Their starting pitching is completely banged up(We’ll see if Hernandez makes it back for WS) and the bullpen has been run ragged. They’ve got a few good hitters, but overall I’m not impressed(nor with the order of their lineup). And how is Jose Valentin still playing the infield regularly and so well at his age?

The Cards have OK starting pitching, and an OK pen which has also been worked hard in the current series. But their lineup is more formidable. Edmons and Pujols scare me a little bit, even injured. Eckstein is pesky, Spezio is hitting in key spots this postseason, and you can’t overlook Juan Encarcion or Scott Rolen. They’ve got a fairly deep bench too(unlike the Mets), which will help them in the DH games.

I’m curious to know the Tigs planned rotations for either team. The Tigs website says all but 1 of the starters are taking lots of batting practice this week. Can we assume Rogers will be kept at home again this series for games 2 and 6? I wouldn’t mind a rotation reversal from last series: Bonderman/Rogers/Verlander/Robertson keeping the lefties and the fireballers split as usual. The Cards have hit better against lefties this post-season, while the Mets have done better against righties. But knowing Leyland, that probably wont figure much into his calculations anyway.

The Tigers sold about $36M more in tickets,
made $6M in ticket sales in the ALDS,
made $8.6M in ticket sales in the ALCS
and are guaranteed about $15M in ticket sales for the World Series.

Right there, thiat’s nearly $66M. Add in the other profits from the games, the money from licensing all the stuff that people seem to be buying in droves…

and the Tigers’ success due to the signings is pretty much paid for this year and a couple of others.

Question for all of you. Who would you rather face in the WS? I know nothing about either the Mets or the Cards? Would we match up better vs. either team?

Or do you honestly thing it doesn’t matter and we will whomp either team we face.

I think it was a good decision. With Magg’s track record, his production would only be bad if he didn’t recover from the surgery, and the contract had outs for that case.

Plus, given the state of the franchise (at the time) it was necessary to overpay (i.e. take risks) to give the team credibility. Pudge came with question marks too (4 years for a 30-something catcher with a lot of mileage), as did Rogers.

I remember Rob Neyer doing a column a while back about efficiency not being the most important goal. The Marlins probably had the best season in terms of wins per dollar spent. But the goal in baseball (unlike in business) is simply winning a lot, not winning a lot relative to expenses. I’d rather have the Tigers’ season (or even the Yankees’ season) than the Marlins’ season.

In that sense, it was good to overpay.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.c.....index.html

Heyman’s daily column is the most comprehensive, useful, and interesting baseball column in the mainstream media IMO.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.c.....index.html

“But whoever wins this NLCS, whenever it’s mercifully decided, is going to have to pull off a similar miracle.”

In just two and a half weeks, we’ve gone from being the beleaguered underdog to being the invincible favorite!

Ilitch and Dombrowski had to pay a premium to build the team’s credibility. I’d say they go their money’s worth plus interest.

You’re correct that you can’t say “It was a good signing” or ” it was a bad signing” based on hindsight. However, it is fair to say that it was a a risky, yet probably necessary (given the poor recent history of the organization), signing. Hindsight tells us that the signing has certainly worked out so far, but as you said, this was not knowable at the time.

It worked out and I’m as thrilled as anyone, but I can honestly acknowledge that it could have hurt big time.