It’s the tenth anniversary of the travesty that was the 2002 MLB All-Star Game. You know, the one that ended in a 7-7 tie and led to the decision that from then on, the winning side in the game would receive home-field advantage in the World Series. Prior to 2003, the year the rule was implemented, home-field advantage alternated between the AL and NL from year to year.  It’s one of three separate but inarguably connected rule-based controversies that dog the “Midsummer Classic” year in and year out. The second being that popular fan vote decides the starting hitters for each side. The third is that all 30 teams must have at least one representative in the game.

The rules are linked because what was formerly an exhibition game meant to showcase baseball’s best and brightest (in other words, a money-making scheme) now has actual value. As such, many take issue with the game’s starters being decided based on fans clicking mouses and sticking mini pencils through holes. Equally many argue that requiring a player from each team often leaves superior players off the rosters, which detracts from the notion that the contest spotlights the game’s best.

It’s impossible to gauge the impact of playing the first and last two games of the World Series at home. In the nine years the rule has been in effect, the American League has won the All-Star Game seven times. The AL won the game every year from 2003-2009, but its representatives were only champions in four of those seven years. The rule’s effects were minimal, if it had any, as the World Series never saw a seventh game. But in the past two years, the National League has had home-field. In 2010, the San Francisco Giants quickly won their first two home games, and had the Rangers playing scared en route to a 4-1 series victory. Last year was the first time the Series went seven, and the St. Louis Cardinals won the game, and the series, at home.

Even if it is impossible to truly gauge the effects, if you’re a fan of a contending AL team, does it sit right with you that Billy Butler might be in a position to decide if your team gets home-field advantage with two outs and the bases loaded in the ninth? Or if your team’s in the NL, that Huston Street (who has only pitched 21 innings this season) might have to get that final out? Those are just some examples of the possibilities of the “one from each team” rule. Let’s take a look at who the fans chose, and decide whether they deserve to be starting, or in some cases, even playing.

Read the rest of this entry »

The haunting images of Brooks Conrad turning this year’s postseason into his own personal error fest may soon vanish for Braves fans. That’s because Ken Rosenthal of FOX Sports is reporting that Atlanta may be on the verge of acquiring second baseman Dan Uggla.

Wait a tick, wasn’t Uggla the only player to make three errors in a single All-Star Game? Uh…yeah. Moving on…

Rosenthal writes that the Marlins would send Uggla to the Braves in exchange for Omar Infante and left-hander Mike Dunn. Not that Infante and Dunn are Neifi Perez and Armando Benitez, but really? That’s it, Marlins? That’s all you want for Dan Uggla? There’s reason to believe that Uggla won’t match his numbers from 2010 but the compensation here seems awfully light.

That said, this is just what Rosenthal is reporting. He’s a respected baseball reporter, but who knows what clubs are actually discussing at this point in the offseason. It’s early and Rosenthal may be way off in his report.

But if this were the deal that eventually goes down, the Marlins would be getting a steal.

I get it – baseball trades are fun. They’re fun to speculate about, they’re fun to debate and they’re fun to analyze. But just because a club needs a bat, an arm or is just looking to shrink salary, doesn’t mean that a trade needs to happen.

I’ve compiled a list of five trade rumors and where they originated. I then discuss why each of them makes sense, but why they also don’t necessarily need to happen.

Rumor #1: The Red Sox will trade for Pirates shortstop Jack Wilson (Pittsburgh Post-Gazette)
Why it makes sense: Boston is growing impatient waiting for Jed Lowrie to recover from a wrist injury that has held him out since mid-April. They’re also tired of watching Julio Lugo (who is equally bad offensively as he is defensively) make a mockery of the game whenever he trots onto the field. While Nick Green has done well filling in for Lowrie while he’s been hurt and for Lugo while he continues to work on being the most overpaid player in professional sports, the Sox feel they could do better with Wilson. (There’s also a rumor making the rounds that Boston wouldn’t have to give up any top prospects in order to acquire Wilson – they just would need to take on the rest of his salary.)
Why it doesn’t need to happen: Wilson is excellent defensively, but he brings very little to the table in terms of offense. He’s also overpaid himself, as he’ll make $7.25 million this year and $8.4 million in 2010 despite being limited at the dish. While waiting for Lowrie to return to the field has been a slow death for the Sox, he’s cheaper than Wilson and gives the team a better overall player at the position (when he’s healthy, of course). Plus, Green has played well and Boston might be better served holding onto prospects in order to make a more productive move around the trade deadline (i.e. adding another bat in case David Oritz plans on hitting south of .200 all season) than one involving Wilson.

Read the rest of this entry »