As teams wrap up their business for 2015 and head into the new year, it seems that the hot stove, ignited ever so briefly during the winter meetings two weeks ago, has lain mostly dormant ever since.

Although the ace-level free agent pitchers have all selected their new teams, the market for hitters has barely budged, save a few transactions from the two Chicago clubs.

The Cubs continued their collection of the best talent in baseball by poaching outfielder Jason Heyward and second baseman Ben Zobrist for less money than they were offered elsewhere, and the White Sox revamped their infield with trades for Todd Frazier and Brett Lawrie, the former in a notable three-team deal that included several top prospects.

But outside Chicago, splurges for position players—either with money or prospects—have been nearly nonexistent, as the crop of available batters remains robust with a supply that outstrips the demand.

Of the 26 free agents who have signed contracts worth $10 million or more (total) this offseason, only five are position players, per numbers tabulated by Spotrac (and with the addition of Asdrubal Cabrera, whose contract is curiously misstated on that site).

Heyward, Zobrist and Daniel Murphy are the only position players to sign for eight figures annually—10 starting pitchers, though, have received such a contract, and lefties Scott Kazmir and Wei-Yin Chen figure to join that bunch soon.

This imbalance marks a reversal from the recent trend by which the top free agent hitters have signed early in the offseason.

Last year, Pablo Sandoval and Hanley Ramirez each joined the Red Sox before Thanksgiving. A year earlier, Robinson Cano and Jacoby Ellsbury signed their eight-figure deals in early December, with Shin-Soo Choo matching them on Dec. 21. In 2012, it was Josh Hamilton and Melvin—nee B.J.—Upton signing in the first half of December. In 2011, that was Albert Pujols and Jose Reyes; in 2010, Jayson Werth and Carl Crawford did the same.

But this year, the market has stalled since Heyward’s signing, as teams are free to explore their options given the wealth of talent available.

In the outfield alone, Yoenis Cespedes, Justin Upton, and Alex Gordon all expect to command contracts that reach upwards of $100 million. A tier below those All-Stars, Dexter Fowler, Gerardo Parra, and Denard Span could each fill an outfield hole capably, and Austin Jackson and Marlon Byrd could make for useful platoon bats for a savvy team.

And the usual suspects with the financial might to sign the top free agents have expressed little rumored interest: The Yankees and Dodgers own fully stocked outfields, and the Cubs and Red Sox already made their moves in signing Heyward and Chris Young—the position player version—respectively.

Dollars have flooded the pitcher market, though, as teams both rich and not have made sizable payments to upgrade their rotations. But the speed at which available pitchers have signed has left teams with World Series aspirations but lingering rotation holes nearly bereft of options.

That’s bad news for the Dodgers, who have yet to find a replacement for the departed Zack Greinke. Los Angeles tried to fill its rotation with the Mariners’ Hisashi Iwakuma, but the Japanese pitcher returned to Seattle after failing his physical with the Dodgers. As it stands, the Dodger starters behind Clayton Kershaw are either injury-prone (Brett Anderson, Brandon McCarthy, Hyun-Jin Ryu) or unproven (Mike Bolsinger, Carlos Frias, Joe Wieland), and the team’s best bet at this point might be to package a group of prospects in a trade for a top-tier pitcher.

In their search for another trusted arm, the Dodgers might end up overpaying like the Cardinals. After missing out on David Price and losing John Lackey to the rival Cubs, St. Louis arrived at an $80 million agreement for Mike Leake, a perfectly serviceable pitcher who has hovered around league average for the duration of his career.

Is Leake really much better than Chris Young—the pitcher version—who signed for a tidy $11.5 million spread over two years with the Royals?

For teams in need of help elsewhere on the diamond, though, the search process may extend for another month or more as teams can take their time negotiating from a position of strength. The American League Central division may be particularly active given those teams’ needs.

Kansas City lost Alex Rios and Alex Gordon—according to reports from earlier this week, the lifetime Royal will not return next year due to contract demands that surpass the Royals’ price range—to free agency but can select from a glut of options to fill its now-vacant corner outfield slots. A versatile defensive force such as Parra would mesh nicely with the Kansas City ethos.

The Indians will play without All-Star Michael Brantley for at least the season’s first month due to the leftfielder’s torn labrum. With centerfield already a question mark for the Indians, Cleveland signed speedster Rajai Davis to a one-year deal, but the team may find solace in adding another cheap, thus-far-forgotten free agent in the outfield.

And other teams in the division may be the ultimate destinations for some of the top remaining outfielders. Might the Tigers bring back Cespdes, or the White Sox, linked in rumors to Gordon, continue their offseason offensive overhaul by plugging another slugger into the middle of their lineup?

Outside the AL Central, expect two teams to consider adding an outfielder in the coming weeks.

Despite boasting one of the best infields in baseball, the Giants could use improvements at two outfield slots to round out their lineup. The team already devoted more than $200 million to pitchers Johnny Cueto and Jeff Samardzija this month, so a pair of modest signings could serve San Francisco well.

And in New York, where the Mets seek to replace the half-season dynamo that was Cespedes in Queens, the team could use another right-handed bat to complement entrenched starters Curtis Granderson and Michael Conforto. Perhaps Byrd would look sharp in blue and orange, or, if the team isn’t set on Juan Lagares as an everyday centerfielder, Fowler would make more sense.

But just because those players are still available, don’t expect teams to rush to sign anyone. After all, the World Series ended nearly two months ago, and teams haven’t been in a hurry to sign position players yet.

In his decision that rejected Pete Rose’s attempt to be welcomed back into Major League Baseball, Commissioner Rob Manfred mentioned the Hall of Fame four times. The Hall of Fame had nothing to do with his decision, and as far as I am concerned, he didn’t have to mention it at all. But the Hall of Fame appears in his decision four times.

Manfred made no comment beyond his three-page decision, but Fay Vincent, the former commissioner, offered his view when I asked him why he thought Manfred brought the Hall of Fame into his decision.

“I think he’s trying to educate people,” Vincent said.

Fair enough. Someone has to educate the ignorant, and many, if not most, of Rose’s fans are ignorant. They cite his impressive on-field achievements – most hits in history, for example – and argue that they merit Hall of Fame election for Rose. In addition, they say if players who are guilty or suspected of having used performing-enhancing drugs are eligible for the Hall of Fame, why shouldn’t Rose be eligible?

Before addressing those questions, let’s get back to Manfred and his effort to educate the public.

Anticipating fans’ reaction to his decision, Manfred wanted to make sure they understood that he was making the decision for Major League Baseball, not the Hall of Fame. A separate entity, the Hall has its own rule for Rose and others in his category, those on the permanently ineligible list.

MLB and the Hall of Fame are linked as part of the baseball establishment, and it’s only natural that there is conversation between officials of the two organizations, but they are free to make their own decisions.

The Hall’s board of directors enacted the Rose Rule in 1991 when Rose became eligible for the Hall. Acting to prevent the baseball-writing voters from electing Rose, the Hall didn’t trust the writers to do the right thing. They came up with the idea of barring anyone who was on the permanently ineligible list.

At that point Shoeless Joe Jackson had been on the list for 70 years as the result of his alleged participation in the 1919 Black Sox scandal, but despite his status as one of the best hitters in history he was not elected to the Hall even though there was no rule blocking his entry.

Efforts have been made in recent years to have Jackson removed from the list, but earlier this year Manfred rejected an attempt by the Jackson museum in Greenville, S.C., to get him reinstated.

In a letter to the museum curator last July, Manfred said he had reviewed the Jackson file and agreed with commissioners A. Bartlett Giamatti and Vincent, who declined to reopen Jackson’s case.

“Commissioner Giamatti determined,” Manfred wrote, “that ‘The Jackson case is now best given to historical analysis and debate as opposed to a present-day review with an eye to reinstatement.’”

In 1999, Commissioner Bud Selig said the Jackson case was under review, but nothing more was heard from Selig on the matter. Now where have we heard that before?

Vincent, who preceded Selig, recalled that Hall of Famer Ted Williams was an aggressive advocate for Jackson, who in his abbreviated career batted .356 with .423 and .517 on-base and slugging percentages.

“At the Hall of Fame,” Vincent recalled, “Williams pulled me aside and criticized me for not doing anything about him. I told him if you put Jackson in you have to include Rose.”

Jeff Idelson, president of the Hall of Fame, welcomed Manfred’s comments about the Hall.

“His statement helps clarify the difference between Major League Baseball and the Hall of Fame,” Idelson said in a telephone interview Friday. “I was perfectly fine with what he said and how he presented it.”

Idelson said he also has no problem with the relatively small support gained in the writers’ voting by some of the game’s biggest stars. Joining Rose on the outside looking in could be Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens, Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa.

In their combined 21 years on the writers’ ballot, none of those players has received 40 percent of the vote when 75 percent is needed for election. The writers have sent a message loud and clear that no cheaters or suspected cheaters belong in the Hall of Fame.

Rafael Palmeiro, failing to receive 5 percent of the vote, fell off the ballot two years ago. Sosa, who had 6.6 percent last year, could fall off this year.

McGwire a year ago had 10 percent, his lowest count in nine years on the ballot. Clemens and Bonds haven’t been out of the 30s in three years each on the ballot.

A Hall of Fame without Rose, Clemens and Bonds would have been unthinkable, but it’s happening. How does Idelson feel about that prospect?

“We’re very comfortable with how the writers collectively have cast their votes,” he said. “The writers we feel are a pretty good subset of the populace.”

Some writers, this one not included, have a problem with the steroids factor and would like the Hall to establish guidelines or standards for voting on guilty or suspected players. Idelson indicated that such a development is not in the Hall’s plans.

“Writers who have contacted me about it,” Idelson said, “have not offered any recommendations. We’re comfortable with giving writers latitude to make their own judgment. Whatever results we get we’re comfortable with.”

As for the Rose Rule, a designation Idelson doesn’t use or apply to the rule, the head of the Hall said, “I don’t foresee the rule changing.”

Sorry about that, Pete. Sorry, too, for your fans, who just don’t get it. How can the Hall of Fame keep its doors locked to a player who had 4,256 hits and open them to players who used steroids?

“Players who used steroids or were suspected of using them are not on the ineligible list,” Idelson said, “so if they got enough support we’d welcome them to the Hall of Fame.”

His fans also need to understand that Rose put himself on the permanently ineligible list by violating Rule 21 that bans baseball betting by players. The rule calls for a permanent ban with no time off for good behavior.

His supporters say he has served enough time. No, he hasn’t. He is permanently ineligible – not ineligible for 26-years or even the rest of his life. Permanently ineligible is ineligible permanently.

In the meantime, Rose fans should know that while there is no bronze plaque of Rose in the Hall of Fame, Rose is all over the Hall. So are other players who are unlikely to gain entrance. These, according to the people who stock the museum, are some of the items that represent Rose and others:

• Shoes worn by Rose on September 11, 1985, when he collected career hit #4,192, passing Ty Cobb’s record
• Bat used by Rose on May 5, 1978, when he collected his 3,000th major league hit
• Bat used by Rose on July 31, 1978, when he singled in the 44th and final game of his NL record-tying hitting streak
• Ticket to game in which Rose collected his 3,630th career hit, June 10, 1981, tying Stan Musial’s NL record
• Baseball hit by Rose for his 3,631st hit, August 10, 1981, breaking Stan Musial’s NL record
• Montreal Expos cap worn by Rose on June 29, 1984, when he played in his 3,309th big league game, passing Carl Yastrzemski’s record
• Cincinnati Reds jersey worn by Rose during his NL MVP season of 1973
• Baseball hit by Bonds on August 7, 2007, for his 756th career home run, breaking Hank Aaron’s record
• San Francisco Giants helmet worn by Bonds when he recorded his 756th career home run, passing Hank Aaron’s record
• San Francisco Giants helmet worn by Bonds when he recorded his 755th career home run, tying Hank Aaron’s record
• Baseball hit by Bonds on June 20, 2001, for his 38th home run of the season, breaking the record for most home runs prior to the All-Star Break previously held by Reggie Jackson (1969) and Mark McGwire (1998)
• Pitcher’s rubber from Yankee Stadium mound, used by Clemens in 2001 when he set the AL all-time strikeout record
• Toronto Blue Jays cap worn by Clemens on July 5, 1998, when he struck out the 3,000th batter of his career
• Baseball from game of April 29, 1986, in which Clemens struck out 20 batters
• Glove worn by Clemens on April 29, 1986, when he struck out 20 batters
• Boston Red Sox cap worn by Clemens on April 29, 1986, when he struck out 20 batters
• Houston Astros cap worn by Clemens on April 29, 2005, when he faced Greg Maddux (first time two 300-game winners faced one another since July 21, 1892: Tim Keefe and Pud Galvin)
• Bat used by McGwire on September 8, 1998, to hit his 62nd home run of the season, breaking Roger Maris’s record
• St. Louis Cardinals jersey worn by McGwire on September 8, 1998, when he hit his 62nd home run of the season, breaking Maris’s record
• Bat used by McGwire to hit his final five homers of 1998, #66-70
• St. Louis Cardinals jersey worn by McGwire during 1998
• Bat and ball from Sosa’s 62nd homer of the 1998 season, passing Maris’ record and (temporarily) tying him with McGwire
• Bat used by Sosa to hit his final three homers of 1998, #64-66
• Chicago Cubs jersey worn by Sosa when he hit homers #59-62 in 1998

Also on display is a photograph of Rose at Cincinnati’s Riverfront Stadium in 1985. What the Hall doesn’t know is whether Rose had a bet on the Reds that day in 1985.

VINCENT GAINS INCOMPLETE CORRECTION

An ESPN.com story last week said, “Pete Rose is disappointed in Rob Manfred’s decision to uphold his lifetime ban from Major League Baseball but acknowledged that he put the new commissioner “in a tough spot to make a judgment on my situation.”

Sorry to disappoint you a second time, Pete, but I don’t think Manfred had a tough time making his decision. In fact, you probably made it easy for him when you told him you were still betting on baseball games, only now it was OK because you were betting on the games in Las Vegas, where it was legal.

Will this manchild ever get it?

It took more than 24 hours, but The New York Times finally got it right. The newspaper even ran a correction on a baseball story, which it seldom does.

Correction: December 15, 2015

An earlier version of this article misstated the number of times Pete Rose has applied for reinstatement and the year he first applied. This year’s attempt was the second time, not the third. And he first applied in 1997, not 1992.

What the correction didn’t do and should have done was note that contrary to the Times article on the Pete Rose case, Fay Vincent, who was commissioner in 1992, did not get a request for reinstatement from Rose and do nothing with it, as the Times reported.

“Had he applied for reinstatement,” Vincent told me, “I would have acted on it and I would have rejected it.”

Vincent didn’t sit on Rose’s request, but Bud Selig, his successor, did – for 17 years.

“Bud sat on it,” I was told by someone close to the case, “because he didn’t like being booed in Cincinnati.”

A PUTRID PAIR – LORIA AND SAMSON

In the category of “wish I had written that:”

“…there is no greater set of fools in baseball than Marlins owner Jeffrey Loria and president David Samson…”

This oh-so-true gem was written earlier this month by Jeff Passan of Yahoo! Sports in a column about Barry Bonds becoming the Miami Marlins’ hitting coach.

By denying Pete Rose’s effort to escape baseball’s purgatory and be returned to baseball’s good graces, Commissioner Rob Manfred has given the disgraced Hit King plenty of time to look up the word reconfigure and study its meaning. In this column, I may be adding to Rose’s agony by explaining, perhaps for the first time, where and why the word came to prominence in Rose’s tarnished life.

One day after this column reported that Manfred would not reinstate Rose from the permanently ineligible list, Major League Baseball announced Monday that Manfred had rejected Rose’s appeal for reinstatement from his lifetime banishment. Pete, meet Shoeless Joe Jackson.

In his three-page decision, Manfred disclosed that in a meeting with Rose Sept. 24, the all-time hits leader remarkably disclosed that he has continued to bet on baseball, though legally, he pointed out, presumably because he has placed his bets in Las Vegas, where he lives and where betting on sporting events is legal. Manfred was not impressed.

In his decision the commissioner wrote:

“In short, Mr. Rose has not presented credible evidence of a reconfigured life either by an honest acceptance by him of his wrongdoing, so clearly established by the Dowd Report, or by a rigorous, self-aware and sustained program of avoidance by him of all the circumstances that led to his permanent ineligibility in 1989. Absent such credible evidence, allowing him to work in the game presents an unacceptable risk of a future violation by him of Rule 21, and thus to the integrity of our sport. I, therefore, must reject Mr. Rose’s application for reinstatement.”

It was his violation of Major League Rule 21 that got Rose in trouble in 1989. The rule, posted on a large poster-type sign in every clubhouse tells players, managers and coaches that betting on baseball is prohibited and if you do it, you will be banned from baseball and placed on the permanently ineligible list.

That’s where Rose has been since Aug. 23, 1989, having agreed to the penalty that day with Commissioner A. Bartlett Giamatti, who told him if he ever wanted to get off the list, he would have to reconfigure his life. Rose, not the most intelligent person I have ever met, decided if he bet on baseball legally instead of illegally he would be reconfiguring his life.

In his decision, Manfred cited a Feb. 26 letter from Rose’s lawyers advising:

“me of Mr. Rose’s request for reinstatement and removal from the permanently ineligible list. Mr. Rose’s attorneys stated that Mr. Rose had accepted responsibility for his mistakes and their consequences, and that Mr. Rose was sorry for betting on the game of Baseball. Mr. Rose’s attorneys further asserted that, as directed by Commissioner Giamatti, Mr. Rose had ‘reconfigured’ his life. Mr. Rose wrote again to me, through counsel, on April 1, 2015, requesting a meeting in order that he be given the opportunity to show me ‘the extent to which he has met and surpassed Commissioner Giamatti’s charge that he reconfigure his life.”

It’s too bad Giamatti isn’t alive to offer his opinion of Rose’s definition of reconfigure. But I tried the next best thing. I called Fay Vincent, the former commissioner, who was Giamatti’s deputy commissioner during the Rose episode.

“The word ‘reconfigure’ was my word,” Vincent recalled. “Bart said what do we do if he comes forward and does the right thing? I said I think we have to tell him he has to reconfigure his life. This is about baseball, not about Pete Rose.”

Has Vincent seen a Rose reconfiguration?

“Sitting in a casino betting on baseball is hardly reconfiguring,” Vincent said.

The New York Times has repeatedly reported that Vincent was the first commissioner to receive a reinstatement request from Rose, but Vincent said that’s wrong.

In its on-line report by Michael Schmidt on Manfred’s decision, the Times said, “He first applied for reinstatement in 1992, just three years after being barred, but Fay Vincent, who was then baseball’s commissioner, did not act on the request. In 1997, Mr. Rose tried again, with the application this time going to Mr. Selig, Mr. Vincent’s successor. But Mr. Selig was not any more inclined to allow Mr. Rose back into baseball than Mr. Vincent was.”

Asked about that report, Vincent said, “He never applied to me. It’s been written and said that Rose applied. If that were so, there would be a record and there is no record. It’s just not true.”

For 15 years, everything Rose said about his gambling wasn’t true. He lied for the first time Feb. 20, 1989, when he met in New York with outgoing Commissioner Peter Ueberroth and incoming Commissioner Giamatti. He lied when he told them he hadn’t bet on baseball games.

He lied publicly for the first time the next day in Plant City, Fla., when I interviewed him at the Cincinnati Reds’ spring training camp. He lied when he denied that the commissioners had summoned him to ask about gambling.

”That’s not the reason,” the manager said, kneeling on the grass in foul territory on one of the Reds’ practice fields. Rose declined to offer an alternative reason, saying only that Ueberroth had sought advice from him.

He continued to lie publicly and privately for the next 15 years, until he published his autobiography, finally admitting the truth for – what else? – money.

“This is about money, making him rich,” Vincent said. “His principal reason for coming back was money.”

Some people – and Rose might have been one of them – speculated that if Giamatti hadn’t died a few weeks after the Rose decision, he might have reinstated Rose. Vincent, though, said that would not have happened unless Rose stepped up quickly and admitted all. Even then, he guessed, it could have taken three or four years.

If Giamatti were here today, Vincent suggested, he would say Rose needed to think of “ways to serve baseball without being reinstated” but added, “He’s 25 years late. He’s missed the opportunity to do that.”

Vincent also noted that Manfred said Rose initially denied in his meeting with Manfred that he still bets on baseball.

“A guy who wants to come back lies to the commissioner?” the former commissioner remarked.

In the second of two footnotes in his written opinion, Manfred wrote:

“Even more troubling, in our interview, Rose initially denied betting on Baseball currently and only later in the interview did he ‘clarify’ his response to admit such betting.”

That footnote followed this paragraph:

“Most important, whatever else a “reconfigured life” may include, in this case, it must begin with a complete rejection of the practices and habits that comprised his violations of Rule 21. During our meeting, Mr. Rose told me that he has continued to bet on horse racing and on professional sports, including Baseball.”

As expected, Manfred did toss Rose a bone, telling him he may participate in “ceremonial activities that present no threat to the integrity of the game.”

Manfred, however, wrote that he has nothing to do with Rose’s eligibility for the Hall of Fame, which seems to be the target of Rose’s many fans. The Hall of Fame is a private enterprise with no corporate connection to Major League Baseball.

In 1991, when Rose became eligible for the baseball writers ballot, the Hall’s board of directors eliminated from eligibility anyone on the permanently ineligible list, an act clearly targeting Rose. Now that Manfred has further buried Rose on that list, it’s extremely unlikely that the Hall will reverse course.

Rose’s lawyers, Ray Genco and Mark Rosenbaum, issued a statement of their own statement, and it had such a soft tone that it made me think they may renew their effort in two or three years, or if Manfred serves only one term (five years) and baseball gets a new commissioner.

Saying – not surprisingly – Manfred’s ruling disappointed them, the lawyers stated:

“While we may have failed at our task of presenting all of the facts to the commissioner demonstrating how Pete has grown and changed over the past three decades, Pete has meaningfully reconfigured his life according to the standard laid out by Commissioner Giamatti.

“Pete’s fall from grace is without parallel but he recognizes that it was also of his own making.

“As such, Pete seeks to be judged not just by the mistakes of his past, but also by the work he has done over the last three decades to take responsibility for his actions. He is constantly working to remain disciplined, compassionate and grateful.

“Pete highly regards the institution of the game and will continue to do all that he can to honor its greatness and remain the most enthusiastic fan.”

The only question I have is about the “last three decades” comment. What work did Rose do in the first decade and a half of that period other than lie?