Everybody and their brother has been talking about trades the past few days. A lot of big name players have put on new uniforms, most notably Ichiro Suzuki, but considering I just did a trade-related post last week, I figure I’ll wait until a week from now, the day of the trade deadline, and just do one big recap of the year’s trading season. Instead, I’d like to talk about another topic, one that I just barely scratched the surface of in last week’s post—the additional wild card spot implemented as part of a new collective bargaining agreement this offseason.

As I touched on last week, an extra wild card spot means a lot more teams consider themselves contenders at this point in the season than would have in years past. Right now, 11 of the 14 teams in the American League are either in a playoff spot or within four games of one. Similarly, half of the National League’s 16 teams are within four and a half games of a playoff berth. But the rule change has consequences that stretch far beyond more teams trying to buy at the trade deadline.

First of all, we should probably discuss the specifics of baseball’s first playoff expansion since 1995, when the wild card was first introduced. Since then and prior to this season, the three division winners and the second place team with the best record in each league would make the playoffs. Now, the two wild card teams in each league will play just one game to determine which will move on to the division series.

In the past, teams had one goal: make the playoffs. If they couldn’t win the division then they had to grab the wild card. Once you were in, it didn’t really matter how you’d made it as the challenge ahead would be the same: a five-game series. But with two wild card teams now facing off just to get to that five-game series, playoff spots are no longer created equal. So while a lot more teams are now playoff contenders, those jockeying for a wild card spot will at best go into the divisional series at a serious disadvantage and at worst do a whole lot of extra work (like spending big money at the trade deadline) to play just one extra game.

That play-in game is now what sets division champions and wild card teams apart. It may seem a small thing to play one extra game, but it actually changes things quite a bit. First of all, wild card teams are going to use their best pitcher in that first game, so as to have the best chance of moving forward. But that means when they move on to play the one seed, they’ll be using their second, third, and fourth pitchers against the opponent’s first, second, and third. They could get swept before their ace even gets the chance to take the mound, which in turn means possibly missing out on a single home playoff game. Even the wild card teams that win their 163rd game are far less likely to move past the division series.

Now a lot of you might be thinking “well duh, that’s kind of point the point,” and you’d be correct. The new system is somewhat reminiscent of the NFL’s, in which the top two teams in each conference are given a bye, and thus, an advantage, based on their performance in the regular season. Whereas in the past once a team was in the playoffs, they were effectually equals regardless of how they made it in, having a number one seed now actually means something.

As a result, a team with only a chance for a wild card spot, and thus just a 50-50 shot of making the “real” playoffs should hold off on selling the farm at the trade deadline. Vince Genarro, president of SABR, points out that playoff berths are a big money maker: “fans reward their home teams in the year(s) following a playoff appearance by stepping up their season ticket commitments, absorbing aggressive increases in ticket prices, spiking their viewership of telecasts, and increasing their sponsorship dollars. The deeper the run into October, the greater the fan enthusiasm and spending.” But how much reward is one more game going to bring in?

We’ll have to wait and see what consequences having an extra wild card spot will have on revenue, trades and the like. But there’s one thing we know for certain: if you want to know anything for certain, you’d better win your division.

Follow the writer on Twitter @NateKreichman.

The MLB trade deadline is a mere two weeks away. But so far, as a result of stipulations sprouting from the league’s most recent collective bargaining agreement, including the addition of an extra wild card spot in each league, the market has been quiet, too quiet. As one baseball executive told Yahoo’s Jeff Passan, “we’re all waiting for somebody else to make the first move.”

With that second wild card spot looming large, a lot more teams consider themselves contenders at this point in the season than would in years past. Eleven of the 14 American League squads are within two games of a playoff spot, and half of the NL’s 16 teams are within three.

What effect the surge in contenders will have on trade activity remains to be seen. When just about everybody thinks they have a shot at the playoffs, a lot of teams that might have been content to coast along become buyers. Just look to the Miami Marlins for your case in point. Despite currently being three games under .500, six back from that final playoff spot, and towards the bottom of the barrel in runs (28th), average (24th), on-base percentage (23rd), and slugging (23rd), they sent two prospects to the Astros for Carlos Lee. But just as many would-be sellers may be more inclined to hold on to their stars and see what comes of it.

Then there’s the new rules regarding compensatory draft picks to consider. In the past, a team that traded for a big name in his contract year knew that even if they couldn’t resign him in the offseason, they’d at least get an early draft pick for their troubles. Take the 2004 Carlos Beltran trade for example. The Astros weren’t able to sign him in the offseason, but they did get a pick in the supplemental first round of the 2005 draft (38th overall). If that trade happened today, they’d get no such selection. Teams will now only be compensated for players lost in free agency if they plays for that team the entire season, so a rental really is just a rental. Even if a player does stay in the same place all year, teams will only get draft compensation for a lost free agent if they tender him a “qualifying offer,” which is a one-year deal worth the average of the league’s top 125 salaries, or around $12.5 million.

All this means that even the best players on the trade market likely won’t command as much in return as they would have just last year. But at this point, the few teams that are looking to sell haven’t adjusted their expectations to match the new rules, which has contributed to the gridlock. However, as we get closer to the July 31 deadline, both buyers and sellers will get desperate, and the market is sure to heat up. As such, let’s countdown the five best players that just might find themselves in a new uniform come August.

5. Carlos Quentin, OF, San Diego Padres

This spot could just as easily have gone to Cubs’ righty Matt Garza, but there’s a dearth of hitting on the market this year, so Quentin’s value is skewed upward. Plus, I’m on a roll talking about guys named Carlos. Anyway, Quentin is currently hitting .266 with eight home runs and 21 RBI. Don’t discount him for that RBI total though, Quentin missed the first few weeks of the season due to injury and is the lone bright spot in perhaps the league’s worst offensive lineup  (the Padres are dead last in runs and slugging, 27th in average, and 25th in OBP). More important than any of those stats is Quentin’s.391 on-base percentage.

CBS Sports’ Jon Heyman reported that at least four teams, Cincinnati, Pittsburgh, Cleveland, and Miami, have expressed interest in Quentin, although it’s uncertain whether the Marlins are still in the running following the Lee acquisition. Additionally, the Tigers and Blue Jays were once believed to be targeting him, but that may no longer be the case.

4. Ryan Dempster, SP, Chicago Cubs

With a record of 36-52, which has them 13.5 games behind in the NL Central, the Cubs are one of the few definitive sellers in the league. The 35 year-old Dempster has made 14 starts this year and has a record of 5-3, a 1.02 WHIP and a major league best 1.86 ERA. Plus, after throwing six shutout innings in a win against the Reds on Friday, Dempster has now gone 33 straight innings without giving up a run. That’s the longest scoreless innings streak for a Cubs pitcher since 1969 and is the longest in the majors this season. Orel Hershiser owns the record for the longest such streak, the righty pitched 59 consecutive scoreless innings in 1988.

The Sporting News reported that as many as ten teams (including the Braves, Red Sox, White Sox, Indians, Tigers, Dodgers, Yankess, and Nationals) have expressed interest in Dempster, and that a deal could be imminent. On Monday, ESPN’s Buster Olney tweeted that the Red Sox have been Dempster’s most agressive suitors.

3. Justin Upton, OF, Arizona Diamondbacks

Upton is a two-time all-star and finished fourth in the NL MVP voting last season after hitting .289 with 31 home runs, 88 RBI, and 21 stolen bases. The 24 year-old outfielder’s numbers have dropped off this season, but given his youth and upside, he’s one of the deadline’s hottest commodities. Yesterday, Paul Swydan of Fangraphs discussed just how rare it is for a player who’s had as much success as Upton has at such a young age to be traded. Nonetheless, Diamondbacks GM Kevin Towers has stated publicly that he’s open to discussions.

The Pirates, Braves, and Rangers have all expressed interest in Upton. On Monday, Fox Sport’s Ken Rosenthal reported that if he so desired, the young slugger could use his no-trade clause to prevent being dealt to four teams: the Yankees, Red Sox, Indians, and Cubs.

2. Zack Greinke, SP, Milwaukee Brewers

Greinke is having one of the best seasons of his career, the 28 year-old righty is 9-3 with a 3.57 ERA, 1.25 WHIP, and 117 strikeouts in 116 innings pitched. A bad month of July and a recent announcement that he’ll be given 10 days of rest before his next start, which is now scheduled for July 24, might make some less willing to make a deal. However, a number of teams, including the White Sox and Angels have expressed interest. And why not? Greinke is the best pitcher on the market, bar one, and is smack dab in the middle of his prime. Jon Heyman reported that the Brewers were ready to offer Greinke a five-year deal worth $100 million, but were skeptical that he would accept their bid mid-season and forgo a run on the open market. If they don’t think they can resign him, it might be in the Brewers’ best interest to make a deal, considering their 42-47 record, which has them eight games back in the NL Central. The team will surely be weighing all possibilities: resigning, losing him in free agency and getting some compensatory draft picks, or making a trade for prospects.

1. Cole Hamels, SP, Philadelphia Phillies

Who else could be number one? This year, Hamels is 11-4 with a 3.07 ERA, 1.09 WHIP, and 125 strikeouts in 126 innings. Hamels’ situation is near identical to Greinke’s, only the stats are better and the financial numbers are bigger. The Phillies are prepared to offer the 28 year-old lefty a five-year deal worth $120 million, but like Greinke, it’s doubtful Hamels accept anything midseason and forgo a chance to test the waters of free agency, where he will command big money, like $25 mil a year big.

Scouts from seven different teams were on hand to see Hamels pitch an eight inning, six hit, one run gem in Denver on Sunday. The teams represented were the Rangers, Pirates, Tigers, Marlins, Dodgers, Giants, and Angels. But the same day, Jon Heyman listed ten teams that wanted to be Cole-powered. Four of them (Texas, Detroit, and both LA teams) were among those that sent Scouts to Colorado, but Heyman also included the White Sox, Red Sox, Braves, Orioles, Yankees, and Blue Jays in the list of Hamels’ potential suitors. So between those two reports, 13 teams, or nearly half the league, has expressed interest in acquiring the Phillies’ ace. It’s going to be an interesting two weeks.

Follow the writer on Twitter @NateKreichman.

If you, like me, live in fear of the fall of 2011 having no NFL football, but don’t understand all of the legal mumbo-jumbo associated with the labor dispute, I’m hear to put things in terms we all can understand.

First things first, and that is that the owners unanimously opted out of the current CBA (Collective Bargaining Agreement) in 2008, one that they had signed off on in 2006. Since I’m making this as easy as possible to understand, let me tell you that a CBA is the agreement two sides, usually labor and management, come to on various topics, most of which include how money will be divided. And in this case, the owners realized that player salaries were escalating out of control and that their profits were being squeezed more each year. Yes, part of the problem is they are agreeing to these salaries, and player agents are a huge part of that. In the bigger picture, the real problem is revenue sharing, a.k.a. how to split the financial pie. And while the NFL is bringing in a ridiculous amount of money ($7.6 billion in 2008), about 62% of that goes to player salaries, a number that keeps climbing due to increases in the overall salary cap. To make matters worse, there is also revenue sharing among teams, meaning the big market teams have to help the small market teams to help them compete with each other on the field.

So the owners want something like 18% of the pie back, in the form of salary cuts to the players. Naturally, the players do not want to give them this money back, and that is why head of the players’ union DeMaurice Smith announced during the Super Bowl’s hype week that the chance of a lockout were a 14 on a scale of 1 to 10. For his part, NFL commissioner Roger Goodell denounced that, saying he hoped it wouldn’t come to a work stoppage, but he also knows that it’s a very real possibility. The players aren’t necessarily saying they won’t give part of the pie back, either. Smith wants the owners to show the players that they are struggling to run their businesses, meaning he wants them to open up their books. And the owners won’t do it. So are the numbers being reported not what they say? It’s hard to say the owners aren’t lying about these numbers, when they keep agreeing to player contracts and they keep building huge state-of-the-art stadiums, but they also have the right to not open their books if they don’t want to. And the bottom line is that the owners are not happy about doling out more and more of their profits.

Then, of course, there is the issue of an uncapped 2010 season. The current structure calls for a salary cap through the 2009 season, with 2010 being an uncapped year if the owners opt out of the CBA, which they did. Last time this happened, in 1993, player salaries rose to 69% of NFL revenue, and that is expected to happen again. But of course, nothing is guaranteed in 2011, so the players have to be careful of what they wish for.

If organized sports have taught us anything, it’s that the possibility of no games being played can and will happen. You might remember the NFL had a similar situation in 1987, and the owners used replacement players for a few games before the dispute was resolved and the regular players went back to work. MLB cancelled the last two months of the 1994 season as well as the playoffs and World Series, a black mark they have not recovered from. The NBA had a similar situation in 1998-99, with almost half a season being wiped out. And of course, the freshest in our memories is the NHL’s 2004-05 season that was not played due to a labor dispute.

So as fans, we have to hope a few things happen between now and the summer of 2011, which is spewing a black cloud that keeps getting darker and more imposing by the day. We have to hope the owners agree to open up their books, and we have to hope the players agree to give back part of the pie for the health and financial well being of the NFL. Sure, we want the players we love to watch get the money they deserve, but within reason. Certainly it’s not worth much to anyone to have no NFL games being played, but it may very well come to that.

Of course, the NFL is not the only business that would be affected by a lockout. Besides the local businesses near stadiums that thrive during the season, fantasy football and all of the money (reported as upwards of $3 billion in 2007) associated with that is threatened here. Think about that for a second. The folks that make their livelihood in that world will be flattened financially. Well, maybe that’s going to be the subject of my next piece on this, but for the moment I wanted to do my part to help everyone understand the dispute between owners and players, and what it all really means.

Many think that a lockout won’t really happen, and I’m optimistic myself that it won’t. But history surely does make us all nervous, doesn’t it?

Whenever I see the acronym “CBA,” I still think of the Continental Basketball Association, which is apparently still around, but only had four teams to start the season — the Albany Patroons, the East Kentucky Miners, the Lawton-Fort Sill Calvary and the Minot Skyrockets. Seriously.

CBA also stands for the NBA’s collective bargaining agreement, which is essentially the agreement between the league, owners and its players regarding salary cap structure, trades, length/size of contracts, etc. Commissioner David Stern wants a major overhaul to account for the number of franchises in financial straits, but Billy Hunter, executive director of the NBA Player’s Association says the current system is just fine.

“One of the principle issues is that some owners are having a hard time with cash flow,” Hunter said. “I don’t see why that automatically means more give-backs from the players. It seems to me a new revenue-sharing plan among the owners is one of the things they have to look at. Then you wouldn’t be looking to the players every time there’s a shortfall.”

The current labor pact, signed in July, 2005, will expire in June, 2011. No substantive talks with the league on a subsequent deal will begin until after July 1, Hunter said, because union president Derek Fisher and other board members are involved in the playoffs. The current system guarantees the players 57 percent of basketball-related revenue (BRI).

Hunter declined to outline what the players might be seeking in the new deal, but a source said repealing the age limit, reducing the amount of player salaries held in escrow, loosening rules concerning restricted free agents and changing the league’s disciplinary system top the list.

The biggest points of contention are likely to be the age limit and the disciplinary system. The current deal requires a player to be 19 — and one year removed from high school in the U.S. — before he is draft-eligible. There has been talk that the league would like to raise the limit by another year, but one union source said “90 percent” of the current players are against it now.

Hunter’s logic is interesting…

Read the rest of this entry »