probably stay away.

3. Brian Wilson -- His late-season performance with the Dodgers was enough to convince me he's made it back from Tommy John surgery. He'll be an effective reliever for somebody, provided they can live with the fact that he looks like an ax murderer.

4. Joaquin Benoit -- The career setup man got forced into the closer's role this year in Detroit. He held up well enough that he'll get closer's money on the open market. Whichever teams pays him will be overpaying in my opinion.

5. Fernando Rodney -- His mechanics stink. He has trouble repeating his delivery. He walks too many guys. But, if he gets in a groove, he can dominate hitters for an extended period of time with his fastball-changeup combination.

Catchers

1. Brian McCann -- It seems like McCann has been around forever, but he's only 29 years old. He's a left-handed power bat at a position where it's hard to find players who can hit. He proved he was healthy this year, and you have to figure he's got at least three more prime years in him.

2. Jarrod Saltalamacchia -- Not the best defensive catcher in the world, and he strikes out a ton. But he's a switch-hitter with power, and he's only 28. Those two factors should net him a nice payday this offseason.

3. A.J. Pierzynski -- He's going to be 37, but his offensive skill set still seems to be there. Still an agitator, still one of the smartest players in the league.

4. Kurt Suzuki -- Hey, somebody has to be fourth on this list. Why not Suzuki? He's a decent defensive catcher.

5. Dioner Navarro -- Showed surprising power with the Cubs last season, hitting 13 home runs in a part-time role. I wouldn't count on that happening again.

First baseman

1. Kendrys Morales -- Can anyone tell me why Seattle didn't trade this guy for prospects last July? He's finally healthy, he's a switch-hitter who produces from both sides of the plate, and he's got good pop. He can't run a lick, and he's probably better suited to DH than first base. But I'd take him on my club for the right price.

2. Justin Morneau -- I don't think he'll ever regain the MVP form he had with the Twins in the past, but he can still be a productive hitter. If a team is looking for a left-handed bat to hit fifth or sixth in its lineup, it could do worse than picking up Morneau.

3. Mike Napoli -- Someone will overpay here. People think Napoli is a better player than he actually is because he just won a championship as a member of the Red Sox. In 2014, look for Napoli to hit 20 home runs, strike out about 180 times and make a lot more money than he's worth.

4. Corey Hart -- He didn't play in 2013 due to knee problems, which makes him a risk. It also means he'll come on a one-year deal. If healthy, he's a good bet to hit 25 home runs.

5. James Loney -- He got off to a hot start last season, but in the second half he turned into, well, James Loney. He hit only four home runs after the All-Star break. He's left-handed, but he doesn't have enough pop for an everyday first baseman.

Second base

1. Robinson Cano -- There is only one superstar available in this free agent class, and Cano is it. Typically, you see the Yankees find a way to retain their own free agents. I don't think that is anywhere close to a given with Cano, who is asking for $310 million over 10 years. The Yankees are offering $160 million over seven years. Can they bridge the $150 million divide?

2. Omar Infante -- His main value is his ability to play multiple positions. He also hit over .300 last season, which can't hurt him as he hits the open market.

3. Kelly Johnson -- Another guy who can play multiple spots. He hits left-handed and has some extra-base power.

4. Mark Ellis -- He plays good defense, and there is value in that when we're talking about middle infielders.

5. Brian Roberts -- He's been a good player when healthy. Problem is, he's never healthy.

Shortstop

1. Stephen Drew -- He struggled offensively in the playoffs and caught a lot of crap from Boston fans, but he's a strong defender at the most important position in the middle of the diamond. No, the bat isn't great, but he's the best of a weak crop.

2. Jhonny Peralta -- He can hit. That's the best thing you can say about Peralta. Defensively, he has no range whatsoever, and he's probably looking at a position change sooner rather than later. Put a bat in his hands, though, and he'll give you production.

3. Rafael Furcal -- Yes, he is still alive. He figures to be back from Tommy John surgery in 2014. Some team will roll the dice on him.

4. Clint Barmes -- He plays good defense, and there is value in that when we're talking about middle infielders. Oh yeah, I said the same thing about Mark Ellis, didn't I?

5. Ramon Santiago -- Can't play everyday, but can play multiple position. Useful in a backup role.

Third base

1. Eric Chavez -- Can you tell there are no good third basemen on the market? Chavez can't field the way he used to, but his bat is still good enough to make up one half of a platoon for somebody.

2. Juan Uribe -- The former White Sox shortstop can still play defense. He's best suited for a utility role at this stage of his career.

3. Michael Young -- The veteran could be a nice pickup for some team looking for a guy who can play three times a week and pinch hit. Might come cheap for a contending team.

4. Kevin Youkilis -- Yes, the former White Sox rent-a-player is still alive, although he barely played because of back issues in 2013.

5. Mark Reynolds -- Streaky power, tons of strikeouts. Somebody has to be No. 5 on this list.

Outfielders

1. Carlos Beltran -- He'll provide the best value among available outfielders. Yeah, he's getting old, but that means he can be had for a reasonable number of years and dollars. Not only does he still hit, he hits good pitchers well. He's as good as anyone in the postseason. He could benefit from a switch to the AL, where he could DH some to keep his legs healthy.

2. Shin-Soo Choo -- He does what a team needs its leadoff hitter to do: He gets on base. I think he was out of position playing center field in Cincinnati. A move back to right field will do him good. He's got some power, good speed and he's a good outfielder. The only drawback is his agent is probably going to demand a six- or seven-year deal.

3. Jacoby Ellsbury -- The most overrated player on the free agent market this year. Some stupid GM is going to give this player over $100 million, even though guys who make their living with their legs always start to decline around age 30. Guess what? Ellsbury is 30. Aside from one season (2011), Ellsbury has never been a power hitter. His two best skills are his basestealing and his ability to play center field. Those are two things that leave with age. Caveat emptor.

4. Curtis Granderson -- Injuries ruined his 2013, but he hit 40-plus homers in both 2011 and 2012. Even though his numbers were aided by the short porch at Yankee Stadium, a healthy Granderson figures to provide some power production. Would be a decent value for somebody, if the injuries are behind him.

5. Nelson Cruz -- His stock fell because of his Biogenesis suspension. Some will ask whether his power production is a mirage. Maybe it is. But some team is going to get him for cheaper than the usual market rate for a player with Cruz's numbers, and that could pay off.

Now for some useless predictions

It's been quite a week for Detroit Tigers ace Justin Verlander. He was on the cover of Sports Illustrated's baseball preview edition, which arrived in my mailbox on Friday. He also signed a record contract that could earn him as much as $202 million over the next eight years.

I can't blame the Tigers for locking up Verlander long-term. The guy is the best pitcher in baseball, bar none. But being a White Sox fan, I'm in the business of trying to jinx Verlander. Accordingly, he's pictured here on this blog with my season predictions. Hopefully, in combination with his appearance on the SI cover, this will cause him to have a crappy season and give the Sox a fighting chance in the AL Central.

Now, for some predictions. Mind you, I'm really bad at this. But hey, we're on the eve of a new season, and what's a baseball blog without some useless prognostication?

AL East
1. Rays
2. Blue Jays
3. Yankees
4. Red Sox
5. Orioles

AL Central
1. Tigers
2. White Sox
3. Indians
4. Royals
5. Twins

AL West
1. Rangers
2. Angels
3. A's
4. Mariners
5. Astros

AL MVP: Miguel Cabrera, Tigers
AL Cy Young: David Price, Rays
AL Rookie of the Year: Wil Myers, Rays

NL East
1. Nationals
2. Braves
3. Phillies
4. Mets
5. Marlins

NL Central
1. Cardinals
2. Reds
3. Brewers
4. Pirates
5. Cubs

NL West
1. Giants
2. Dodgers
3. Padres
4. Diamondbacks
5. Rockies

NL MVP: Matt Kemp, Dodgers
NL Cy Young: Matt Cain, Giants
NL Rookie of the Year: Shelby Miller, Cardinals

Playoffs:
AL Wild Card: Angels over Blue Jays
NL Wild Card: Dodgers over Reds

AL Division Series:
Tigers over Angels
Rays over Rangers

NL Division Series:
Nationals over Dodgers
Giants over Cardinals

ALCS:
Tigers over Rays

NLCS:
Nationals over Giants

World Series:
Nationals over Tigers

Come October, we'll come back to this entry and laugh about how wrong I was. Guarantee it.