The Tigers have released Gary Sheffield in what is going to be a long season of dumping big contracts for pennies on the dollar or having to pay off players to simply leave. I don't care how many Little Caesar's pizzas owner Mike Ilitch can eat, the $14 million he owes Sheffield is a lotta pizza pizza. 

    As for the move itself, it's a little stunning that the Tigers wouldn't at least let the season start to see if there's any chance (as small as that is) that they'll overcome the non-existent expectations and some of their veterans----Sheffield among them----will provide something useful, but GM Dave Dombrowski is a smart baseball guy and has to see what's going on. Now you'd have to expect that Miguel Cabrera is going to become a DH, Carlos Guillen will move back to first base and Marcus Thames and Josh Anderson will share time in left field. 

    Someone will take a chance on Sheffied; maybe a team like the White Sox, who don't care about a player's reputation; or the Cardinals or Giants, who could use his bat. Whether Sheffield actually has anything left is the question, but he's only going to cost the minimum for whoever wants to take a chance and he's worth a shot. 

• Braves close to contract extension with Chipper Jones:

    This is another prime example of why the Braves are never going to achieve their National League dominance from 1991 to 2005. Much like the way they've clung to the past with faded stars like Tom Glavine and tried to patch together a winning team while bowing to the former greatness of such players, they're about to sign Chipper Jones to a contract extension through 2012 that will essentially seal Chipper's career as a member of the Braves.

    Given Chipper's injury history, does anyone in their right mind think that Chipper Jones is going to be healthy and productive enough to justify a place in the Braves lineup when he's past 40-years-old? Since the Braves have a limited payroll, are they going to be able to afford to pay Chipper to spend chunks of the season on the disabled list no matter how productive he is? Add in that he's going to decline on the field during the years of the contract and it's going to be an albatross that's worse than the PR hit the Braves would take if they let Chipper leave or traded him. 

    Chipper is an all-world hitter, but he's always hurt. He hasn't played over 150 games since 2003 and his entire body is always in danger of breaking down with back, shoulder, hamstring and knee problems. If there was a DH in the National League, then it would absolutely be a viable maneuver to keep him for that long because as long as he doesn't have to play in the field and can only concentrate on hitting, he'd be likely to stay in the lineup with more frequency; but he's not. He's a third baseman in the National League and he's not going to suddenly find the fountain of youth or turn into Pete Rose. By 2011 (or sooner), the Braves will be paying another player to sit for chunks of the season on the disabled list and not be able to count on him.

    Chipper and his representatives were smart in taking advantage of the fact that the Braves are A) still reeling from John Smoltz leaving for the Red Sox and, B) that they aren't willing to look into the mirror and accept that they must sever ties with the past and endure a couple of down years to give the youngsters (and they have a lot of talent in the organization) a chance to play. If anyone wants to see why the Braves are never going to come close to regaining their cachet as the best team in the National League, this is a major reason: they were hypnotized by that historic run and aren't taking the steps to try and repeat what got them there to begin with and that was giving their young players a chance to play.

• If it's taking this long to make a decision...

    The Texas Rangers are still screwing around back-and-forth of what to do with Andruw Jones. The latest is that it may take longer than the end of spring training this week to choose between Frank Catalanotto and Andruw. With the way he's collapsed since 2007, are the Rangers thinking that Anduw's going to suddenly rediscover the swing that made him such a feared power hitter and MVP candidate? It may be time to accept that what they see with Andruw is all that's there and if that's not good enough, then they should either dump him or see if he's willing to go to the minors as veteran insurance for their questionable situation in center field. 

    I was an advocate of bringing him into camp as a cheap reclamation project; at 32-years-old, I found it hard to believe that Andruw was finished, but even with the threat of being out of baseball completely or descending into a total journeyman who's always a day away from being released, he hasn't kicked it into a gear to make him appear salvagable. If the Rangers don't think he's going to benefit from their hitter's heaven ballpark and are still flipping coins to decide between him and Catalanotto, it's time to get rid of him and move on because maybe he really is shot.   

    I'm reprinting my 2009 Predicted Standings because people keep searching for it.   

    All predictions and analysis can be read in detail in my book Paul Lebowitz's 2009 Baseball Guide available on Amazon, BN, Target and I-Universe among other places.

    On a smaller and less polarizing scale, the Mariners are again shifting Brandon Morrow from the starting rotation to the bullpen----Seattle Times Story. This the the third shift for Morrow in the past year and it can't be good for his long term success if the club can't even decide if they want him to start or relieve.

    Their reasoning for having him start the 2009 season in the bullpen is completely understandable. Because of soreness in his forearm and the flu this spring, Morrow wasn't able to pitch the requisite number of innings to build his strength and stamina to the point where he'd be a viable starter, so it makes sense to either have him relieve in the big leagues or start in the minors. The decision has apparently been made for Morrow to begin the season as a reliever and then...well, no one, especially the Mariners, seems to know.

    If this were just a case of the Mariners using him as a long reliever to build up his strength and then return him to the starting rotation, accomplishing the dual objectives of limiting his innings and not sending him out as a starter before he's ready, it's one thing; but they're vacillating on what his long-term role is going to be. Since they traded J.J. Putz to the Mets and don't exactly know who the closer is going to be, it's natural that Morrow is going to be mentioned as a candidate; because he pitched well as a starter late last year and was a starter in college, naturally there are going to be voices suggesting that he should be a starter. So which is it? Does anyone have a long-term goal in mind for this talented former first round draft choice? 

    Another aspect of this whole mess is that the Mariners are not going to contend. They're in the middle of a re-tooling under an aggressive new GM in Jack Zduriencik and it's a pretty good bet that some of the veteran names like Les Miserables, Erik Bedard; Adrian Beltre; and Miguel Batista are going to be traded during the season; they're in a perfect situation to let Morrow start in the minor leagues under a strident set of rules for his pitch and innings counts and then bring him up to the big leagues to continue to prepare for a career as a starter.

    The Yankees have been dealing with a similar back-and-forth about Joba Chamberlain with many voices (including mine) arguing that he should be in the bullpen for this season at least; but the Yankees have their mind set on winning the World Series in 2009, not building for 2011 as the Mariners are. For the Yankees, it makes sense to have the short term value of Chamberlain in the bullpen (within reason) to try and win right now; for the Mariners, they have the luxury of letting Morrow start and not worrying about any firings or earth shattering headlines if they don't contend since they're starting over again with a new GM and manager anyway.

    There's no reason to be messing around here and for the record, I'd make Morrow a starter; I think he has All Star caliber, starter stuff and would be a 15-18 game winner if he's put into the rotation and left there with a good team behind him. One other issue with Morrow that doesn't appear to be going away anytime soon is how he's constantly reminded----maliciously or not----that he was drafted before local product and 2008 NL Cy Young Award winner Tim Lincecum. My reaction to that is: Yeah? So? Is that Morrow's fault that he's taking a bit more time to develop than Lincecum? Is it his fault that he's had some injury problems and his organization is jerking him around between the rotation and bullpen without knowing themselves or coming to a consensus of where they want him to be? I've said before that if I were looking at both pitchers as the draft approached, I'd have taken Morrow as well.

    The Mariners have Morrow, not Lincecum and it's pointless and destructive to keep reminding Morrow of this fact and planting the seed in his mind that he has to "match" Lincecum to justify his earlier selection. In fact, this could play a part in Morrow trying to hard and getting himself hurt. On that subject, maybe it would be better for Morrow to be in the bullpen rather than in the rotation so he's not having every start scrutinized to compare him with Lincecum; but that's irrelevant in the future of the Mariners and it's their job to convince him to worry about being Brandon Morrow and not Tim Lincecum. If Morrow fulfills his potential as a starter, he and Felix Hernandez could form a devastating top of the rotation for the Mariners. Either way, it's not doing the player or the organization any good to keep moving him back and forth with no end to the indecision in sight.  

    Lou Piniella announced today that Kevin Gregg has won the job as closer over Carlos Marmol----ESPN Story. It's a decision that makes no sense on any level. 

    Ever since the Cubs acquired Gregg from the Marlins for hard throwing minor league prospect Jose Ceda, I've said that Gregg is exactly the type of pitcher that Piniella will use for awhile, see what it is that Gregg does and banish him to the doghouse. I had thought that Marmol as the closer was fait accompli, with Gregg not even having a chance to win a job that shouldn't even have been up for grabs. There's no way to even compare Gregg to Marmol in terms of stuff, stats and ability to dominate.

    Gregg is wild. Not only does he dig himself into trouble seemingly for the sole reason to get himself out of it, he throws an amazing number of wild pitches, including 13 for the Angels in 2004. For the Marlins over the past two years, he threw 6 in 2007 and 7 in 2008. In addition to the wildness, he gives up a lot of hits and a lot of home runs. Gregg is, to put it mildly and gently, a journeyman. Gregg is of similar mediocrity against lefties and righties. He's the prototypical "designated guy to rack up the saves"; he's not the guy you bring in in order to shut things down because he's liable to take as stick of dynamite to the mess he inherits or build a fire of his own. This is the opposite of Marmol.

    Carlos Marmol has a funky motion in which he hides the ball very well; he throws hard; his slider is devastating; he throws strikes; and judging from his hits/innings pitched ratio over the past two years and the number of strikeouts he racks up, he's really, really difficult to hit. He dominates righties and handles lefties; he pitched in 82 games last year and he's a guy who can come into games and get out of trouble by blowing people away.

    There's no comparison between the two and Piniella using Gregg as the closer only makes sense if his intention is to use Marmol to get out of the real jams in the seventh and eighth innings and let Gregg put up the numbers in the save column as he did with the Nasty Boys Reds of 1990; or as the Angels have done for years with Scot Shields. The one problem with that is that the set-up guys never get the money or recognition that the closer does and it takes a rare character to accept the absence of his own glory for the good of the team; plus the club may use the point that Marmol wasn't the closer to keep from paying him as lucratively as a closer would be paid.

    Is Piniella scheming that deeply? Or does he really believe the Gregg is the answer as closer? We'll know early in the season based on how the pitchers are used; if Gregg only pitches one inning or if he's the guy to come in to put out a fire in the eighth inning; but it's not going to take many walks, wild pitches or homers allowed (I'd expect a blown save from Gregg in dramatic fashion within days of the season's opening) for Piniella to look at things and make the change that he shouldn't have to make because unless the aforementioned machinations are going on in Piniella's mind, Marmol should be the closer designate simply because he's much, much better.       

• Sifting through the wreckage:

    I'm no advocate of flinging the baby out with the bathwater (unless he/she won't stop screaming), but Jeff Moorad's positive comments about current Padres GM Kevin Towers are a bad sign that he's seriously considering keeping Towers----who he almost hired to be the GM of the Diamondbacks before he hired Josh Byrnes----as the Padres GM. While Moorad's statement...

"He understands the art of the deal as well as any GM in the game, and I'm thrilled he's on my team."

...is basically true, there's such a thing as a fresh start after a nuclear holocaust (and that, in a baseball sense, is what the Padres are). Towers has had an up-and-down career as a GM and he does know how to do the job, the situation with the Padres is so toxic that Towers is quite possibly too infected beyond redemption to stay and truly start anew. 

    It's known that Towers was only reluctantly following orders from the already dispatched Sandy Alderson and was operating with a "shadow" GM in Paul DePodesta; I'm not going to criticize a guy for staying in a job in a comfortable locale while he's under contract, but it's obvious that Towers wanted the Diamondbacks job; he didn't want to let manager Bruce Bochy leave; and he didn't want to run the team with the dogmatic statistics and cheapness that essentially destroyed the Padres over the course of Alderson's tenure. Now with the new regime coming in, there's an opportunity for a completely clean start.

    The faces of the franchise have to be changed to give the fans a sunnier outlook that the negative vibes of Alderson and company are gone. There's every chance that Towers is still a qualified executive and could be an asset; there's also a chance that, like an incarcerated inmate who was basically a decent person before he was sent to prison and came out as a hardened and irredeemable criminal, should go elsewhere for a clean start of his own.

• Will anyone hire DePodesta?
  

    If the reaction of the players was any indication of how they felt about the departing regime, the following link from Buster Olney's blog of a Tom Krasovic story should clarify things:

Padres players clapped when new CEO Jeff Moorad was introduced Friday in the team clubhouse. “It was a nice moment,” said Moorad, who also heads a group that eventually will buy the team from John Moores.

“Let's hope that he helps John out,” said right-fielder Brian Giles, “and we have a little more (financial) flexibility with the organization to get better.”

Moorad said he told the players he was “proud to be part of the Padres'family” and that he was “there to support them.”

Asked for a prediction for this Padres team, Moorad said it will exceed expectations. He didn't give specifics, but said “there are times when a low bar can be an advantage.”

The Padres went 63-99 last year.

    The players weren't at fault for what's gone on with that organization in recent years; they're only as good as they are, but there must be such relief coursing through the veins of guys like Adrian Gonzalez, who deserve a better fate than to be stuck in the middle of that morass of ineptitude. Now, with Moorad, they can be scrubbed clean. 

    On another note, I'm wondering if anyone's going to hire Paul DePodesta when he "resigns from the Padres to pursue other opportunities" (at least that's how I expect the statement to sound----as if he had a choice). Unless those "opportunities" aren't in the baseball world, I don't know who, other than the hardened stat-geeks who still inexplicably defend him, is going to hire him.

    I'm starting to see the separate factions of baseball observers as a smaller scale war between political ideologies. Much like the hard core right-wingers and left-wingers of the republican and democratic parties, the stat-geeks and the more conventional baseball people aren't going to meet in the middle anytime in the near future. (Much like my political leanings, I'm around the middle in baseball beliefs, but leaning to the left.)

    You'd think that a guy like DePodesta, whose reputation is in utter shambles in every circle aside from those who inexplicably still defend what he did to the Dodgers and his hand in what became of the Padres, would be able to find baseball employment with a team that still clings to the increasingly smaller group of people who see stats as the end-all, be-all of human existence despite the failure of teams like the Padres, who took the idea to its logical conclusion and careened out of control, running headfirst into a wall at 1000 mph. 

    There aren't any embedded Moneyball teams left with the Padres now under Moorad's control. The only option I can see is if he returns to Oakland under Billy Beane, but other than that, he's going to either have to go to work for RotoWorld or some other website sharing his "knowledge" with everyone, because I don't see who's going to hire him for his baseball "expertise".

•  Is this an issue for the disabled list?

    It's easy to find reasons to put a guy on the disabled list; you can get him to say, "my elbow hurts" and there won't be any question as to why he was disabled whether there's any evidence of injury or not; but is "anxiety disorder" a viable reason to disable a guy? I suppose it is because the Tigers just did it with Dontrelle Willis----MLB.com Story.

    What happened to this guy?

    Willis was one of the most charismatic and best pitchers in baseball for a couple of years, but now he's going to be known as mentally weak and unable to handle the adversity he's endured over the past couple of years and it's a good bet that he's never going to make it back; and I don't mean back to what he was when he won 22 games with the Marlins, I mean back, period. For an emotional and creative performer, such ups-and-downs are expected if things don't go well and it's more difficult for someone who has the attributes to make themselves into such stars on and off the field to recover from the adversity when it happens. 

    I mentioned in my book that Willis could be the next in line for talented pitchers who can also hit who gets moved to a position rather than continue trying to rebuild his career on the mound; that prediction is coming closer to reality and it has to be under serious consideration in the Tigers front office to try and get something from that contract extension Willis signed last year.

    As for Joel Zumaya, who was also put on the disabled list with shoulder woes? Forget it. Like I said, his 104 mph fastball will be discussed on barstools as to what he could've been, but never was. The Tigers should give this season three weeks to see if they can be competitive and start clearing the decks. This stuff is an omen.

    Dick Allen famously used a piece of lumber that was more prehistoric club than bat. At 35 inches long and 41 and 1/4 ounces, most players of today (sans steroids) wouldn't even be able to lift it, let alone swing it. That giant bat is nothing compared to the enormous stick that is inextricably jammed up the asses of the entire Yankees organization from top to bottom (pardon the double entendre).

    In case you missed it, the New York Yankees have refused to allow the publisher of Jane Heller's book Confessions of a She-Fan to take out a full page ad in the opening day commemorative program----blog. Are they trying to drive her away? Do they not want her to be a Yankee fan anymore? How many Yankee fans would be willing to admit that they suffered with their team before the playoffs became known as a divine right? During the dark years of the 80s and early 90s when the only thing a Yankee fan could count on was to have an absurdly high payroll; endless headlines on and off the field; embarrassing and clueless decisions from the front office and no playoff appearances? How many Yankee fans "found" themselves and rediscovered their love for the Yankees when the championships started piling up in the late-90s? When they became a star-studded team with a recognizable name at every position? How many would admit it?

    Jane Heller is one of the fans who stuck with her team from the Horace Clarke-years; through the Billy Martin/George Steinbrenner merry-go-round; through Dallas Green; Bucky Dent; Andy Hawkins and the lost no-hitter; the Steinbrenner suspensions; the Don Mattingly, "get a haircut" fiasco; the starting rotation anchored by Pascual Perez, Dave La Point and Hawkins; Mel Hall, Luis Polonia, Greg Cadaret, and through the 90s until they started winning again. Then, all of a sudden, everyone was a Yankee fan again. Well, Jane was one of the few, proud Yankee fans who maintained her loyalty.

    She even wrote a book about that love for her team. A love that has permeated every part of her life; affected her relationships; frustrated her; and caused her to question why she spent so much time on something that is behaving like a scorpion, willing to take your money and support, but doing nothing to encourage it and striking for the kill when the opportunity arises. Even during the book-writing process, instead of helping a friendly voice by providing press access, the Yankees blocked every possible avenue and almost the entire organization, instead of smoothing her path to write a book detailing how misunderstood the Yankees organization is with their image of the cold, corporate monolith----the same type of entity as AIG, Bernie Madoff or any of the other greedy fat cats who are so oblivious to everything but their own tunnel vision or are borderline sociopathic----they made things so difficult that only someone who was being paid to write about them or whose love was so deep they couldn't turn away (Jane's love is a combination of the two, with the affection for her team dominant) would even bother trying to continue. 

    The Yankees excuse for refusing the ad, from a marketing person----"We know about her and her book, and it's too controversial."----is absurd. AB-surd! The book is a comedy!!! It's meant to be taken tongue-in-cheek; it's to entertain, not to air any dirty laundry as the Joe Torre book did; as the Selena Roberts book about Alex Rodriguez certainly will. Whether they understand this or just don't care is unclear, but just like Jane's motives for writing the book, it's probably a combination of both. 

    Here's something that is missed on the part of the Yankees: they don't need the bad publicity!! This club is not an entity in and of itself; there are going to be down years in their future no matter how much money they spend or how high their expectations are. If the inability to sell the overpriced seats to their new home haven't awakened them to the fact that people won't pay anything at all----price no object----to be treated like crap. The late 80s and early 90s were a dark time for the Yankees; the fans weren't coming to the park because they're not going to watch a team just for the uniforms; they're going to watch a team that can win and treats their fans with respect.

    Their arrogant and ignorant boosters like Mike Francesa, Michael Kay and George King can say whatever they want about the Yankees infallibility and marketing appeal and how they don't need to keep every fan happy, but the way they're treating true fans like Jane is going to alienate even some hardened fans to defect elsewhere; and therein lies my pitch. If the Yankees are so self-absorbed; so thin-skinned and oblivious, there is a place for New York-bred fans like Jane to go: the Metropolitan Baseball Club of New York, aka the Mets.

    A friend from college once told me she had trouble finding a decent guy; her ex-husband used to beat her up; I suggested she try on-line dating; her response was basically that you don't know what kind of nut you'll meet on-line. In a tone that was more incredulous than consoling, I said, "You married your high school sweetheart and he usedta beat the shit outta you; how much worse could on-line dating be?" My offer to Jane is this: If you want to continue taking this abuse from the team you love, that's up to you; but if you, your impressive baseball knowledge and unconditional love for your team needs a home, the door across town is completely open. If you'd like to get the Yankees attention for this treatment, like an abusive spouse that doesn't think you'll ever really leave, that would be a great way to do it. They'd get the message and the Mets would be glad to have you.     

• It's better to have headlines about arbitrary issues I suppose:

    There's been non-stop discussion about the prospect of Yankees manager Joe Girardi flipping Derek Jeter and Johnny Damon in the Yankees lineup to have Jeter batting leadoff and you'll see opinions one way or the other for varying reasons. I don't think it's that big of a deal either way.

    I was once a proponent of it not making any difference whatsoever as to whom was batting leadoff; my argument was that the only time you could guarantee the leadoff batter actually leading off was in the first inning, but using a bunch of fancy mathematicals that I don't understand, Matt over at Diamondhacks explained that the manager can guarantee that the designated leadoff batter does leadoff 100% of the time to at least start the game; it's a solid enough point if you have a guy who's a Rickey Henderson or Bobby Bonds-type from whom something might happen to start off the game, a homer, a stolen base, a quick run, etc. 

    As for Damon and Jeter, it's eerie how statistically similar they are. They get on base nearly the same amount; they both have some pop to hit 12-20 homers; and they don't steal as many bases as they once did. To me, unless Girardi starts thinking too much (as he tends to do) and wants to have the leadoff guy get on base and the number two guy bunt him over (a bad idea), it's not going to matter much. Another aspect is that Jeter bats righty, Damon lefty; with projected ninth place hitter Brett Gardner batting lefty also, they'll have a left/right/left situation with the 9,1,2 hitters.

    This too is irrelevant. Gardner batted .125 against big league lefties last season in his few opportunities to hit against them; and Jeter isn't someone who I'd sit and fret over having a lefty pitch to him if I were the opposing manager; plus in a game-breaking situation, if said opposing manager brings in a lefty to pitch to Gardner, he's going to be pitching to Nick Swisher or Xavier Nady as a pinch hitter anyway. 

    As long as Jeter and Damon are allowed to do their thing without too much interference from the (micro) manager Girardi, their main jobs are going to be to get on base for Mark Teixeira, Alex Rodriguez and Jorge Posada; other than that, who bats where won't mean anything. 

• This is stupid:

    Nate Silver is a hot ticket right now because of the attention he received for his accurate projection of the presidential election through his numbers crunching, but what the point of his latest foray into "what-ifs" is pretty dumb. On ESPN.com, he's calculated what would happen if, for example, Prince Fielder were thin; if Dustin Pedroia or Tim Lincecum were really tall; etc.

    What this has to do with anything is beyond me. You can quantify stuff all day long, comparing and contrasting with other players, blah, blah, blah, but the one thing that can't be quantified is how much different these people would be if they did have more obvious gifts of physical stature. Pedroia is well-known for having a chip the size of the moon on his shoulder simply because everyone told him he'd never make it at his size; Lincecum was passed over in the draft because of his size and concerns that he was going to get hurt.

    What if Pedroia were a physical beast? Would he have had the drive to make it as far as he has if everyone was kissing his ass from the time he was 12-years-old? If Lincecum was drafted by a team other than the Giants, who's to say that team wouldn't do as the Giants have done and basically left him alone mechanically? Not many teams invest a load of money in a pitcher and accept edicts not to fiddle with his mechanics; would Lincecum have gotten hurt with some subtle changes?

    It's a stupid argument because while it may be quantifiable to determine what these players would do if they were bigger or thinner, no one can say what these factors would've changed in reality because the one thing that stat-geeks tend to forget is that these people are human beings and any change can affect a million different things emotionally. There's no way to calculate what that would do to their performance if they even made it to their current status to begin with.

• Viewer Mail 3.27.2009:

    David at d@csupomona.edu writes:

Paul: My friend and I were having a debate about which team in the AL West will be an overall better team in the 2009 regular season: The A's or the Rangers. I argued that the Rangers have some good hitting (Hamilton, Kinsler, Young, etc.) but their pitching isn't the greatest and I don't trust Daniels as a GM, while Beane made some good calls in acquiring Giambi back and Holliday as well. He argues that he A's offense can't give the young staff enough support compared to what the Rangers can do for theirs, and that the A's lost all their good pitchers to trades, relying on only Duchscherer and inexperienced pitchers. What do you think? 

    Hmmm. 

    I could pull a Kevin Trudeau maneuver and say, "Well buy my book, Paul Lebowitz's 2009 Baseball Guide and all of life's answers will be found therein", but...I can't do stuff like that and still be able to look into the mirror.

    All kidding aside, the Athletics are going to have a better year in the standings, but the Rangers are going to have the better year for their future as long as there's no power struggle between Nolan Ryan and GM Jon Daniels. I wasn't a fan of Daniels either, but he's made some savvy maneuvers recently and the Rangers organization is packed with prospects. The Rangers current pitching staff is shaky, but much of that has to do with the ballpark they play in; the Braves of John Smoltz, Tom Glavine, Greg Maddux would have trouble getting good results there. The Rangers are going to score a lot of runs.

    The A's have a lot of young pitching too and their bullpen is solid, but third base is a black hole; their defense is going to be an issue at the corners; and the starting pitching is going to be too short to catch the Angels. If the A's are in contention at mid-summer, they have the prospects to do something drastic; as of right now, the Rangers have a slight advantage for long-term success. The A's are going to end up ahead of the Rangers in the standings, but in the long run, the Rangers are in better shape. Beane wants to win now apparently, and there could be some big names available at the trading deadline like Roy Halladay. If something like that happens, the A's could make a serious playoff run.

Jane Heller at Confessions of a She-Fan writes: 

Re: Hamilton and his addiction, did you see the MLB Network's interview with Doc Gooden the other night? Really interesting. I hope he's doing OK but he was talking a mile a minute.

    I didn't see it, but I can imagine. It must be hard for him to get clean when he thinks about everything that's happened in his life and how much he screwed up. He'd be a good instructor for any club not only on the field, but as a cautionary tale of what not to do as Darryl Strawberry has become. The Mets would absolutely love to bring him back if he's straight, but until he proves that he's able to keep himself out of trouble, he's not going to be trustworthy to have around and lead the young players down his dark hole. It's a shame. 

Jane also writes RE: Curt Schilling:

Schilling couldn't retire fast enough for me. Now let's hope he goes quietly into the good night. Yeah, right.

    He annoys me endlessly as well, but where would we be if everyone behaved like Derek Jeter? We need guys like Schilling and Carl Pavano to give us stuff to write about. 

    All due respect and admiration to Josh Hamilton's sobriety, but in addition to the accolades and tales of heroism in overcoming what he basically did to himself in almost destroying his career and life, it's a little premature to be thinking about giving Hamilton a lucrative, long-term contract when he's still further away from free agency than he is from being a crack addict.

    For what possible reason would the Rangers want to run the risk of putting a load of money in Hamilton's hands when he's only clean for 2 1/2 years? It's all fine that Hamilton is involved with the community; helping others as an example of what addiction can do; and has rejuvenated his career; but isn't it a bit soon to start giving him a contract upwards of $20 million? Is there something wrong with letting him play under his current status for a couple more years to prove that he can handle the ups and downs of being under the microscope?

    Everything's been relatively smooth for Hamilton since he joined the Reds two years ago and got a chance to play in the big leagues; but what happens if he has a bad day; a bad week; or falls into a bad situation? Are the Rangers ready to trust Hamilton that he's not going to stumble? Any drug addict will tell you that it only takes a second of temptation to fall back into old habits, so why can't the Rangers just say to Hamilton that they want to move forward with things as they are and discuss a long-term contract at a later date? Is he going to start behaving like a diva after the Rangers have allowed him to become a star? 

    I hope Hamilton stays clean and sober because he's truly gifted as a baseball player and has been serving as an inspiration; but I don't think it's going to hurt him not to have a load of money in the bank under a guaranteed contract even if there's language inserted into said contract to void it if he fails a drug test. I said last season that it's a little too early to be treating Hamilton as a "cured" addict. Other baseball-playing addicts who were able to stay clean for extended periods of time were Steve Howe and Darrell Porter, yet both fell back into drugs one way or another. Howe died in a car crash and had methamphetamine in his system; Porter died from a cocaine-related heart attack after years of speaking about and being feted for his sobriety. A long-term contract for someone with Hamilton's history is a bad idea and there's really no reason to even be discussing it now; let him play, stay clean and healthy, then discuss a long-term deal. It's not going to hurt him or the Rangers to wait a bit to make sure he's going to toe the line; in fact, it's the smart move.    

• Mets pitching coach Dan Warthen unhappy with Oliver Perez's conditioning:

    This was being discussed on ESPN Radio and Steve Popper wrote about it on his blog. Warthen feels that Perez didn't get enough work while pitching for Mexico and got out of shape while there. Here are Warthen's quotes:

"Even though the weight is about the same as the end of last year he is still not the same guy we saw, the energetic guy," Warthen said. "Even the life around the clubhouse is not the same."

    Another problem with the WBC is that the players who are participating are basically off on their own, doing their own workouts and possibly slacking off mentally and physically. The idea of spring training is to get players doing their exercises and running under supervision; most of a baseball player's workout regimen isn't on a level with football and hockey training camp, but there is a thing called sport specific training and while other athletes might scowl and shake their heads at what most baseball players consider working "hard", it's still enough to get them prepared to play the game of baseball.

    If Perez was just zoning out off the field and la-de-da-ing he way through whatever workouts were going on with the Mexican team (and anyone who's watched Oliver Perez lose his focus during a game, it's not much of a stretch to believe it happened when he left camp), it's obviously not lost on the Mets pitching coach; and if he's bringing it up publicly, it's been a concern since Perez returned after Mexico was eliminated and he's getting it out into the public to light a fire under the flighty Perez's ass.

    There are still two weeks left in spring training and ample time for Perez to get back into pitching shape, but this is just another example of why the WBC is a bad idea----it's a logistical nightmare because there's no convenient time to play it. There are certain guys who can be trusted to go away from camp and not start screwing around on their workouts. Derek Jeter, Dustin Pedroia, David Wright, Johan Santana, and all of the Japanese players are going to keep themselves together; but guys like Perez, who occasionally looks like he wants to start chasing butterflies as they fly overhead during a game, need someone to keep an eye on them and he didn't have that while participating in the WBC. It's a good thing he's so durable, because this type of thing is what gets a player hurt.

• It's a question mark when there's a kidnapping and it's not the eyebrow raising part of a story:

    Pittsburgh Pirates prospect Jose Tabata's wife has been charged with kidnapping a 2-year-old girl in Florida----ESPN Story. A kidnapping allegation is bad enough, and while it's not in any way my business, nor my domain to be discussing it, I have to ask the simple question out of curiosity: Why is the 20-year-old Tabata married to a 43-year-old woman? 

• How is this going to work with Jake Peavy?

    Even though they're being flatly denied by the supposedly interested parties, there are still rumors of Jake Peavy being traded by the Padres. So who makes the call in this case? Is the Sandy Alderson/Kevin Towers/Paul DePodesta trio going to be allowed to make what would amount to a blockbuster trade while the team is shifting control piecemeal from owner John Moores to Jeff Moorad? It's known by now that Moorad's going to sweep through that front office like a super-duper vacuum cleaner the type that Billy Mays would be screaming about in one of those commercials; does Moorad have any say in what happens with the organization's personnel? Or can they just continue making deals like this without him being involved? 

    I'm not saying I'm against trading Peavy; in fact, I think they should trade him; but if I were Moorad, I'd want to be the one to do it or at least have some of my people heavily involved in what's coming back; and I certainly wouldn't want the above-mentioned crew making the move as they finish torching the place on the way out the door. 

    Mike Francesa's show is dying.

    It was expected that there were going to be great changes when the duo of Mike Francesa and Christopher "Mad Dog" Russo finally split last fall after 20 years together; that those changes from The Mike and the Mad Dog Show would experience some glitches as they tried to move on without one another, but the new show Francesa is doing, Mike'd Up, in which he's allowed to basically do whatever he wants, unfettered by the inconvenience of having a partner, is destroying the show. 

    I don't know how many people I speak for when I say that I have no interest whatsoever in the NCAA basketball tournament; March Madness means literally nothing to me, and so when I tune into Francesa's show either on the YES Network or on WFAN radio, and I hear him giving this in-depth analysis about the tournament, interviewing people who I couldn't pick out of a police lineup, I naturally change the dial to other options. Francesa is absolutely within his rights to do what he wants on his show since he's the only one there now, but he has to realize that New York is a baseball and football town; people in office and bar pools have a passing interest in the final scores of the basketball tournament, but don't want to hear 40 minute interviews with John Calipari; whether Francesa knows that or not, or just doesn't care is unclear, but it's ruining his show and sending people away. 

    Another problem Francesa has when he does talk about baseball is his profound inability or outright refusal to accept that we're in a new era where stats are available at the click of a mouse and are able to easily to disprove his all-knowing statements. I'm not a stat-geek, but I do understand their importance, but Francesa still clings to the fallacy that because he's on the radio, then he must know what he's talking about; and if he didn't know what he was talking about, then he wouldn't be on the radio. The pompous and ill-informed rants go on and on and aren't effective anymore because it's not fifteen or even ten years ago when the true numbers were only available to those who wanted to take the time and effort to go and look for them in old newspapers and books. Now, it's much easier to dismiss his self-aggrandizing raving as that of a baseball crank, which he always was, except now it's easier to prove. 

    Recently, the talk about Derek Jeter's lack of range at shortstop and the need for a position change came up and Francesa bloviated at the mere suggestion that the numbers showed how bad Jeter had become at the position and that he was hurting the team. He dismissed the notion that the numbers were proving Jeter's inadequacies; but fielding numbers are what they are and while Francesa admitted that Jeter isn't as good as he once was, it's not as bad as the numbers are suggesting. He went so far as scoffing at the way fielding is now measured.

    This isn't the same as the sabermetric insistence that players who get on base are more valuable than players who hit the ball out of the ballpark; there's an argument that a guy like Barry Bonds, who walked 200+ times a year hurting his team by maintaining such a hard line on not swinging at pitches that weren't strikes; had Bonds expanded his strike zone just a bit to hit a few more doubles and possibly a few more homers, he would have been doing more to help his team than walking and leaving it up to the next, hitters, who, for the most part, couldn't carry Bonds's jockstrap. The fielding metrics are what they are; to simply ignore them and omnipotently insist that one "knows" more than what the numbers say is arrogance at its best. Jeter's range is just about shot; he plays on a team with ground ball pitchers in A.J. Burnett, Andy Pettitte and Chien-Ming Wang, among others. Since Alex Rodriguez's acquisition, it's been know that Jeter wasn't even the best shortstop on his own team, but as he's aged, the issue's only gotten worse.

    There are times to dismiss fielding data if a player was hurt or out of shape. Luis Castillo had a reputation as an excellent fielding second baseman before he came to the Mets and looked overweight, slowed by leg problems and disinterested; if one were to look at him this spring, he looks slimmer and determined to prove that he's still the player he was earlier in his career with the Marlins and Twins; in this case, it makes sense to throw out last season's numbers by "dropping the lowest grade". Jeter at this point, isn't going to get any better at age 35, whether or not those that don't want to admit this fact accept it. 

    Francesa thinks he's simply more knowledgeable than even the most hardened and experienced general managers and scouts and refuses to accept any attempts to educate him on what he doesn't know, nor to admit that he was ever wrong about anything. His "man-crush" on Nate McLouth is also, I think, playing a part in his resistance to even trying to understand fielding numbers. McLouth is a guy who finally got a chance to play regularly last season at the age of 26 and took great advantage of it, hitting 26 homers, driving in 94 runs and putting up otherwise respectable across the board numbers; he also won a Gold Glove, which fielding metrics indicated he not only didn't deserve, but was actually below average for a center fielder. I've seen McLouth and think he's an okay player; a component rather than someone to build around who might've had his career year in 2008, but Francesa's anger at the mere suggestion that McLouth wasn't as good as the noted scout he thinks he is indicates part of his resistance to accepting that he might be wrong about something. In fact, I'd be stunned if Francesa even knew who McLouth was before around June of last season. 

    For all the criticism I levied at Chris Russo, at least he and Francesa had a chemistry and back-and-forth to keep the other in check when either started to go off the reservation. No one's listening to Russo's show on satellite radio and Francesa's got the whole world open to himself without limits and it's demolishing what he and Russo had built.

    As much as he irritates me (I've called him a buffoon numerous times), Michael Kay was right the other day when he said----without a hint of disrespect or criticism for Francesa----that Kay has a better show. The background characters for Kay, when not trying to be too funny, are younger, hipper and better able to read what the audience wants to talk about rather than on what subject the host wants to hold a professorial tutorial whether anyone's interested or not.

    The Francesa solo show has gotten old really fast and the genre that WFAN started is dying in on the vine where it began. Unless someone has the courage to let Francesa know that some changes have to be made, he'll muddle along, losing his audience and slowly becoming irrelevant; and to someone like him, that'd be worse than getting canceled because if no one's buying into him anymore based on fact, then what's the point of going forward?     

    Here's a link to an interview with Broncos coach Josh McDaniels about his relationship with quarterback Jay Cutler. 

    The things that jump out at me throughout are how awkward and young McDaniels seems. It's not that there's anything wrong with hiring a guy who's 32-years-old if the owner, Pat Bowlen, feels he's the right guy for the job; but in reading McDaniels's body language, he looks like a guy who's on the verge of being overwhelmed by a mess that he himself made. It's as if he's reading from a prepared script that he was working on for just such an emergency while staring into a mirror and trying to imagine how he'd handle things if he were ever the boss of a franchise and it's not working.

    McDaniels has been heavily influenced by his relationship with Bill Belichick and he obviously doesn't want Jay Cutler to be his long-term quarterback. The idea that McDaniels is saying stuff like the ambiguous, "he's our quarterback, but no one knows what the future holds" indicates that this situation is nowhere close to resolution and that perhaps McDaniels doesn't want it out there that he knows there's really no viable way to fix things and he doesn't want to be held up in trading Cutler, which it's becoming abundantly clear he's going to have to do. I can't see any possible way that Cutler is the quarterback of the Broncos this season and it's all because of McDaniels and his decision that he wanted to bring in Matt Cassel; now the situation is what it is and how McDaniels makes the best of it will define his future. 

    Will he be able to win with the likes of Derek Anderson from the Browns if that's what he ends up with as a result of this mishandled debacle? Possibly. Is he going to spend a high draft pick on a quarterback if Cutler's dumped and sign a veteran like Jeff Garcia to be a caretaker? Given the way the Belichick coaching tree has shunned the idea in favor of finding a "system" guy rather than a guy with a power fastball like Cutler, he's not going for one of the big names currently available in the draft because it doesn't appear that there's a Peyton Manning/Troy Aikman obvious first pick among them. Only time will tell if McDaniels is right in what he's doing, but he certainly doesn't seem all that sure of himself from watching him in that interview and if I were Pat Bowlen, I'd be even more concerned that this decision to hire such a young coach is going to blow up faster than he could possibly have imagined in his worst nightmares.

    And what of Cutler?

    There are voices who've been there and speak from experience like Boomer Esiason and Mike Golic who are essentially telling Cutler to get over it, play for the Broncos and move forward from this rocky start. They have a point except for one factor: Esiason and Golic were in similar situations as veterans whose careers were either close to ending in Golic's case, or were heading toward the downside of the mountain like Esiason.

    Cutler is a 26-year-old with a howitzer of an arm who knows that the new coach wanted to get rid of him as soon as he walked in the door. Cutler's abilities and bright future give him a bit of leverage to say, "look, if you don't want me here, then I don't wanna be here; trade me". That's something that Golic couldn't do because he would've just gotten cut; and something that Esiason did do. According to Esiason, the Bengals had drafted David Klingler as his replacement, but asked Esiason to play for a year and then they'd trade him because if not, Klingler was going to get killed; to his credit, Esiason did it and was rewarded by being traded to his hometown Jets (if you consider that a reward). 

    Cutler, at his age and with his natural skills----plus the way the fans are going to be livid if he's traded, goes elsewhere and helps a team like the Jets or Vikings contend for a title while the Broncos are starting over again with a young coach and a journeyman quarterback----is in a very strong position to get out of Denver and to make McDaniels look like an overmatched, overhyped fool. To simply say, "shut up and take it" isn't taking into account the importance of the quarterback in football and it's likely to put an exclamation point on the simple fact that the Broncos hired Josh McDaniels, not Bill Belichick and it could spiral into a disaster within weeks if they don't find a way to mend the bruised feelings or hit the jackpot and bring in a Tom Brady-type quarterback who'll make the Cutler/McDaniels feud seem like a blip on the radar screen. How that can happen is beyond me.      

    Curt Schilling announced his retirement today in true Schilling fashion: on his blog with a pompous, long-winded and self-aggrandizing post----38 Pitches Blog. It's with this in mind that I list----from memory followed by some research to get the names, dates and instances precise----Curt Schilling's career moments off the top of my head.

• The 1993 World Series "towel over the head" while Mitch Williams was pitching:

    During the 1993 World Series between the Phillies and the Blue Jays, Schilling was repeatedly caught with a towel over his head as if he were some coquettish Southern Belle who "couldn't bear to look for fear of getting the vapors" when Mitch "Wild Thing" Williams was pitching in relief. In all fairness, Williams was so wild and so unpredictable that it's understandable that even the players were afraid to watch, but what Schilling did wasn't just bush league, it was little league.

    It angered Williams to the point that had he not been traded, he flat out said the relationship between the two "wouldn't have been a problem because <Williams> would've kicked <Schilling's> ass". The other players didn't like it either and in Schilling's fourth full year in the big leagues, that polarizing personality already began to take shape to the disgust of his teammates.

• Smashing the QuesTec machine in 2003:

    Shortly after the QuesTec machines began being used for the league to get a better gauge on what the umpires were calling strikes and what was declared a strike in the rulebook, the veteran pitchers began bitterly complaining about the umpires unique strike zones changing because they were being forced to adjust to QuesTec. As far as I'm concerned, a strike should be a strike and no umpire should be allowed to "interpret" the rules based on what he feels like, so QuesTec was a positive development; and Schilling was so far out of line for smashing one of the cameras, he shouldn't just have been fined, he should've been suspended for his tantrum.

    For Schilling, a self-proclaimed staunch, right wing republican, wouldn't the edict of the powers that be preclude him from breaking the "law"? What would the GOP poster boy, Schilling, say if there was a camera installed at a red light near where he lived; a red light that was routinely ignored by speeding cars which the camera was designed to prevent? What if the speeding drivers put Schilling or his family in harm's way because of their disregarding of the law that everyone knows: red means stop?

    Then what if one of the drivers decided he didn't like the idea of getting caught going through a red light that he'd always gone through as he returned home from his job working the graveyard shift, climbed up and smashed it? What would the law-and-order loving, flag waving Schilling say and do? He'd want the guy prosecuted; but what Schilling did was ignore the "lawmakers" (baseball's front office) and take matters into his own hands because the "cops" (the umpires) weren't able to let him get away with what he got away with previously. Schilling hated QuesTec because it was inconveniencing him, a selfishness that was a hallmark of his career and resulted in a stupid, selfish and destructive act of smashing the expensive equipment.

• Testifying before congress:

    Schilling yapped and yapped and yapped and yapped to anyone and everyone with tough talk about the steroid problem in baseball and then when the time came for him to put his feelings on record in front of congress, he sat there looking like a kid about to present an oral report on a book that he hadn't read. Then, after people ripped him for seeming so cowardly, he said:

"When you're sitting in front of Congress and you're under oath, you'd better be damn sure if you're going to mention a name that you are 100 percent guaranteed sure somebody did something."

• The bloody sock:

    Will we ever really know whether or not Curt Schilling's sock was truly blood soaked or part of some attempt on the part of the pitcher to create a legend that would serve him later in life?

    In game six of the 2004 ALCS against the Yankees, Schilling famously pitched seven masterful innings of four hit, one run baseball to tie the series at three games apiece with "blood" clearly visible on his sutured right ankle. Is it possible that it was really bleeding? Of course. Is it possible that it was some sham on the part of the notoriously melodramatic Schilling to draw more attention to himself? Absolutely.

    I think it says something about Schilling's personality that a phony bloody sock just seems like something he'd do because his history has shown that he's a drama queen and he wants all the attention he can get; a bloody sock only adds to the legend as long as no one comes forward with proof that it wasn't real. 

    But just suspend judgment for a moment and think about it. Schilling portrays himself as this All-American, apple pie eating, hard core conservative, touting American values; his self-image is easily transparent with his ill-informed political rants concluded by the presidential. "God bless you (dramatic pause); and God...bless...the...United...States...of...America."

    Would someone who appears to harbor a political future think twice about trying to formulate a phony legend of his "courage" and "heroism" dragging himself out to the mound with an injured and blood-soaked ankle to lead his team into a historic comeback? It's at least possible, and with Schilling, I'd put the odds at 50/50 that it was a bloody prop instead of a bloody sock.

• Schilling's unilateral decision to become a closer in 2005:

    After returning from injuries in 2005, Schilling almost decided on his own that he was going to be the Red Sox closer. Since they didn't really have anyone else and the season was going down the tubes at that point anyway, they gave him a chance to do the job...and he was awful.

• Schilling's post-season greatness and admirable charity work:

    Despite all of the above-mentioned incidents, Schilling was an excellent pitcher in the regular season when he was healthy and a money guy in the playoffs and World Series. If I needed to name five pitchers without thinking about it to pitch a big playoff game, they'd come out something like this: Bob Gibson, John Smoltz, Josh Beckett, Curt Schilling, Orel Hershiser.

    Even with his politics and self-important agenda that rankled teammates (it's somewhat irritating when a newcomer walks in and anoints himself team spokesman in a clubhouse full of veterans, don't you think?) Schilling has always been generous with his time and money for people and charities and even with the negatives his personality creates, there's no denying that he's done some very nice things for a lot of people.

• Is Curt Schilling a Hall of Famer?

    I don't know.

    Looking at his numbers on the surface, he's borderline. In examining how many Hall of Fame caliber seasons he's had, I'd put the number at six. Is that a Hall of Fame pitcher? Six big time seasons?

    His record of 216-146 is borderline as well. The pitchers he's compared to statistically aren't helpful to the argument either. There are names like Don Drysdale, John Smoltz and Catfish Hunter for whom you'd say, "if they're in, then Schilling should be in"; but then there are others like Hershiser, Bob Welch, Milt Pappas and Kevin Brown who were very good pitchers, but not Hall of Famers. Hershiser was a better pitcher than Schilling ever was before he blew out his arm; and I'd vote for Mike Mussina for the HOF before I'd vote for Schilling. 

    Adding in Schilling's post-season resume gives him a stronger case and I think he'll get in...eventually; but he's not a first ballot HOFer and if he really bitches about it when he doesn't get in when he's first eligible or for two or three years after that, the voters might really make him wait because most of them couldn't stomach him to begin with. I'd honestly have to sit down and do some serious thinking before putting his name down on the ballot and that, to me, means he's going to have to wait awhile to get in, if he gets in at all.

•  He also may not be "fully" retired:

    Here's a final tip: it's only going to take one big injury for a serious contender like the Cubs, Red Sox or Phillies for Schilling to start throwing feelers out there that maybe he'd be willing to come back and get in shape to help a contending team through their injuries and, in his mind, "save the day". In fact, I'd expect there to be rumblings by June or so that Schilling's arm is feeling good and he'd be willing to come back "in the right situation".

    For what it's worth, that would remind me of when the entire Mets starting rotation was on the disabled list at one time or another in 1987 and they called the idle Tom Seaver to get back in shape and try to pitch. He pitched a few simulated games and got shelled (former Mets backup catcher Barry Lyons----I think it was him if my memory serves----ripped Seaver's diminished offerings so viciously that he quipped that he was going to make the "simulated All Star team"). Seaver retired and went home to Connecticut.

    Unless Schilling's popping 95 on the radar guns in the summer, I'd suggest he do the same preemptively, sort of like a personal Iraq war (he should get the analogy being the right winger he is) to avoid embarrassing himself; he should stay retired and be happy with a great career.   

    mlbhomerunonline@gmail.com writes:

Soto an MVP candidate?  Would be my first choice...or third.

Cole Hamels not listed as a possible Cy Young winner?

What fun is it to be agreeable?  I enjoyed reading your post.

I've included a link to this site within my blog.

Keep up the good work!

Thanks,
http://www.MLBHomeRun.com

    Geovany Soto might be the key to the entire Cubs season. He's handled the pressure of playing for Lou Piniella so far, dealt with the pitchers and gotten excellent results at and behind the plate. The only concerns I'd have are whether the sophomore slump hits him without warning and if the absence of Henry Blanco as a backup and mentor affects him; other than that, he'll be in the MVP mix by season's end. 

    I can't expect Cole Hamels to be healthy for this entire season. Already he was having elbow problems in the spring and prior to last season, his high in innings pitched was 183; last year, including post-season, he threw over 260. The Phillies had better be prepared for his absence and it's going to keep him out of Cy Young contention. 

Jane Heller at Confessions of a She-Fan writes:

Any ideas who would replace Leyland? 

    You'd have to figure it's going to go one of two ways if Leyland gets axed: 1) the Tigers are going to be so atrocious that GM Dave Dombrowski starts a fire sale; or 2) the team's playing respectably enough (around .500, but in striking distance of the division) and Leyland demands a contract extension, Dombrowski says he wants to wait until the end of the season and the thing blows up. (That happened with Don Zimmer with the Cubs and Charlie Manuel with the Indians.) 

    If either case, Dombrowski could hire someone on the staff to manage the team for the rest of the season (Lloyd McClendon and Gene Lamont have managerial experience) and find a new manager at the end of the season; or if things are really bad, he could name Triple A Toledo manager Larry Parrish the new manager and let him audition for the job he held in 1998-1999. I think Detroit would be a good spot for Willie Randolph or John Gibbons, but that would have to wait until the house is clean and they start over.

Shawn Stirling writes:

*Note: This posting is up on my MLBlog site, Prince of New York. I'm printing it here so my regular readers see it and know what's going on over there.

So, my name has been stricken from the sidebar list of Book Authors on the Blogosphere page. This is while the following is a matter of fact:

• I understand he's very old and sick, but Jack Klugman hasn't posted anything here since December 6th, 2005. Jack's still on the list.
  
• Peter Bjarkman posts very, very infrequently and is still there.
• Doris Kearns Goodwin hasn't posted since September 28, 2007. She's still on the list.
  
• Zoe Rice posted once in January; twice in December; twice in November; and not at all in October. Quite the fan she is; why would any baseball blogger wanna post anything in October? She's still on the list.
• Patti O'Shea hasn't posted since September 21st, 2008. She's still on the list.
• Frank Messina has written two posts total to promote his book of poetry; one in early February and one a few days ago. He's on the list.
• Paul "The Exiled Prince of New York" Lebowitz blogged on MLBlogs almost fanatically and (the consensus seems to think) brilliantly, has a brand new book out and, since he decided to go off on his own to try and build a greater audience, he's not only been stricken from the "Latest Leaders" list even though he gets enough hits to be somewhere around the top 15, he's completely eliminated from the list of book authors. Doesn't this strike anyone as vindictive, arbitrary, petty and self-aggrandizing on the part of the administrator?

• Now, this pissed me off:

    I made sure that I thought about this and let it sink in before reacting because I didn't want to explode with emotional response before letting it settle, but after five days nothing much has changed. 

    Long story short, I get a lot of web hits of people looking for information and instruction on duplicating Tim Lincecum's mechanics, so despite not being the most helpful person in the world, I wrote some advice that I thought would help on my moderately defunct MLBlog. The hits kept on coming, so I sent a long Email to pitching coach Tom House who's worked with the likes of Randy Johnson and Nolan Ryan and written books, produced videos and studied optimal pitching mechanics extensively. The Email basically said who I was and while I understood basic pitching mechanics and could spot certain issues by eye, I didn't have access to the information he does, nor the knowledge to explain it. I mentioned that I get so many hits of people looking for information about Lincecum that I don't know what to tell them and I asked for some advice.

    I'd forgotten about the message when I finally got an answer a week later and instead of a series of suggestions of what to say to these people, House sent me a link (I'm not posting it) to his new book, DVD and website.

    That pissed me off.

    It's not like I sent him a two sentence request for help; it was a five paragraph explanation of what the issue was and that I didn't know what to say to help these people and I received what amounts to a request for free commercial time on my website.

    That's not happening and it was pretty offensive, I think.

    It's sort of like someone asking me what they can do to become a better writer (as if I'd know) and I suggested that they simply purchase and study the entire Paul Lebowitz catalog and all answers and the genesis of my personal improvement would be made clear.

*I mean, you can buy the books if you want; I dunno how much they'd help.

    It was out-of-line and the fact is that he'd have been better off sending me something to print and then link the items because it would've looked like he was giving me some information and the clear nature of his intent would've been a little more opaque. 

    For those looking for information about Tim Lincecum's mechanics, the only thing I can tell you is to wait until Chris Lincecum comes out with the inevitable book about how he created a flamethrowing, diminutive Cy Young Award winner with the unique training regimen; and remember that no matter what Lincecum's mechanics were, he's still probably hit the upper 90s with his fastball; if you don't have that gift, you're not going to get it from imitating someone who does; the best you can do is to use your natural abilities and make the most of them by adhering to the advice of a trusted coach who knows what he's doing; other than that, there's not much that can be learned from the internet or by mimicking the newest fashion craze.

• Speaking of mechanics...:

    I got a chance to see some brief highlights of the Braves highly touted prospect Tommy Hanson...*

*That was Johnny Depp's character's name in 21 Jump Street years ago. I used to love that show. Depp hated it.

....and had some concerns. It looked like he went through his motion v-e-r-y...s-l-o-w-l-y...a-n-d...d-e-l-i-b-e-r-a-t-e-l-y...a-n-d...

t-h-e-n...triedtospeedeverythingupreallyfast to gain some arm speed; that's a great way to blow out a shoulder.

    My preference for mechanics has always been for everything to be of similar cadence and pace with the design to be for developing the highest possible arm speed with minimal chance of injury. If a guy is doing what Hanson's doing, he's not only ripping his arm through without loading up adequately, he's slowing down after releasing the ball just as egregiously as he's starting up. It's like starting your car, driving one block at moderate speed and then desperately flooring it before it's adequately warmed up; you're going to blow out the engine before long. The Braves have to know this, but obviously haven't done anything to correct it and it's going to be a problem sooner or later. 

• More ARod hijinks:

    Have you seen the latest on Alex Rodriguez? Apparently he dated the madam of one of Eliot (Black Sox Scandal) Spitzer's call girl agencies----Daily News Story. It's long past the point of ARod even being interesting for any of his extracurricular activities, but I have to sort of provide a lukewarm defense for the guy and, by proxy, that scumbag Spitzer. At the very least, he was trying to do what's perceived as the "wrong" thing the right way. Isn't it better for a guy who wants to fool around to hire a call girl with whom it's going to be a straight business arrangement than to risk blowing everything by picking up some unknown groupie? And does anyone even care anymore? 

    Spitzer's story wouldn't have been as bad (and he probably wouldn't have had to resign) if he wasn't such a hypocrite and been prosecuting while prostituting; if it'd been a straight sex scandal, he would've survived it politically, I think. And another difference is that most of these girls would probably have fooled around with ARod for free; Spitzer, despite being the governor of New York, had to pay them simply because he's repulsive----picturing the clenched teeth and contorted face as he pounded away at these women who he'd hired gives me chills. (I'm not picturing it on purpose, if that's what you're thinking.)

    I'm proud of the fact that I didn't vote for Spitzer for no other reason than that he gave me the creeps; in fact, I didn't even know who his opponent was; and I called the socks thing because he just looks like that type of guy. Other than in the throes of passion, to me there's no possible explanation for a guy leaving his socks on unless there's something wrong with him mentally.

    Anyway, what's the difference? Hiring a call girl is easier for guys like ARod and Spitzer because at the very least, the only thing they'll have to be concerned about is what's actually happened and the stories become public; Spitzer's career was ruined and ARod doesn't care, so why should we care other than for more juicy stories? 

• What would the consequences be if teams refused to let their players play in the WBC?

    It's an honest question.

    What exactly would Bud Selig and co. do if a team simply decided that their players weren't going to be allowed to participate in the WBC? For all the criticism levied at Orioles owner Peter Angelos, he famously refused to field a replacement team in 1995 given his lawyerly work with unions and he thought it was the wrong thing to do; so what would the repercussions be if Hank Steinbrenner said to MLB that his players weren't going to participate and I dare you to do something about it?

    What would they do?

    I have a feeling that if this event is staged again in a similar fashion, we're gonna find out because there are going to be a bunch of teams who refuse to let their players go; and they'll be right.     

• First Manager Fired: Ron Washington, Texas Rangers/Jim Leyland, Detroit Tigers:

    They'll get fired within days of each other.

    I've spoken of Leyland before; his contract's up at the end of the year and the Tigers look awful. GM Dave Dombrowski is going to clean house starting with the manager's office.

    Washington has no chance. None. Rudy Jaramillo will finally get his chance to manage for the rest of the year and perhaps beyond; the players love the guy. 

• GMs in obvious trouble:
  

J.P. Ricciardi, Toronto Blue Jays:

    It's a bit of a risk picking him since he should've been canned (at least) three years ago; but the team is terrible; his veteran pickups and long term contract signings (Scott Rolen, Vernon Wells, B.J. Ryan) are either injury-prone, declining or untradeable; and he's good for at least three embarrassing explosions-plus-apologies a year. He'd be a great broadcaster, but that doesn't work when you're a GM. If things go really bad for the Blue Jays and they put Roy Halladay on the market, it would be monumentally stupid to let Ricciardi be the one who trades him. 

Dayton Moore, Kansas City Royals:

    He made some unfathomable maneuvers in signing the likes of Willie Bloomquist to a 2-year contract; and some absurd trades for Mike Jacobs and Coco Crisp. The Royals are a trendy pick to contend in some circles, but this reminds me of when Tony Pena coaxed a barely mediocre team to 83 wins in 2003 (helped by a 16-3 start; they went 67-76 thereafter) and they were picked to win the division by many in 2004 despite having almost no pitching. They lost 104 games. If the Royals get off to a bad start and are floundering by the All Star break, Moore could be dumped.

• GMs in not-so-obvious trouble:

Jon Daniels, Texas Rangers:

    Daniels has rebounded from a shaky start to load up the organization with prospects, but Nolan Ryan is the club president and if it comes down to a power struggle, Ryan's going to win. 

Frank Wren, Atlanta Braves:

    John Schuerholz kicked himself upstairs to the presidency just as the Braves started their decline; they've got some great prospects on the way and given the Machiavellian way the Schuerholz orchestrated his departure as day-to-day GM, it wouldn't stun me to see him move back down into the GM chair and gain credit for a Braves turnaround. Wren isn't all that well-liked anyway. 

Jim Hendry, Chicago Cubs:

    Lou Piniella certainly isn't going to get blamed if things don't go according to plan in Chicago. I'd keep my eyes and ears open for Pat Gillick rumors of taking over the Cubs on a short-term deal to try and win another championship.

Ed Wade, Houston Astros:

    He doesn't have much power in the organization to begin with and enough time has passed since Shawn Chacon beat him up for that not to be an issue in his dismissal. 

Dan O'Dowd, Colorado Rockies:

    There's always a chance that CEO Charles Monfort wakes up and realizes that he's keeping O'Dowd based on one hot month in September of 2007 and that he's done a poor job otherwise.

*Note: I'm not mentioning anyone in the Padres front office because it's obvious that once Jeff Moorad takes complete control of the organization the entire management staff is going to be cleared out like a tornado hit it. 

• The "Oh, he's one of those guys" award:

Erik Bedard, Seattle Mariners: 

    Bedard is loathed by the media and teammates because he's an obnoxious jerk and is always hurt; but he's going to be a free agent at the end of the year. Bedard's one of those guys who has a big year when there's money on the line, but will return to his familiar M.O. when he's got himself a lucrative, long-term contract. He'll either win 16-18 games this year or have stats that will indicate he could've won 16-18 games on a better team. He'll get his money from some sap and start the process all over again.

    Gabriel at rock_bard@hotmail.com writes:

    It's easy to blame the WBC for the loss of money that'll be concurred in if any player gets really injured, but have you thought about the root of the problem? The large sums they're paying the players. I didn't hear anyone complaining about mexicans that play in Mexico getting hurt, because it's a very interesting and appealing event. Sorry if you (like the other 80% of USA residents) don't like it, but they are not meaningless games, and they SHOULD have the same importance as the MLB, and that's why the WBC has so many detractors: nobody considers it has any importance over the tradition of a USA baseball season. People prefer to see the Mets win a championship than USA, and that's why you're making statements like that. "No WBC"? What about "No money if you're on the DL more than x months"? Or "No money if you don't play at least 110 games?" It's easy to see the immediate past to blame, but you have to look at the whole picture to pinpoint something.

    The amount of money the big league players are being paid can't be discounted, especially if a team with payroll limitations loses their stars to injuries directly from going too hard too fast in the WBC; but no matter how much the players are being paid, it shouldn't come into play if the club is saying they don't want their employees participating in an event that could compromise their abilities to perform for the entity that's paying them. It's even more egregious if a guy like Francisco Rodriguez is not only being used extensively in March, but overused. K-Rod hasn't recorded a four out save since 2007; why's he being allowed to do it twice in three days in March just as he starts his first season with a new team?

    I actually think the WBC can be a good thing, but there's no viable time to play it without these questions and protests cropping up. I can also see why the players like it. I'm sure David Wright's getting a kick out of playing next to Derek Jeter, etc; but if Wright misses time because of his injured toe; if K-Rod is blown out because he went all out too early and it costs the Mets two or three games and keeps them from the playoffs, I have a problem with it as I'm sure Red Sox fans, Braves fans and Marlins fans do with the injuries to their players. My main concern is for my team and while it's easy to say that the Mets have a closer in J.J. Putz if something happens to K-Rod, he shouldn't be recording four out saves for anyone other than the New York Mets. 

    I suppose if players who are so jazzed about it are determined to play in the WBC, they could be asked to sign a waiver absolving their big league employer from paying them if they get hurt, but if someone like K-Rod got injured, that still wouldn't solve the problem of the Mets losing their closer because of this. Money is part of it, but the need for the player and his performance is about as important. The only solution I can come up with is telling my stars they can't play in the event because that's my priority and if they're mad about it, so be it. Their obligation is to their existing club over their country in this case. 

    Jane at jane@janeheller.com writes:

    You actually got royalties in bills????? That's hilarious. Never heard of that. 

    I thought it was funny at first as well, but then it sunk in and I got pissed. It was like they said, well, let's not waste a check on this; let's just staple $3 to the statement and give him that. It was completely unprofessional. If this were someone else and they complained about it, I'd probably say something like, "Oh, what's the big deal?" and it isn't a big deal per se, but it's offensive to the writer as if they were doing me a favor by publishing the novel in the first place.

    It was a mutually advantageous business decision; they sold the thing online and didn't get it into any bookstores; it didn't cost much of anything to produce and they got the book for no advance plus royalties; I got to have my book published. They had wanted me to write a book for them about baseball outlaws and I sent some stuff that they kept sending back and saying, in essence, "Well, no. We wanted it to be more like 'this' or 'that'," and after a couple of months of this I said to myself, "So find someone else to write the fucking thing!", and abandoned the project.

    $3 in raggedy, wrinkled bills my ass. 

• It's not the crime, it's the coverup:

    Broncos owner Pat Bowlen is very powerful in the NFL and well-respected throughout the league, but although he doesn't go over the top a la Jerry Jones of the Cowboys, he's a bit of a camera magnet with his long fur coat and ubiquitous presence, but he'd be better off realizing that he's not on trial or sitting in front of congress when he makes statements as he did yesterday regarding the ongoing soap opera that the Jay Cutler/Josh McDaniels feud has become----NFL.com Story. Bowlen seems resigned to having to take the side of his young coach in this whole mess, but in case anyone missed his statement yesterday in response to Cutler's agent's assertion that Cutler was lied to, you'd think Bowlen was playing fast and loose with the facts to save face when he doesn't have to. 

    Cutler's agent, Bus Cook, issued the following on behalf of his client:

"Jay was disappointed in the firing of Mike Shanahan and met with the owner. The owner assured him everything would be fine. The owner said he had the second-best offense in football and would leave the offensive staff intact. Jay was good with that. Then he hires an offensive coach who gets rid of the staff."

    Bowlen responded with the Nixonesque:

"I really have had no discussion with Jay or the agent. Mike was fired right after the season. At that point, there was no need to have a discussion with Jay. Now, actually, to be fair, I don't think I had that discussion. I don't recall it. I know I'm getting up there in age, and I am not sure of that discussion."

    Hmmmm. 

    It's always interesting to hear people who don't want to lie, but are perfectly willing to use the always easy subterfuge of "I don't recall", or "I'm getting up there in age" to provide a caveat and wiggle room to get out of any mess. It sounds to me, in sifting through the crap, that Bowlen knows damn well that he did tell Cutler that the offensive staff was going to be kept intact and changed his mind when he interviewed McDaniels; and the simple fact is that there's nothing wrong with what Bowlen did and there's no reason to make things worse by spreading more crap on top of the toxic waste dump this whole situation has become. All Bowlen had to say was the following:

    I had every intention of keeping the offensive staff intact, but I interviewed Josh (McDaniels) and decided that he was the guy I wanted to be my coach; in making that decision, I committed to letting Josh bring his whole package including his offensive philosophy knowing that possibly predicated a quarterback who'd be more of a fit into that system. If I misled Jay, I apologize, but it wasn't done with the intent to appease him or to make it look like I was lying because I wasn't; the situation changed and that's how we've ended up where we are. I still hold out hope things can be smoothed over, but if they can't, we'll move forward with Josh and without Jay if it comes to that.

    If Bowlen came out with the above kind of statement, there'd be nowhere for the media to go and less eye-rolling and outright ridicule at Bowlen's obvious attempt not to lie, but not to tell the truth either. The direction he's taken is just making things worse. 

•  Age appropriate?

    Someone googled my name along with the query of the age appropriateness of my novel, Breaking Balls yesterday and I'm not sure what to tell them. I'd probably put it at age 13 or so because of the cussing, instances of sex and sexual references, but what's in there isn't much worse than what you'll hear in a third grade lunchroom or everyday schoolyard. I told one of my professors a few years ago that I didn't think it was appropriate for her grade school age son, so I'll say around age 13 would fit. 

*I'm not gonna make any money out of any sale of the thing one way or the other (and it's kinda crap anyway; I wrote it ten years ago), so this isn't a sales pitch. I still remember the last royalty payment I got; it had to be around four years ago when they didn't even bother to send me a check; they sent me letter with----this is 100% true----three single dollar bills stapled to the letter. They weren't even crisp dollar bills; they were all raggedy and cruddy. I thought it was pretty unprofessional; I mean, send me a check. Talk about humiliating; good grief. 

     If there is an actual market for it, I have the first draft of the sequel 60% done and sitting upstairs gathering dust. It's much better than the first one, if I do say so myself. I'll finish it if anyone wants to buy it.    

    The clause will be simple, direct, to the point and consisting of five letters: NO W.B.C.

    I'm trying to imagine the anger that's coursing through the veins of Theo Epstein, Omar Minaya and Larry Beinfest as they see some of their most important players used, abused and injured during this stupid series of exhibition games called the World Baseball Classic. Another day, another series of injuries; another day, another game in which an important player is used for no reason. When's enough going to be enough?

    Kevin Youkilis could certainly have sprained an ankle playing in a spring training game for the Red Sox; Dustin Pedroia could've pulled a muscle in his torso taking fielding practice; David Wright could've fouled a ball off his foot and split a toenail during batting practice, but the difference between these things happening in camp and happening at the WBC is that their respective front offices would've shrugged and said, "what are you gonna do?" because although it's unlucky, it's acceptable for players to get hurt when they're under the supervision of the team that's paying them; if they get hurt when playing in some made-up "event", it's totally absurd.

    If I'm Epstein, Larry Lucchino and John Henry, I'm screaming like a raving maniac; if I'm Omar Minaya and Jeff Wilpon, not only am I aggravated that David Wright split his toenail, but that he was clearly limping and hurt and had to play because there were no other third baseman on the USA roster. What if he twisted his back because he altered his swing to compensate for the pain in his toe? What if he tore an elbow ligament because he couldn't throw correctly? Marlins closer Matt Lindstrom strained his rotator cuff pitching in this nonsense and didn't tell USA manager Davey Johnson about it, pitching through the pain. The Nationals didn't want Adam Dunn playing first base, but the US team had no one else and Dunn volunteered; his employers apparently have no say in what capacity their well-compensated employees are participating in this silliness. Who's responsible for this?

    Then there are the other issues like Mets closer Francisco Rodriguez recording two four-out saves in three days for Venezuela and then pitching against the USA in a game that his team led by four runs and had no bearing on Venezuela's advancing in the tournament; it was for seeding purposes. Does Venezuela manager Luis Sojo care that he could be damaging the closer for the Mets when he's managing a team from a country under the control of a military dictator? And if any of the missed days for the clubs cost their team a game or two and they miss the playoffs, what then? Is MLB going to compensate the Mets, Red Sox or Marlins for lost post-season revenue because of this stupid series of exhibition games?

    All three clubs are in tough divisions and could possibly need every win they can get just to make the playoffs; so what if K-Rod can't pitch on back-to-back days in August because he's tender from working so hard in the spring? What if the Marlins don't have Lindstom for a month? What if the Red Sox----whose offense is already depleted with the loss of Manny Ramirez, the decline of Jason Varitek and David Ortiz and the back problems of J.D. Drew----miss the playoffs because both Youkilis and Pedroia got hurt at the WBC? 

    This whole thing is a farce and with the way the injuries and abuse are becoming an issue and have the potential to cost teams a lot of money, I'd expect this to be the last WBC ever staged. It can be buried in a shallow grave without any marker to identify it so no one can dig it up and bring it back as a zombie a la Jason from Friday the 13th or Michael Myers from Halloween; these metaphors are eerily accurate because this is nothing more than a bad horror movie for the teams that employ the players; much like a parent saying they're not letting their teen go to one of these poorly made, senseless films, the respective clubs are not going to let their stars play in it anymore; nor should they because it's a catastrophic injury to an indispensable star waiting to happen and what's worse, MLB doesn't seem to care.  

• NL MVP: Hanley Ramirez, Florida Marlins:
  

    There's talk that the Marlins are going to move him down into the middle of the lineup and if they do that, his stolen base numbers will suffer, but he'll drive in a bunch more runs. Either way, he's 25 and about to show the world why he's one of the most feared hitters in baseball.

Alternative contenders:

David Wright, New York Mets: 

    The numbers go up year-after-year and will only get better (providing Citi Field is a bit easier on the power numbers than Shea Stadium was). 

Ryan Howard, Philadelphia Phillies:

    Another perennial contender who, despite all the strikeouts and stone glove, hits his 45 homers and drives in his 140 runs. 

Geovany Soto, Chicago Cubs:

    A rising star who has the dual responsibilities of hitting and handling the pitchers for a manager in Lou Piniella who expects a lot out of his catchers. Soto has been oblivious to pressure in his first year-plus in the majors.

Albert Pujols, St. Louis Cardinals:

    No explanation needed here.

• NL Cy Young Award: Johan Santana, New York Mets:

    Acclimated to the new surroundings in New York and the National League, plus with a bullpen that's not going to gack up as many wins as they did last season, Santana should be up around 21-23 wins along with his other dominant stats.

Alternative contenders:

Josh Johnson, Florida Marlins: 

    Finally healthy after missing all of 2007 and a chunk of 2008 with Tommy John surgery, Johnson is primed to become the ace of a young contender in Florida. The 6'7" Johnson is going to be an superstar.

Yovani Gallardo, Milwaukee Brewers:

    A shaky bullpen will keep his win total down, but the 23-year-old Gallardo has great stuff and a sense of style. 

Dan Haren, Arizona Diamondbacks: 

    I'd be concerned about the recurrent aches and pains that Brandon Webb is having if I were the Diamondbacks, but Haren, who's been seen as more of an innings-eater, is an ace in his own right and he could emerge at the top of the D-Backs rotation sooner rather than later in 2009.

Roy Oswalt, Houston Astros:

    Oswalt rediscovered his game late last season and he'll be the only bright spot in an almost barren Astros rotation.

• NL Rookie of the Year: James McDonald, Los Angeles Dodgers:

    He'll start the season in the back of the Dodgers rotation and end it near the top. McDonald has wicked stuff: a 94 mph fastball; a slow overhand curve and a changeup. It helps that the Dodgers don't appear to have much choice but to give McDonald a chance early in the season.

Alternative contenders:

Cameron Maybin, Florida Marlins:

    The flashy Maybin is going to finally get a chance to strut his stuff as an everyday player. The ball explodes off his bat and if they move Ramirez down in the lineup, Maybin will develop into a top-of-the-lineup speedster with pop in his bat.

Tommy Hanson, Atlanta Braves:

    Everyone who sees Hanson is in love with his poise and stuff; the Braves aren't going to be any good and the sooner they realize that and tell the likes of Tom Glavine to retire to give youngsters like Hanson a chance to pitch, the better. 

Dexter Fowler, Colorado Rockies:

    Fowler is gifted at getting on base, can run and is only 23. He'll develop power as he turns from a gangly 6'4" 170 into a 190-200 pounder. 

• NL Manager of the Year: Bruce Bochy, San Francisco Giants:

    Everyone (save the "brilliant" Sandy Alderson) appreciates the understated Bochy and how he handles his players. Every time he got his Padres teams into contention, they made the playoffs. He's widely respected around the league and easy to play for.

Alternative contenders:

Fredi Gonzalez, Florida Marlins:

    The Marlins are going to contend this year and Gonzalez is going to finally receive some credit for being a solid manager. After the way he brought the bargain basement Marlins to 84 wins last year and Joe Girardi had the Yankees miss the playoffs for the first time since Bill Clinton's first presidential term, you don't hear Girardi's name mentioned in comparison with Gonzalez anymore.

Tony La Russa, St. Louis Cardinals:

    In a way, the Cardinals penny-pinching is only cementing La Russa's genius. That he has to make do with whatever scraps obnoxious GM John Mozeliak is generously flinging into his cage----and winning with it----makes La Russa's case as a genius all the more secure.

    Here are the NL managers who I think are going to get fired:

Bud Black, San Diego Padres:

    Is it Black's fault for what's gone on in San Diego? No, but he shares a chunk of the blame for the blown playoff spot in 2007 and any manager whose team loses 99 games one year and is on course to lose close to 110 the next year isn't going to keep his job. He's definitely gone when Jeff Moorad takes over as the club's sole owner and cleans house, but the Padres might fire him early in the season to make it look like they're doing something. He'll have to go back to being a pitching coach or bench coach and wait a long while for another managerial opportunity, if he ever gets one.

Cecil Cooper, Houston Astros:

    I thought Cooper did a very good job with the Astros on and off the field last year, but Drayton McLane does whatever pops into his head at the particular moment, so if the Astros are as bad as I think they'll be, Cooper will get the blame even though much of their troubles are not his fault. 

    I listed my picks as the 2009 award winners a few days ago (and in my book Paul Lebowitz's 2009 Baseball Guide available on Amazon, BN, Target and I-Universe among other places), but I'd also like to list a few of the alternative contenders for the awards so I can kinda sorta say I was right at the end of the season even if I'm wrong. (Hey, everybody else does it.) 

• AL MVP: Alex Rodriguez, New York Yankees:
  

    I know, I know; but he'll be back sooner rather than later and everyone's dumping on the guy. The latest dustup is for the cover of Details Magazine and the pictures therein. Here's a story in Newsday about it. He could still put up the numbers to win the MVP. 

Alternative contenders: 

Jhonny Peralta, Cleveland Indians:

    I don't think people realize how good this guy is or how young he is. People pay attention to Grady Sizemore as the Indians star but I think Peralta's going to have a massive year.

Justin Morneau, Minnesota Twins:

    Morneau puts up the numbers year-after-year. If Joe Mauer's out, it'll hurt Morneau's production, but he's a star and an annual contender.

Mark Teixeira, New York Yankees:

    He might get off to a bad start because he'll be trying too hard, but that happened to Tino Martinez and Jason Giambi as well and they eventually started hitting once they relaxed. They're going to have to impress on Teixeira that he doesn't have to make up for ARod's absence.

Matt Holliday, Oakland Athletics:

    Heading for free agency, he'll have a massive year and prove that he wasn't a product of Coors Field making himself a lot of money in the process.

• AL Cy Young Award: C.C. Sabathia, New York Yankees:

    There were whispers from unknown "sources" in Yankeeland that the number of innings he threw last year are a concern. It's nonsense. Although Sabathia has a history of pressing in big games, trying to throw too hard and losing his command, he'll relax pretty quickly in New York and put up a big year with a gaudy win total and lots of innings and strikeouts.

Alternative contenders:

Roy Halladay, Toronto Blue Jays:

    The numbers go up every year; he's durable; and he's looking toward free agency after 2010. The Blue Jays aren't going to be able to score for him, so he could have comparable numbers to the big winners in the AL, but will end up with a 14-14 record or thereabouts. He could also end up quietly asking to be traded if the Blue Jays are out of contention by June, as they will be.

Josh Beckett, Boston Red Sox:

    He's a free agent at the end of the year and he'll want to get paid Sabathia/Santana money or more; he's got a post-season resume second to none and is still only 29, so he's going to have a big year.

Felix Hernandez, Seattle Mariners:

    His team's not going to contend, so that'll hurt his candidacy, but there's no denying his ability and flair.

• AL Rookie of the Year: Elvis Andrus, Texas Rangers:

    He'd better be good with all the trouble that was caused amid the position shift of Michael Young to give Andrus the shortstop job. The Rangers have to stick with him and let him work through his growing pains as long as he doesn't fall flat on his face. He should put up big offensive numbers hitting in Texas.

Alternative contenders:

David Price, Tampa Bay Rays:

    Poised, confident with an array of power stuff. The Rays have been talking about starting him in the minors and that sounds like a similar strategy as they used with Evan Longoria last year to get him to sign a long term contract. There's also a debate as to whether he's going to start or relieve; he can do both superlatively; I'd make him a starter. 

Lars Anderson, Boston Red Sox:

    The Red Sox went hard after Mark Teixeira and with the injury to J.D. Drew and the still questionable production of Jacoby Ellsbury, along with the aging David Ortiz and Jason Varitek, the club might start shifting players all over the place which would open a spot for Anderson at first base. He's put up good power/on base numbers in the minors and the Red Sox have never hesitated to give a young player a chance to play.

Travis Snider, Toronto Blue Jays:

    He's been a slugger in the minors and, while he'll strike out a lot, the Blue Jays should just let him play for two reasons: they're not going to contend and they don't have much of anyone else who can hit the ball out of the park consistently and stay healthy. 

Matt Wieters, Baltimore Orioles:

    He's the catcher-in-waiting and they're bringing him along slowly. He'll probably take over in late May or early June and put up solid, but not ROY numbers. He's a guy who'll explode into his talent as he gains experience. 

• AL Manager of the Year: Joe Girardi, New York Yankees:

    The kindergarten activities this spring aside, the Yankees are going to be better simply because they're not relying on a bunch of rookie pitchers and the offense is improved. Girardi is smart enough to learn from his mistakes and as long as he doesn't overmanage and think too much, the team should cruise. He's a guy who seems to like fiddling with things even if they don't need it, so he has to keep his hands off and he'll get the credit whether he deserves it or not. Handling the press and the crisis-a-day atmosphere of the Yankees is going to be more important than anything. 

Alternative contenders:

Eric Wedge, Cleveland Indians:

    The Indians are going to have a much better season than last year and I think win the division, so Wedge will get the credit. If he gets something out of Carl Pavano and keeps Kerry Wood healthy, they'll be checkmarks on his candidacy. 

Ron Gardenhire, Minnesota Twins:

    A perennial contender because he's so good. The team's going to take a bit of a step back, but that doesn't diminish the work Gardenhire does handling his team.

Bob Geren, Oakland Athletics:

    It's hard for an A's manager to get credit for the work he does when the spectre of Billy Beane is towering over the organization, but the players seem to like Geren and the club's going to be better this year which will accrue him some support for the award.

    On another interesting note entirely, the managers who will get fired are as follows:

Jim Leyland, Detroit Tigers:

    It's going to get bad in Detroit. 

    Very bad.

Ron Washington, Texas Rangers:

    He should probably not even unpack the boxes carrying his stuff from Arizona to Texas. Washington was hours away from being fired last year when the Rangers started playing better. He's not going to be managing the team when the prospects that permeate the organization are ready for the Show. 

The National League will be posted later.      

    Aaron from District Boy writes:

PAUL, I'm glad to see someone else noticing the Tribe.  However, I think they'll win the World Series.  Me and you have all different award predictions.  My picks are all in my last post, but here's a quick roundup:
AL MVP: Mark Teixeira
NL MVP: Albert Pujols
AL CY: Roy Halladay
NL CY: Tim Lincecum
AL ROY: Matt Wieters
NL ROY: David Freese

    The Indians are the team with the fewest flaws in that division; that being said, if they truly have to rely on Carl Pavano as their number three starter, they're going to have to hope that 84 wins takes it----and it might. 

    Teixeira, Pujols and Halladay are always solid picks for post-season awards, but Halladay's problem is going to be his win total. Even if he puts up Cy Young numbers across the board, I don't see how he's gonna rack up enough wins to take the CYA. I bet he ends with great numbers and a 14-14 record or thereabouts (unless they trade him).

    Wieters isn't supposed to take over as the starting catcher for the Orioles until the season is well underway; it's hard for a guy to win the ROY if he's not playing regularly from May at least. Freese is 26-years-old; I'm a little iffy about guys that age as ROY candidates unless they're from Japan (and those guys aren't really rookies anyway.)

    The always politically correct Matt at http://diamondhacks.blogspot.com/ writes:

Interesting take on Pakistan.I guess any newcomer to a discipline will be more pliable, coachable. Low cost, unless extremists plant an IED under your N American tryout camp. I've often thought Africa presented the most fertile ground for this. Extreme poverty, high birth rate - and didnt Olajuwon come from a tribe, like, nine feet tall?

    I read a book about Osama Bin Laden called The Osama bin Laden I Know: An Oral History of al Qaeda's Leader by Peter Bergen; it was quite interesting, but the one thing that stuck with me was one person who said (I'm paraphrasing from memory) that Bin Laden is very tall and whenever they played volleyball, everyone wanted him on their side. The only thing I could think of when I read that was: whenever we played volleyball?!?

    How does that go exactly? In the middle of plotting to blow up the world, does someone say, "We need a break, let's get a volleyball game together. Ayman!! Ayman!!! Put that shoulder rocket down. Yes. No, you can do it later. Now it's time for a team-building game of  volleyball."

• Baseball should expand it's horizons:

    This probably isn't the best context to be noticing other aspects of the situation, but I can't help myself. I noticed something very interesting (and admittedly having nothing to do with the article) when I was reading yesterday's NY Times. Take a look at this picture from the recent protests in Pakistan:

    Ignoring all the worldwide strife going on and that Pakistan appears ready to collapse into complete and total anarchy, look at the way the guy on the right is throwing the projectile. Do you see the external rotation and flexibility in his rotator cuff? This genetic ability to bring one's arm into that position is one of the ways that great velocity is generated. Nolan Ryan was able to bring his arm into that position and, combined with his leg strength and timing, was able to throw harder, longer than anyone in history. This type of potential is a fertile ground to find talented players cheaply as the next wave of inexpensive signings.

    I don't know if any teams have actually considered expanding their reach into the Middle East to look for players, but how much would it cost to send a couple of scouts over, have them put up a sign that they were holding tryouts for North American professional baseball, have a group show up, look at them and sign the few that show some physical ability to be taught to hit, run and throw? They wouldn't even need a baseball field; just set up on a soccer pitch or grassy area reserved for cricket and it wouldn't be all that much different from the way some teams still select players.

    As much as I criticize Moneyball and its faulty theories, the one positive thing that comes from looking at performance over physicality is that guys like Dustin Pedroia, Kevin Youkilis and Chad Bradford get opportunities when they previously might not have. For years scouts looked at players based on such gifts as foot speed; hand speed; and velocity while ignoring the one most important question----can they play baseball?

    What would some 16-20-year-old kid from Pakistan or India or Afghanistan or Somalia say if they were asked if they wanted a chance to come to the United States and play baseball? Considering the poverty and oppression they endure, why wouldn't they want to give it a try?

    The Pirates signed two guys from India who appeared on a reality show called "Million Dollar Arm" and I think it was a great, low-risk gamble to see if they could teach them to pitch; they might make it and they might not, but with the way some teams still select players based on nothing other than "tools" and try to teach them to play baseball, paying them a fortune along the way, to me this is an inexpensive way to expand the game's reach; out of every few hundred people who show up for a tryout, you'd have to figure at least 20 or so would have some ability; and out of those twenty, if one or two makes it, it'll be worth the negligible money spent to find them; and----as opposed to some of these North American kids who think they're deities because they can hit 95 on the radar gun----these impoverished kids might actually listen when a coach tells them something instead of doing whatever they want based on money invested and a narrow skill. 

• Enough's enough with the WBC:

    Say you're Jeff Wilpon, CEO of the Mets; or Omar Minaya, Mets GM; or Jerry Manuel, Mets manager; or Dan Warthen, Mets pitching coach and you see that your new closer, Francisco (K-Rod) Rodriguez, who you signed this past winter for a bargain rate of nearly $40 million over three years and is now pitching for Venezuela in the World Baseball Classic has just closed out his second consecutive game for his country by recording four outs. 

    This is the second time in three days that K-Rod has recorded a four out save for his country in this ridiculous, formulated event.

    Do you know how many four out saves K-Rod recorded during the 2008 season on the way to a record 62 saves? NONE!! Not one. Part of that is due to having a superb set-up man in Scot Shields, but part of that is monitoring the lanky and diminutive K-Rod's workload to keep him healthy; and the Mets, who needed a closer desperately after Billy Wagner got hurt, lucked into getting K-Rod at a reduced rate despite his record-setting performance because he wanted to pitch on the big stage and the market was flush with closers; and now they have to sit there and watch, chewing their nails and holding their collective breaths as the new closer is recording four-out saves in meaningless exhibition games in March. 

    IT'S MARCH!!!!

   I'd be livid and I'm sure the Mets front office is reacting in the same way as I am without saying it, but if I were them (or any club for that matter) there would be an edict issued: if you're an integral part of the team, you're not playing in the WBC. Period. If the injuries to Dustin Pedroia, Matt Lindstrom, Robinson Cano and Damaso Marte aren't enough, then the outright abuse that's going on with K-Rod should send the signal that it's in the team's better interests to keep their stars healthy than to appease MLB; and if MLB has a problem with it, they can, as I said on Sunday, sue me. Let's go to court and see who has precedence over the players: the club paying him or the league itself? I guarantee you the clubs would win.

    What's it going to take? A superstar getting seriously injured to force the teams to put a stop to this nonsense? This WBC is a farce that has to end. Now.   

    Paul from http://myteamrivals.typepad.com/marlins_musings/ writes:

Nice post, and I begrudgingly agree with you about the Yankees.  I appreciate the Marlins love though!! Although now if Matt Lindstrom has to miss any time during the year, they might not have a capable closer until Henry Ownes' suspension is up, and that could spell trouble.
It's a shame you had to leave MLBlogs, but keep up the good work here!

    I thought someone from the Mets should've gotten into Hanley Ramirez's face on the last weekend of the 2008 season when he walked by the dugout and told them they were going home for the winter. It would've been nice if anyone had the balls to say to Ramirez to get his ass over to his side of the field before he was crawling around in the grass looking for his teeth, but it didn't happen; and that might be part of the reason the Mets have faltered in the end over the last two years; I have no genuine love for the Marlins in any way, but endless respect that they're the best run and smartest organization in baseball and they're very dangerous this year. No Moneyball present there either.

    Lindstrom's another huge gaffe by the Mets; they traded a guy with a 100-mph fastball for Jason Vargas? If Lindstrom does miss some time though, it's not gonna be Henry Owens (another former Met who threw 100 before he got hurt), it'll be Jose Ceda taking over; Ceda's going to make the Cubs rue the day they traded him for the immortal Kevin Gregg, who's going to be in Lou Piniella's doghouse before April is out as soon as he walks the bases loaded or gives up a couple of game-tying or losing homers.

    Jane Heller at Confessions of a She-Fan writes:

Can't comment on football matters. Too clueless.

    Why let that stop you? Have you watched or read anything about <INSERT SUBJECT HERE>? A massive percentage of the people who feel free to opine about anything don't have the faintest idea what they're talking about. Considering that reality, even if you are clueless, that's no reason not to jump in. Look at Harold Reynolds, Joe Morgan, Michael Kay and Chris Russo----not knowing anything hasn't stopped them from making money. 

    Is Denver Broncos owner Pat Bowlen already regretting putting the keys to his franchise in the hands of 33-year-old Josh McDaniels two months into his reign? From the way this tenure has started, it'd be naive to think that Bowlen isn't having second thoughts given the way McDaniels has botched this whole mess with franchise quarterback Jay Cutler; this is the risk that's run when an interview is partially a discussion about the organization, but is partially tinged with a starstruck reverence to what the prospective employee was a part of in another venue. McDaniels has parlayed his relationship with Patriots czar Bill Belichick into a head coaching job at a very young age and rather than proceed in fixing problems with his new club that made his hiring a reality in the first place, has succeeded only in embarrassing himself and the organization as this bonfire turns into an inferno. The similarities to the Billy Beane/Paul DePodesta relationship----advanced in Moneyball----that resulted in DePodesta getting the job as the Los Angeles Dodgers GM and destroying the club in 20 months before he was fired, are striking.

      The only way to know whether hiring a new organizational architect was a good move is in retrospect. If, in three years, the Broncos are a reasonable facsimile of the Patriots, then the hiring of McDaniels will be seen as astute, similar to Al Davis's anointing of a 32-year-old linebackers coach name John Madden as Oakland Raiders coach in 1969. If this whole controversy with Cutler blows up in McDaniels's face before he even gets started on the job, he could be gone before he knows what happened----and it'll be his own fault.

    The entire story is summed up here from NFL.com, but one thing I'll say unequivocally is that the quarterback and his parents putting their Colorado homes up for sale is a bad sign for the player's future in the town. Much like DePodesta, McDaniels has walked in with an attitude of invincibility and entitlement to do what he wants with the organization no matter its condition. When DePodesta took over the Dodgers in 2004, they were an up and coming team who'd had four straight winning seasons. Instead of looking at what was there and trying to find ways to seamlessly integrate his own beliefs (as faulty and pompous as they were) into what was present, he decided to blow the thing up with arrogance and condescension. It took a series of hellish and stupid decisions to awaken Dodgers owner Frank McCourt from his slumber to realize that he wasn't getting Billy Beane, but a young guy who rode the coattails of both Beane and Moneyball into a job that he was neither qualified for nor able to handle. Following his firing, DePodesta's reputation has taken an even greater hit as he's been an integral part in the ongoing train wreck known as the San Diego Padres; inexplicably, there are still those that defend the indefensible and promote this fool for another GM job, but the facts are the facts and this could be the beginning of a similar nightmare with the Broncos that's going to end in NFL purgatory----not just missing the playoffs, but resulting in a Detroit Lions type of organizational devastation. And it wasn't necessary.

    Why Bowlen decided to hire a new offensive coach with a vastly different philosophy than that of his former coach Mike Shanahan is beyond me. Had the offense been the issue, then fine; but the offense with the quarterback possessing a once-in-a-generation howitzer arm wasn't the Broncos problem over the past few years, it was the defense. In fact, if I were Bowlen I would've looked for a defensive wizard like Steve Spagnuolo and implored him to keep the offensive staff intact, build a defense to complement it and move forward from there. Instead, Bowlen was taken in by the Belichick "coaching tree" whose branches haven't been particularly sturdy anywhere else and what's happened almost immediately is not the way one wants to start with a new regime, especially with a coach who's so young and has already been branded as a liar for denying, then admitting that he wanted to trade for Matt Cassel from the Patriots. 

    Is this going to be resolved? I can't see how McDaniels and Cutler are going to be able to coexist now; and I can totally understand Cutler's anger at this mess. Perhaps McDaniels is right that Cassel would be a better option to run the type of offense he prefers; that it's easier to get on the same page with someone who doesn't have the desire to fire the ball deep as Cutler does. ("Getting on the same page" was one of the proffered reasons from DePodesta that he fired Dodgers manager Jim Tracy; and DePodesta himself was fired before he completed the hiring of Terry Collins, a raving lunatic who had inspired revolts in both of his previous managerial opportunities with the Astros and the Angels.)

    The one thing that a new coach doesn't want to do----if his resume is as flimsy as that of McDaniels----is deal with this type of controversy with the popular star player as soon as he walks in the door. The Belichick connection will only go so far; and if the Broncos are 2-6 at the midway point next season (or even sooner like having a shaky training camp), the fans are going to be very, very angry at this unnecessary sequence of events; then what's Bowlen going to do? His history has shown that he's acted quickly if something wasn't working as he fired Wade Phillips after two seasons and replaced him with Shanahan. A similar thing could happen with McDaniels if his results don't match his hype and I'm betting pretty heavily that they won't based on nothing more than history of similar situations that have exploded almost immediately.  

• It's 2009, not 1999; enough with the Pedro Martinez crap:

    With the fifth starter for the Mets still in flux and Tim Redding being shut down with "arm strength issues" (as opposed to the rest of his career when he suffered from "not being very good issues"); and the Mets auditioning what looks like a shot Freddy Garcia and veteran Livan Hernandez, the sports talk geniuses are fielding calls and advocating the Mets bring back Pedro Martinez. We're hearing the familiar spring training endorsements: his arm slot is back where it was with the Red Sox; he's popping 90+ on the radar gun; he's a crafty veteran who can get by with less; blah, blah, blah. To me, the main issue with bringing Pedro back isn't just that he's unlikely to stay healthy, but that he's asking for too much money on a guaranteed contract and I wouldn't pay Pedro for another season to sit on the disabled list based on his reputation.

    Mike Francesa was talking about this during the week and he's right. The Mets paid Pedro a lot of money for what turned out to be one season of healthy productivity. Granted, he gave them a buzz, some credibility with other players and injected some life into the clubhouse; but objectively, after that 2005 season (which, by all rights, he should have won 21 or 22 games), he was a sunk cost. He did almost nothing from mid 2006 on through 2008 and was paid very lucratively. Now he clearly wants a guaranteed amount of money to sign and if he was signing with any team other than the Mets or Red Sox, he'd be right to ask for a paycheck worthy of his reputation and remaining ability; but the Mets especially don't owe Pedro Martinez anything. In fact, if he's so confident in his ability to pitch and stay healthy, he should tell the Mets that he'll do what John Smoltz did with the Red Sox: sign for an incentive laden contract with a reasonable $5 million base and get out there and pitch to earn the money he wants.

    The fact is that even if Pedro's feeling good and thinks he can rebound to something close to 2005 form, it doesn't mean his injury problems are solved. His body's breaking down and the Mets don't need to have another former star from whom they expect big things to spend the entire season rehabbing (a la Moises Alou, Orlando Hernandez and Pedro) as they've had in the past few years. The one good reason to keep Livan Hernandez over the likes of Garcia and Pedro is that he----at the very least----goes out there and pitches. If Redding is able to pitch by the end of April, the fifth starter can be a combination of Hernandez and Redding with Hernandez starting and Redding pitching long relief if Hernandez isn't getting anyone out; then the Mets can try to get a lead by the middle innings and hand it over to the bullpen. 

    There was talk that Tony La Russa wanted to consider Pedro as a reliever and possibly a closer (I suggested that last year after Billy Wagner got hurt), but the Cardinals aren't paying Pedro a lot of money on a guaranteed contract; the Dodgers were also said to be interested, but they're probably not going to pay him either. Pedro wants to be treated and paid as if he's still 27 and blowing people away; but he's not that pitcher anymore even if he still maintains that attitude, intelligence and meanness. If he's so interested in returning to the Mets, then he should reward them for what they paid him over the past three years, for which they received almost nothing on the field.

• Julio Lugo's knee surgery is irrelevant because he wasn't gonna play anyway:

    Julio Lugo is undergoing arthroscopic knee surgery on Tuesday, essentially ending his hopes to win the job at shortstop for the Red Sox this season, hopes that weren't going to be fulfilled no matter what. Lugo has been an unmitigated disaster for the Red Sox; a total waste of money; but the real reason Lugo wasn't going to play one way or the other is his contract. There's a clause in there (according to RotoWorld) that says if Lugo has 2400 plate appearances between 2007 and 2010 and 600 in 2010, his $9 million option for 2011 is exercised.

    It was almost impossible for him to reach those heights given the amount of time he missed in 2008, but the Red Sox weren't going to take that chance because: A) Lugo is almost assuredly not going to be in a Red Sox uniform after----or possibly during----this season (they'll dump him somewhere or outright release him); and B) Jed Lowrie's just better than Lugo, especially defensively. Now with Lugo's knee surgery, the Red Sox don't have to formulate some excuse for Lugo not playing after he's hit pretty well in the spring. He wasn't going to be the shortstop for long anyway, but now the injury has made the decision more easily explainable to the Players Association, who would without question start whining about the contract stipulation influencing the Red Sox. Duh.

• The NCAA way of protecting young arms:

    Big time college coaches have long been accused of not giving a rat's ass about their young pitchers' arms, but one would think that a high profile guy like Tony Gwynn (head coach at San Diego State) would keep a close eye on a pitching prospect who's attracted the hype of Stephen Strasburg, but Buster Olney printed the following on his blog yesterday: 

Stephen Strasburg struck out 14 in seven innings for San Diego State, throwing 116 pitches.

    If he were in the minors, let alone the big leagues, there would be precautions taken with that right arm that's launching fastballs clocked at 100+ mph; why would Gwynn of all people leave this kid in to throw 116 pitches knowing that he's going to make upwards of $10 million guaranteed just for signing his name in three months? And where are Strasburg's parents? If that was me, I'd tell Gwynn straight out, "I don't care who you are, the kid's not going to be overused again as long as he's a member of that team; I'll pull him out of school if you don't like it." 

• The WBC will be blamed for these injuries:

    Dustin Pedroia has a muscle strain on his left side.

    Robinson Cano has pain in his right shoulder.

    Damaso Marte has left shoulder inflammation.

    There's no way to know whether playing in games for their countries in the WBC caused or exacerbated these injuries, but if they have to miss time during the regular season, their clubs will have reason to be even more reticent to let them play in the made-up event. The Pedroia injury isn't thought to be serious, but the obliques, ribs and lats are tricky and tend to linger. Cano had the pain since the start of spring training, but stupidly didn't say anything. Did playing in the WBC have something to do with that? If this were a normal spring training and he was going to miss a few days of drills, would he have told the Yankees? You tell me. And Marte's shoulder problem might've happened anyway.

    These issues are going to give teams ever more of a reason to hold their players out of the WBC. I shudder to think what could've happened with Johan Santana if the Mets allowed him to pitch in the WBC for Venezuela. Would he have kept quiet about his elbow pain if he wanted to participate? I'm saying right now that not only would I not allow my stars to play, but it'd be in the contract that if they got hurt, they wouldn't get paid and I couldn't care less what the commissioner's office says or does about it. I'd pull an Al Davis and tell them to sue me----and I'd win too.

• Paul Lebowitz's 2009 Baseball Guide:

    Matt at Diamondhacks writes:

Ballsy pick with the Giants, Paul. I respect the staff, but you do realize this was, arguably, THE worst hitting team in baseball last year?

Papelbon makes me laugh. Zero specifics, just generic postshots like 'cancer' and 'not on the same page'. The Sox lone stumble was July (11W-13L).

Here's Manny's line in July:

347/.473/.587/1.060

Here's the rest of the BoSox:

237/.336/.383/.719

Like Varitek told Papelbon, "Just shut up and do your job."

    Dunno how ballsy it is with the Giants. I based it on their pitching more than anything. The three other big league teams in the West (I don't count the Padres as a big league team) are going to be fighting it out into September with the Giants and it's going to come down to two things: the pitching and which team makes the aggressive mid-season acquisition to beef up the roster. The Giants, despite criticism to the contrary, actually have some pretty good prospects in their system, especially on the mound in the low minors. There'll be some big name bats available like Magglio Ordonez, Carlos Lee and maybe Matt Holliday depending on what's going on across the bay with the A's. If they see they have a chance to win, Brian Sabean will go for it and with that pitching in a short series? I wouldn't want to deal with them.

    In looking at the issues of the other teams, I'd rather go into a series with Tim Lincecum, Matt Cain and Randy Johnson than what the other teams have; although the Diamondbacks are in good shape with Brandon Webb and Dan Haren. Plus, when Bruce Bochy's teams have been in a pennant race, he's steered them into the playoffs.

    As for Papelbon, I think he's one of those guys who gets away with talking so much because he's so good. I'd bet the issue's already been addressed en masse by Varitek, Ortiz, and Tim Wakefield among others.

    My main Jane, Jane Heller, at Confessions of a She-Fan writes:

WOW!!!!!!!! You predicted the Yankees to win. Where do I write the check? I sure hope you know what you're talking about! LOL.

    I can be bought, but wasn't in this case.

    I hated to do it, but I have a feeling that this is going to be a big year for the Yankees; they've done their penance for the good fortune they had during the Torre run of four titles in five years; everyone's dumping on ARod and questioning whether Joe Girardi is going to be able to handle things better than last season, but they're so loaded that I have to pick them (even if A.J. Burnett only starts the 20-25 games I'd expect from him). Once the playoffs start and they're in, they're also going to shift Joba Chamberlain back to the bullpen (unless he wins 20 games, which is not gonna happen); then they're going to be very hard to beat.

    Regarding me knowing what I'm talking about: it's like taking Hannibal Lecter or Darth Vader at face value; do it at your own risk. There was always the possibility that they were saying and doing stuff for their own amusement. That's what makes me interesting.  

    All predictions and analysis can be read in detail in my book Paul Lebowitz's 2009 Baseball Guide available on Amazon, BN, Target and I-Universe among other places

AMERICAN LEAGUE PLAYOFF PREDICTIONS:

ALDS:
New York Yankees vs Los Angeles Angels

Yankees in Four

ALDS:
Boston Red Sox vs Cleveland Indians

Red Sox in Five

ALCS:
    New York Yankees vs Boston Red Sox

    Yankees in Six

AMERICAN LEAGUE CHAMPIONS: NEW YORK YANKEES
 

AMERICAN LEAGUE AWARDS:

MOST VALUABLE PLAYER: Alex Rodriguez, New York Yankees

CY YOUNG AWARD: C.C. Sabathia, New York Yankees

ROOKIE OF THE YEAR: Elvis Andrus, Texas Rangers

MANAGER OF THE YEAR: Joe Girardi, New York Yankees

NATIONAL LEAGUE PLAYOFF PREDICTIONS:

NLDS:
    Chicago Cubs vs Philadelphia Phillies

    Cubs in Three

NLDS:
    San Francisco Giants vs Florida Marlins

    Giants in Five

NLCS:
    Chicago Cubs vs San Francisco Giants

    Cubs in Five

NATIONAL LEAGUE CHAMPIONS: CHICAGO CUBS
 

NATIONAL LEAGUE AWARDS:

MOST VALUABLE PLAYER: Hanley Ramirez, Florida Marlins

CY YOUNG AWARD: Johan Santana, New York Mets

ROOKIE OF THE YEAR: James McDonald, Los Angeles Dodgers

MANAGER OF THE YEAR: Bruce Bochy, San Francisco Giants

 2009 WORLD SERIES PREDICTION:

Chicago Cubs vs New York Yankees

Yankees in Six

WORLD SERIES WINNER: NEW YORK YANKEES
 

    One of most loyal readers Gabriel,  rock_bard@hotmail.com posted this comment about my predicted standings:

You really think the Blue Jays are as bad as the Nationals? I think that the Jays will pull another Riccardi's era record: around 80, with a final "push to contend" that fades beginning September. I'm a Jays fan, by the way. Hoping you're wrong (but seldom you're, I give you that), I think the Yankees will not achieve 97 victories without Burnett healthy, which won't happen. I think the division will be Red, and maybe the Yankees will win the Wild Card.

    The Blue Jays are probably, talentwise, on a level with the Braves if I was going to pick a team from the NL East for comparison; that would put their win total in the mid-70s, and that's the problem they have by playing in the AL East; the division's about as impossible as it gets. Not only are the Yankees and Red Sox there to abuse them, but the Rays as well. The Nats have a history of giving the Mets and Phillies trouble. If the Nats were in the AL East, they'd lose close to 100 games, but they're not. That's the luck of the draw.

    I don't think Burnett's going to be healthy for more than 20-25 starts either, but the Yankees are deep enough and still have enough hitting (even without ARod for the first month) to get by with one of their younger guys Phil Hughes or Alfredo Aceves in Burnett's place. The Blue Jays need a housecleaning starting with their GM and maybe if they fall behind even the Orioles, that'll be the signal to make some major changes starting with J.P. Ricciardi. If I were a Jays fan, I'd be hoping for that scenario because it's easier than rooting for them to contend when history's proven it's not gonna happen under this administration. They need a wakeup call and maybe last place is it.   

    Now's as good a time as any for me to publish my predictions for the 2009 season's final standings. The post-season predictions and award winners will be published in subsequent installments and all predictions and analysis can be read in detail in my book Paul Lebowitz's 2009 Baseball Guide available on Amazon, BN,Target and I-Universe among other places.

• Jonathan Papelbon's comments about Manny Ramirez (among other things):

    Why is it that very few pitchers and even fewer relievers are seen as team leaders? It could be because most everyday players think pitchers are weirdos; it could be that everyday players think pitchers aren't even athletes to begin with; or it could be that everyday players don't want to hear from guys who are, for all intents and purposes, on the level with placekickers in the NFL (that, especially, is true with relievers). Jonathan Papelbon's interview with Esquire Magazine contains the following nuggets (culled from ESPN.com):

"It just takes one guy to bring an entire team down, and that's exactly what was happening," Papelbon told Esquire. "Once we saw that, we weren't afraid to get rid of him. It's like cancer. That's what he was. Cancer. He had to go. It [stunk], but that was the only scenario that was going to work. That was it for us."

"He was on a different train!" Paplebon said of Ramirez. "And you saw what happened with that. We got rid of him, and we moved on without him. That comes from the manager, and it comes from guys like Jason Varitek and Tim Wakefield and David Ortiz . Nobody is ever going to be allowed to do that. Even a guy like me, just heading into my fourth year in the big leagues -- if David Ortiz gets a little, you know -- I'll tell him what's up! I'm not afraid to do that. I'm not afraid to put him in his place, because I think everybody needs that.

"And if somebody does it to me, I understand that. I most certainly understand that. Varitek tells me all the time, 'Just shut up. Do what you're supposed to do.'

"So Manny was tough for us. You have somebody like him, you know at any point in the ball game, he can dictate the outcome of the game. And for him not to be on the same page as the rest of the team was a killer, man!"

    Manny had worn out his welcome in Boston so many times and rebounded to help the team win that it's possible that the whole mess from last season (that I predicted in last year's version of my book; all the more reason to buy this year's version) would've blown over in time for Manny to help the Red Sox win another championship; it's also possible that it really was enough with the distractions that Manny was causing on and off the field and had to go. And I'm quite sure there are probably a hundred (or more) incidents involving Manny from his time in Boston that we don't know about; Theo Epstein and co. did a great job in getting Jason Bay as a reasonably viable replacement for Manny on such short notice and not giving up all that much along with Manny to get the deal done. That being said, Papelbon should just shut up.

    As great as Papelbon is, it's apparent that he thinks he has more influence in the clubhouse and that he's smarter than he actually is. He's a great closer, but if he thinks he's going to get Mariano Rivera money from the Red Sox for his contributions to the club as the closer, he's completely out of his mind. The way the Red Sox do business diminished the value of the closer to a point where he's a replaceable part and as much as Papelbon has evolved into one of the top two closers in baseball, he's not as integral in the minds of the front office as he thinks. In fact, I'm sure most of the organization would be comfortable with Justin Masterson closing if it came to that. Papelbon wants to get paid based on his contributions to the club over the past three years, but if he gets into a staring contest with that front office, they just might tell him to take a hike. 

    The leaders in the clubhouse, specifically Varitek and Ortiz, aren't going to be happy about these quotes. Lost in the tough-guy quotes from Papelbon regarding his getting into the faces of players who aren't with the program, he leaves out the part where Ortiz would tell him to get his ass back to the bullpen where he belongs and leave the clubhouse policing to the everyday players and the captain of the team. The comments in the interview were not only inflammatory between Papelbon and Manny, they're liable to cause problems in the Red Sox clubhouse; problems that Terry Francona certainly doesn't need.

• Whoever wrote this title is a moron:

    Here's the title from an article in the NY Post regarding Brian McNamee's newest allegations about Roger Clemens and drug use:

McNAMEE SAYS HE INJECTED ROCKET AT OLD STADIUM

    The writers don't have any say in the headlines attached to their stories, so the author can't be blamed for that, but think about it, what kind of story would we have if it was done at the new stadium? Can you see Clemens and McNamee, after all of the crap that's gone on in the past year skulking into the new stadium together with their vials and needles to inject Clemens with the juice? How would that phone call go?

Roger: "Uh, yeah Brain, you really screwed me totally and I'm suing you; but I can't get any of the prime roids, so uh, could you meet me at the new stadium? Not only do I need a booster shot, but I wanna soil the new place before it opens."

McNamee: "Sure Rog, no problem."

    Good grief.

•  You would've thought the Mets released K-Rod with all the shock and awe at the release of Duaner Sanchez:

    The Mets released a pitcher in Duaner Sanchez who was making a lot of money and hadn't returned to form after his car accident that ruined 2006 not only for Sanchez himself, but for the team. His fastball is gone and he hasn't pitched well. The Mets did him a favor by dropping him as early as they did so he'll have time to hook on with someone else; so what's the big deal?

    From the reaction, you'd think they'd released Francisco Rodriguez or J.J. Putz based on a few days in spring training; Sanchez could still be a useful reliever for someone, but the Mets wanted to save a few bucks and/or bring in an alternative who'd give them similar or better results with a far higher ceiling. And after all this, what's the reaction going to be when they release another pitcher who looks about done, Freddy Garcia? Judging from the Sanchez fallout, there might be a riot. 

    There's a scene in Casino in which mob enforcer Nicky Santoro and handicapper Sam "Ace" Rothstein, so inundated by FBI investigations into their operation, have to meet in the cactus strewn desert of Nevada to be able to speak freely. During the exchange, in which Ace talks about "his" casino, Nicky responds with the following:

Get this through your head you Jew motherfucker, you! You only exist out here because of me! That's the only reason! Without *me*, you, personally, every fuckin' wise guy skell around'll take a piece of your fuckin' Jew ass! Then where you gonna go? You're fuckin' warned! Don't ever go over my fuckin' head again! You motherfucker, you.

    I mention this because I can imagine a similar situation if any friction ever came to a head between perhaps the most storied football coach of this era in Bill Belichick and the one person who's mainly responsible for Belichick's Hall of Fame future and three Super Bowls, along with his reputation as a genius and all that entails; that person is...Tom Brady.

    It's fascinating how certain situations that are attributable only to luck spawn the legend of one person and his tentacles start to inhabit an entire industry. We've been seeing that for several years with Belichick and his disciples as they take the lessons they've learned----good and bad----and have transferred them elsewhere to mediocre and poor results. It's the same principle as the faulty Moneyball system as elucidated in Michael Lewis's misleading and twisted book of the same name----you can't create a blueprint and copy something that's not real. The back-and-forth between the young and inexperienced head coach of the Denver Broncos, Josh McDaniels and his current quarterback, Jay Cutler, is a great example of how the Belichick system only works if someone's had the success of Belichick.

    What would've happened had Brady not become the new Joe Montana? What if the sixth round draft pick, taken because he'd shown some flashes that might make him a useful backup quarterback, hadn't worked so hard and so diligently to fulfill his potential? Would Belichick have become this legendary figure if Brady became what most sixth round draft picks (especially quarterbacks) become and bounced from one team to another standing around wearing a baseball cap, headset and clipboard and never getting a chance to play? It's easy to forget now that Belichick's previous head coaching opportunity ended in disaster. 

    Belichick was the coach of the Cleveland Browns for five years. His records were as follows: 6-10; 7-9; 7-9; 11-5; 5-11; and then he got fired. Because he was out of work, he had to take a job with his former boss with the New York Giants, Bill Parcells, not as the defensive coordinator of the Jets, but handling the defensive backs and as the assistant head coach. After the embarrassing way in which he resigned as head coach of the Jets after one day (knowing the Patriots job was his without Parcells hovering around as GM), he nabbed Brady in the draft. It was that and Drew Bledsoe's injury that created Belichick and has formed this golem in which he's seen as the guy you don't screw with; as the guy whose system has to be bought into if you're gonna play for him; as the guy who'll get rid of anyone at anytime if they don't follow his rules. But what happens when that style of management isn't backed up by a track record of success?

    Belichick gets away with telling guys like Randy Moss and Corey Dillon among other current and former players that they're either going to be with his program, take less money than they'd get elsewhere to be part of the Patriots organization, or they won't be there for long, if at all; but he only gets away with it because he's won three Super Bowl titles. It's a cycle of success that wasn't there when he was dumped by the Browns and wouldn't be there in New England without Brady. Belichick was criticized in Cleveland for being a miserable human being in public and with the media. (He's said to have a very dry sense of humor and quick wit in private.) That too is tolerated because of his success. It's as if he's asking the players and the media, "Will you accept my personality and my rules if I win for you? If I promise you that you'll have a chance at a dynasty?" And they accept it; but it hasn't worked anywhere else because the players and media don't want to deal with some guy in his mid-30s telling them what's what and making their job more difficult based on their having worked in Belichick's system and nothing else. So what's happened when his assistants have gotten jobs elsewhere as opposing owners and bosses try to copy the Belichick model? 

• Charlie Weis: Caustic and grouchy, Weis wanted nothing to do with the glad-handing that goes with coaching at a big time program like Notre Dame and is now under fire because of it. It says something about how he's aggravated everyone in South Bend to the point that his job is on the line after signing a ridiculously long and expensive contract extension early in his first season with players he didn't recruit.
• Romeo Crennel: Crennel waited a long time to get his opportunity as a head coach and was undone by injuries and the problem of being too nice. He's better suited to be a coordinator and couldn't follow the ruthless lead of Belichick.
• Nick Saban: It didn't take long to realize that he would prefer to be coaching in college. He lied about not leaving the Dolphins for the University of Alabama, but why the Dolphins would want him if he didn't really want to be there is a mystery to me and he didn't do a particularly good job there anyway.
  
• Eric Mangini: Mangini copied everything from Belichick including his miserable countenance with the media. After a stunning playoff appearance in his first season, the Jets looked like it was on the way up, but the second season collapsed and the third was undone by the players tiring of Mangini's pedantic nature and the Brett Fav-ruh late season debacle. He's taken his act to Cleveland to replace Crennel and a repeat of the Belichick nightmare with the Browns is possible unless he wins immediately. I think he'll eventually loosen up and be a very good coach using his own personality instead of acting as a Belichick-clone.
• Josh McDaniels: Another arrogant young guy in his mid-30s whose attitude has immediately alienated the team's quarterback, Jay Cutler. The two are already feuding over McDaniels listening to trade offers for Cutler and going back and forth over who initiated them; they've spoken to hash out their differences and according to this ESPN Story things have gotten worse. It's not a good place to start things off when the players are probably looking at such a young coach warily and skeptically to begin with.
  

    What I don't think people realize is that Belichick gets away with what he gets away with for one reason only: because he's won; and he's won because of Brady. It's the same principle in baseball and any other sport (or management situation overall); people listen and obey when something is working; once it stops working is when they examine the entire foundation of what they're being told and some realize that they're were succeeding for reasons other than the coach or manager and his beliefs alone, then the chain-of-command starts to crumble.

    Jim Leyland for example had the cachet with the Tigers to pretty much do and say what he wanted when he took over, and it worked; but last season, as he panicked when things started slowly and started shifting his chess pieces all over the board and the team kept losing, there had to be certain players who looked at what he was doing and said, "Where's the calm ship's captain who's supposed to be steering us through the storm?" The media tirades and reaming of players only works if they're actually listening and the one reason that people are listening to Belichick is Brady and the absence of a Brady in every other situation Belichick's coaching disciples have entered has proven that the system is only part of the equation; a coach has to have the players and the players have to buy into that system; if they don't, things fall apart----fast.

• Mets release Duaner Sanchez:

    This is the absolute truth. In my new book...*

*Speaking of which, don't forget to purchase a copy of Paul Lebowitz's 2009 Baseball Guide on I-Universe.com and BN.com.

...after writing the bullpen components of the Mets, in which Duaner Sanchez was included as the fourth pitcher behind Francisco Rodriguez, J.J. Putz and Pedro Feliciano...I forgot about him completely when analyzing the pitchers themselves and omitted him. 

    Or did I? 

    Now I'm not claiming to have any prescient powers (in this case anyway), but there had to be some reason that I left Sanchez out. Was I secretly having a vision as to what was going to happen between Sanchez and the Mets? Did I subconsciously know that he was never going to be able to return to the reliever he was before his car accident? The accident that likely cost the Mets the World Series in 2006 and the pennant in 2007? It's possible. It's possible that I knew somewhere deep inside that Sanchez was going to be cut by the Mets because he was making a lot of money and his stuff just isn't there anymore to be ahead of some of the other pitchers they have in the organization.

    Or I might've just forgot.

    As for the move itself, it was pretty much a no-brainer and it was fair to Sanchez to do it now so he has a chance to move on with another team. Someone will pick him up, but given what he's shown in the past year, he's going to have to overcome a mental block preventing him from cutting loose with his fastball or he's not going to be employed for very long as anything other than a Triple A arm to pitch a few games for the big club and be there just in case of emergency. The Mets only have to pay him $276,639 in termination pay rather than his full salary of $1,687,500.

    The Mets beat reporter for WFAN, Ed Coleman, sounded nonplussed at the move because he and the other reporters were under the impression from Mets GM Omar Minaya that the club was going to let Sanchez work through his problems and try to come back to form; he suggested the possibility that the reporters were lied to outright in a half-joking manner without actually sounding like he meant it (although I think he did). I'd say that Minaya was probably telling the reporters one thing while scanning the rest of baseball hoping someone would trade them something for Sanchez; but other clubs undoubtedly knew that if the Mets were offering Sanchez around for a low-level prospect, they were about to dump him and then any team wanting to take a chance on Sanchez wouldn't have to pay him anything more than the minimum. 

• Another day of kindergarten-style play for the Yankees:

    A couple of weeks after taking the entire team on a field trip to play pool, the kinder, gentler Joe Girardi had the pitchers putting golf-like with a baseball and a bat instead of a golf club----NY Times Story. This is all well and good, but I can also envision the headline in May: Yankees Pitcher Botches 1-6-3 Double Play As He Tries to Putt The Ball Instead Of Throwing It; or Pitcher Fails To Cover First On Grounder To Teixeira, Cites Golf Practice As Distraction.

    What's next? Story time? A nap in the outfield? Playing in the blocks? 

    I have no problem with Girardi trying to soften his image, but this type of thing would probably enrage the former assistant football coach George Steinbrenner if he still had all his faculties and I can bet that Hank Steinbrenner doesn't like it either and in this case, I can't blame him. If the Yankees play up to their potential, they have a great shot at winning the World Series; and if that happens, much of Girardi's attempts to loosen things up will be given credit for that success; but in reality, it's not going to have much to do with it and some of this stuff is kinda silly.   

    Buster Olney posted a blog yesterday entitled: "Is Strasburg the best prospect ever?" about San Diego State pitcher Stephen Strasburg. Here are some of the outlandish quotes via a scout who's been watching Strasburg:

"The best I've ever seen," says a longtime scout. "And it's not even close."

C'mon. Better than Mark Prior? Remember how incredible he looked coming out of Southern Cal -- tall, big legs, good mechanics, robot-like. You're saying he's better than what Prior was then?

"Easily," says the scout, over the phone. "I'm telling you, it's not even close."

"He's got a plus slider, at 93-94 mph, and he's got a plus changeup. He's the best I've ever seen."

"You could put him in a rotation right now, and he could be a No. 2 or No. 3 starter," says the scout. "Right now, he's better than A.J. Burnett."

    It sounds like Olney, the scout or both have to go and change their pants after this series of quotes about a college kid. 

    I've never seen Strasburg and he might be the next coming of Bob Feller, but I'd think history would dissuade people from getting so out-of-hand about a kid who's not 21 yet and hasn't thrown a professional pitch. Never mind that the college hitters aren't disciplined enough because of aluminum bats to be patient; nor are most quick enough to catch up to a guy who throws that hard, but big league hitters----despite preferring beer over protein shakes and not being as fit as college players----can all catch up to a fastball; that's why (among many other reasons) they're in the big leagues. To sit there and say the things that were printed yesterday is ignoring history and jumping with both feet into the irrational exuberance that has doomed many a prospect.

    The mentioning of Mark Prior is interesting because it doesn't seem that long ago that the Twins were roasted for taking Joe Mauer instead of Prior in the 2001 draft; how's that looking now? (Speaking of Prior, would it be a shock----given his physical and statistical collapse----if his name joined Alex Rodriguez's on the PED failure list from 2003?) As for the statement that Strasburg is better than A.J. Burnett? Well, I'm not a great fan of Burnett because he only manages to get out to the mound when there's a load of money at stake; and I'm fully expecting him to get hurt again this year and be a near washout for the $80 million-plus the Yankees are going to pay him; but that doesn't diminish the fact that he has some of the best stuff in baseball when he's healthy. Is it fair to compare Strasburg to someone like Burnett now? 

    How about a few other names who were so heavily hyped entering the draft; did they live up to the press clippings? (These are off the top of my head.)

• Ben McDonald: Could hold seven (at least) baseballs in his massive hands but couldn't pitch above mediocrity or stay healthy enough when holding one to use the leverage from those giant hands to dominate as he did in college; ended his career with a 78-70 record and was out of the big leagues at 29.
• Brien Taylor: The Yankees number one pick in 1991 and had a near 100 mph fastball; the lefty hurt his shoulder in a fight and lost his fastball and only held on in pro ball until 1999 because the Yankees had invested so much money in him.
• Matt Anderson: The Tigers' number one pick out of Rice in 1997. Had over a 100-mph fastball and never did much of anything in parts of seven big league seasons.
• Paul Wilson: The Mets' former number one pick had a "lights out fastball" according to former GM Joe McIlvaine, but got hurt and was part of the failed Generation K with the Mets of the mid-90s; Wilson had a couple of useful years with the Reds, but nothing befitting a number one pick in the nation.
• Todd Van Poppel: The only reason the Braves wound up with Chipper Jones was because Van Poppel adamantly insisted he was going to college at the University of Texas. Braves GM Bobby Cox took Van Poppel at his word and drafted Jones instead. Van Poppel's intention lasted only until the Athletics used one of their extra first round draft picks to select him and offered him a load of money. College went out the window as the zeroes on the check increased. Van Poppel was compared to Nolan Ryan and, aside from a couple of years for the Cubs pitching out of the bullpen, did almost nothing but get shelled in the majors. He was officially done at 32. 
• Mark Prior: It's funny how everyone was lavishing praise on Prior when he was coming out of college so polished and mature with calves the size of melons; a swaggering, strutting figure when he was at the top of his game with the Cubs in 2003, became a shell of that college stud as the injuries started piling up; everyone conveniently forgets how clean his motion was and how his attitude and stuff were Hall of Fame quality. Now we hear about how his "high elbow" was a signal for future arm trouble as a form of revisionist history. He's still hanging around, but his career's pretty much over.
• David Clyde: Clyde went straight from high school to the big leagues and was undone by the expectations, the immaturity that comes from being 18 and walking into a big league clubhouse. Billy Martin gets blamed for Clyde's introduction to the big leagues so early, but Whitey Herzog was the manager when Clyde began his big league career; Herzog should've known better. Playing for manager Billy Martin and pitching coach Art Fowler didn't help Clyde either. He needed to go to the minor leagues and get acclimated to pro ball; but the atmosphere led to heavy drinking and Martin and Fowler, seemingly forgetting (or not caring) that they were dealing with an adolescent, used and abused the young lefty, then discarded him at age 20.

    It's easy to start preparing a guy's Hall of Fame plaque when he's still in college, but how many live up to the hype? The best pitchers I've ever seen were Dwight Gooden (short-term) and Randy Johnson (long-term). Gooden's 1985 season was about as close to perfection as you'll ever see; and Johnson was putting up Sandy Koufax numbers during the steroid era. Both had hitters basically walking back to the bench, shaking their heads and realizing there was little they could do with what was coming at them in the batter's box. Gooden's career flamed out due to drugs, partying and injuries; Johnson didn't make it to the big leagues to stay until he was 25 and didn't start dominating consistently until he was 29.

    To sit there and look at this 21-year-old college kid Strasburg and start with the familiar nonsense we hear every couple of years as to how great he is makes the scout and Olney look like idiots. In fact, how is this scout even a scout to begin with if he doesn't know the difference between pitching to amateurs and pitching in the big leagues; if he doesn't know history well enough to realize that how touted a prospect is doesn't have anything to do with what he does professionally? Strasburg might end up being great; but the odds are he won't. Either way, I'll believe it when I see it.

    Jon Lester has reportedly agreed to a contract extension with the Red Sox for 5-years at $30 million guaranteed with the team holding an option for 2014 at $13 million----ESPN Story. That's a lot of money, but in context, Lester short-changed himself. How is it possible that Jon Lester signs a contract for lower full value than Ervin Santana and Zack Greinke? Let's take a look at the reasons Lester should've declined this offer:

• He's the same age as Greinke and Santana and has a stronger overall resume:

    Lester is three months younger than Greinke; a year younger than Santana. Lester overcame lymphoma in 2006-2007 and has not only been better statistically than the other two pitchers, but he's been an ace in the most important games during the playoffs. Greinke, of course, has never had the opportunity to pitch in the playoffs; and Santana has gotten pounded while pitching in the playoffs for the Angels. Add in that Greinke has had problems with depression to the point that he was barely able to pitch at all in 2006 and lost 17 games in 2005, and you have to wonder what Lester was thinking in taking the money.

    Comparing the contracts, and Lester's deal is nowhere near what he should've gotten in comparison to those two other pitchers. Greinke received a 4-year, $38 million contract with $13.5 million annually in 2011 and 2012; Santana signed a 4-year, $30 million contract with an option for 2013 at $13 million (and now he's hurt). How is it possible that Lester's representatives didn't take this into account when negotiating this extension?

• The Red Sox have the money to pay him in line with what these other young pitchers received:

    Peter Gammons wrote on his blog today:

Major League Baseball has warned club business people that attendance is expected to be down 17-20 percent in 2009, and it could be worse, especially with franchises like the Padres, Blue Jays, Tigers, Indians, Astros, Rockies and others that could be seriously impacted by the recession.

 So on a big-market team, to have one of the game's deepest pitching staffs at a cost of around $50M with only commitments to Lester and Matsuzaka for 2010 is remarkable business. And getting Lester for an AAV of around $6M from ages 25 through 29 is simply good business.

    I agree completely; but the one thing that's a bit disingenuous in the blog is that the economic issues in the country will adversely affect the Red Sox; it's not specifically said that the Red Sox are going to feel the pinch as well, but it's sort of implied. With the Red Sox brand so powerful and the way they run their club, the Red Sox are going to be in fine financial shape no matter the state of the economy. They smartly used this situation to their advantage with Lester.

    The Red Sox are as smart as they are ruthless and, knowing how Lester loves pitching in Boston and how financially prudent it would be to lock him up long term, they saved a lot of money by avoiding arbitration and his first couple of free agent years. Knowing how good Lester is and that he wanted to be financially secure gave the Red Sox a negotiating lever to get the pitcher signed cheaply in comparison to other pitchers in his age bracket.

• He's mentally tougher and worth more:
  

    The mental toughness Lester has shown in coming back from cancer and pitching excellent ball in the playoffs should at least have earned him a raise over Greinke. All due respect to Greinke's recovery from his depression, he's not a guy I'd invest in long term unless he showed that he was able to withstand the pressure for another year at least; and Santana was hideous in 2007 with a 7-14 record and even wound up back in the minors.

    In whom would you rather invest your money? And it's not as if the Red Sox are a smaller market team like the Rays or Marlins who are legitimately unable to pay a pitcher of Lester's caliber what he'd be offered in the market if he became a free agent; the Red Sox could've paid him double that amount of money if they'd wanted to and not batted an eyelash.

    Lester's probably happy now that he's safe and secure knowing that he'll be well paid and a member of the Red Sox for the next five years (probably; there's not a no-trade clause in the deal apparently); but he could've waited and the Red Sox would've blinked and matched what Santana and Greinke are getting. It sounds like Lester just took the first offer they came up with without really thinking about it and comparing himself to what lesser pitchers-----mentally, emotionally and statistically----received, it was a financial mistake.

    Please check out and purchase my new book Paul Lebowitz's 2009 Baseball Guide available in paperback and via E-book.

     My new book is now available for purchase. (It should be on Amazon and Barnes and Noble in a short while), but here's the link and a picture. It's quite possibly the greatest book written ever, ever.

 Click on this link to have a look, get a free preview and/or purchase a copy. 

• Alex Rodriguez opts for a less-invasive surgery:

    Both ESPN.com and the NY Post are reporting that Alex Rodriguez is going to have a less invasive, "hybrid" surgery which will allow him to play as normally this year. Instead of repairing the torn labrum completely and putting ARod out for four months, this will address the problem until the entire thing can be corrected after the season. This news came out just after I'd read a NY Times article saying that ARod was "considering" the optional procedure. In fact, I'd mentally prepared a rant that basically said to get the labrum repair done even if it cost him four months of the season because it's enough already; patchwork repairs lead to patchwork results; but apparently, this hip doctor, Dr. Marc Philippon, is the preeminent guy in the field and he thinks this procedure will allow ARod to play for most of the season; missing 6-9 weeks is better than four months if ARod is able to play up to or near capacity. I'd bet he's back sooner than the estimates anyway just like Chase Utley evidently will be for the Phillies after undergoing hip surgery.
    The Yankees can easily survive with a group of utility players at third base until ARod returns, but that doesn't mean they will. They might want to bring in someone who can play the position and hit just in case; I wouldn't do that; I'd make do with Cody Ransom and Angel Berroa, but Hank Blalock is a free agent at the end of the year and one would presume that the Rangers would love to be rid of his $6 million salary for this season; open up a DH spot for one of their outfielders and get a young arm.

    The Yankees are trying to rebuild Ian Kennedy's reputation, but the guy clearly hasn't learned anything from last season because he still will...not...shut...up. His mouth is already comparable to that of Curt Schilling, if not his performance on the mound; a word to the wise for Kennedy: Schilling got away with his far-reaching opinions and pompous, ill-informed soliloquies because he was a 20-game winner, not a big mouthed rookie with an attitude that angers the veterans. I'd do Kennedy for Blalock right now if I were both the Yankees and Rangers. Kennedy would probably get pummeled in Texas, but he's young and he's cheap and Blalock can still hit, play third and is a free agent at the end of the year; it's win-win.

• Speaking of Curt Schilling:

    In case anyone missed it, Schilling hasn't officially retired. (You didn't think such a monumental event----especially in his own spacious head----would go without the required press conference surrounded by his loving family and complete with the whimpering tears designed to get him on every single sports highlight show all around the world, did you?) He's also putting it out there that while he's not going to pitch from the beginning of the season, he'll be willing to grace the clubhouses of the Cubs or Rays with his presence with an eye on the playoffs----MLB.com Story. 

    How kind of him.

    Did it ever occur to Schilling that the Rays or Cubs probably don't want him? That he was injured all of last season, hasn't picked up a baseball and fired it competitively since the 2007 World Series; that he's 42-years-old and didn't have all that much left when he was supposedly healthy; and that the veterans in the Rays and Cubs clubhouses probably wouldn't be interested in dealing with the Schilling package even if he were 100% healthy and five years younger? Schilling would walk through the clubhouse doors and automatically anoint himself the spokesman for both clubs and horribly disrupt the fabric of the hierarchy. Teammates put up with him when he could still pitch; now he'd just be a guy with a big mouth and a hunger for the media spotlight, unable to help them at all; in fact, he'd hurt them.

    Since Schilling's such a staunch republican, here's a saying he's no doubt familiar with from the addled mind of one Gov. Sarah Palin (truth be damned): "Thanks, but not thanks on that bridge to nowhere."

• A very clever and productive idea:

    I was reading my copy of The Hockey News Future Watch about upcoming youngsters in the minors, juniors and in college and came across a great idea that the San Jose Sharks are using to implement their young players into the NHL:

The Sharks tried something new this year, leaving open an NHL roster spot into which they rotate players from their Worcester development team as needed. So far, six rookie skaters have had a crack at the big-time and while each has played credibly, none immediately turned the audition into something permanent.

Sharks assistant GM Wayne Thomas isn't discouraged by how things are playing out.

"We see where they're at, we see what's missing," Thomas said. "They come back, you build your foundation and next time, hopefully it's enough." 

    This is a great idea in baseball too. One of the main reasons rookie players fail is because they show up in the big leagues and are overwhelmed at how fast the game moves and before they realize it, they've been sent back down to the minors after failing miserably because they were ill-equipped for the skill level and outside influences that affect them. For every Evan Longoria and Troy Tulowitzki that arrive in the majors and perform immediately, there are Ian Kennedys and Jeff Clements who are ballyhooed prospects but don't get the job done.

    If a team were to have a roster spot open for a young player to play occasionally, get acclimated to the big leagues and learn from the veterans what's expected of him before being dropped right into the middle of the storm, he'll be able to relax and play his game without getting dizzy at the other stuff surrounding him and lose his bearings. This strategy could prevent players from being delayed in their development; labeled as "busts" before they've gotten a fair chance; or dumped capriciously because they didn't arrive and perform immediately.   

• "Business as usual" ain't good in this case:

    Buster Olney linked this article about the Padres in his blog today.

    Two things:

1) Kevin Towers isn't feeling any more pressure in his job than usual because he has to know that there's no chance in hell that he's going to be the floundering club's GM once Jeff Moorad is in complete control of the organization; and...

2)  "Media reports have linked <CEO Sandy Alderson> to positions with the Chicago Cubs and the Pac-10."

    To do what? Wreck the place like he did with the Padres? To behave like an arrogant, obnoxious, incompetent, disingenuous buffoon? If someone puts Alderson in any position of power with their club after his display with the Padres over the past few years, the game may be beyond even my help; and I'll say something else here: if the Cubs are going to bring in a front office guy (especially if they don't win this year), it's not going to be Alderson; you read it here first that Lou Piniella won't be blamed for another season without a pennant no matter what happens; GM Jim Hendry will go and be replaced by...Piniella cohort Pat Gillick, who despite insistence that he's retired won't be able to resist entreaties by his friend Piniella or the lure of bringing a championship to the historically hapless Cubs. 

• This sounds oddly familiar:

    A character in a comic book I remember from years ago once told Dr. Doom that he sounded as if he was narrating his life as he went along; Doom responded by saying: "Yes, every utterance of Doom must be recorded for posterity." 

    Never mind the inherently funny aspect of a guy who refers to himself in the third person, but such all-encompassing arrogance is easily memorable and while reading some of Brian Cashman's quotes today regarding Alex Rodriguez (one follows), I couldn't help but think of Doom:

“Surgery is something that’s going to have to happen. The discussion is: when?”

     Amid all the carefully chosen words; corporate catchphrases and statements designed to say nothing; to betray no emotion like Spock while operating as a mid-level corporate hitman with all the delusions of grandeur and it struck me like a bolt of lightning out of the sky: Brian Cashman wants to be Dr. Doom!!!!

    Here are the similarities:

1. Doom is a power hungry, would-be dictator; Cashman demanded almost full autonomy (or as much as the Steinbrenner sons would cede) to remain as the club's GM.
2. Doom is self-conscious about his scarred face to the point that he wears a mask to cover it; Cashman is so cautious with his words and desperate for credit as a genius, along with being self-conscious about the implication that the Yankees money is the root of their success; and he's something of a weasel who strives for recognition and power.
3. Doom's downfall emanated from his desire for such recognition and he morphed into the epitome of evil; Cashman's desire to stamp the team as his, complete with a reliance on young players who were wrongly evaluated or unprepared, devolved into a missed playoff appearance in 2008 (a Shakespearean tragedy in Yankeeland) and the return to money-based business as usual.
4. Doom narrates his life for posterity; Cashman narrates his life for posterity; the main difference is that Doom's speech is somewhat poetic in its evil; Cashman's is kind of dull and tiresome as if it's written by a bad novelist with no talent for interesting dialogue.

    The similarities in the personalities are striking with one major overall difference: Doom is charming and interesting and Cashman, well, Cashman ain't; the "obvious process" isn't going to help him with that. They're mirror images of one another and that's part of the ongoing embarrassment as Cashman basks in the absolution of blame he's receiving for the whole ARod debacle from start-to-finish, but even though he was said to not want the player back when he opted out of his contract after 2007, if Cashman wants the credit and responsibility for the entire organization, then he has to take the blame too and that's another part of the "obvious process" that has to be factored in to the equation.

• Speaking of ARod (again):

    These varied opinions as to whether or not he needs surgery are going to continue until he shows he's able to play up to his usual level----it's a pretty high level----with the torn labrum in his hip. The Yankees are again going down the road they went with Jorge Posada last year and while I understand it's two unique injuries to the different body parts of two totally different players playing separate positions, the similarities should give the Yankees and their fans pause before automatically deciding to let (it almost sounds like forcing) ARod to play through the pain. Say what you want about ARod, he's not Carl Pavano; he wants to play. Here are some quotes from last year regarding Posada that should ring true to now with ARod (clipped from the NY Times):

March 11, 2008: Jorge Posada started at catcher for the first time since last Wednesday after resting a sore muscle in the back of his right shoulder. “I threw yesterday and I threw the day before,” Posada said. “It’s fine. It’s not 100 percent, but it’s all right. I don’t feel it hitting at all.”

April 3, 2008:  Jorge Posada proved to be an indispensable player for the Yankees last season, hitting .338 and earning a new four-year contract. Two games into this season, though, he needed a break because of shoulder stiffness.

Posada was a late scratch from the lineup Wednesday after telling the trainer Gene Monahan that his shoulder felt stiff. Posada hurt himself on a throw when Toronto’s Marco Scutaro stole second base in the fifth inning Tuesday.

Manager Joe Girardi said the chilly weather made it an easy decision for him to replace Posada with José Molina at catcher.

“It’s always harder to get loose and stay loose on a day like today,” Girardi said.

Girardi, who had the same injury many times as a catcher, said that Posada was available and that he was not concerned about him. Posada had no tests scheduled on the shoulder, and Girardi said he might play Thursday.

“I don’t expect it to be long,” he said.

April 9, 2008: Catching is not very different from pitching, at least in one respect. The catcher makes nearly as many throws as the pitcher, and probably far more than any other player in the course of a season. His arm must be sound, or it will be exposed quickly.

“A catcher’s like a pitcher — you need your arm,” Jorge Posada said Tuesday. “If you’re an outfielder or a shortstop, you can play through it.”

Posada has tried to play through his shoulder stiffness, but he says he realizes now he cannot. After allowing four stolen bases in the Yankees’ 5-2 loss to the Kansas City Royals, Posada said he would have a magnetic resonance imaging test here Wednesday. Manager Joe Girardi has ruled him out for at least another game.

“I’m not 100 percent,” Posada said. “I’m trying to get out there, and I’m not helping the team out. It’s as simple as that. I have to be 100 percent to be back there, and right now I’m not.”

Posada, who described his arm as feeling dead, could face his first career trip to the disabled list. He hurt himself with an off-balance throw last Tuesday and did not catch the next three games. He caught twice over the weekend and for five innings Tuesday before Girardi removed him.

May 3, 2008: Jorge Posada’s first experience with the disabled list has been miserable — “Not good at all,” he said — and he does not want to be there very long. So Posada, the Yankees catcher, has decided to spend the next several weeks resting and strengthening his damaged right shoulder in hopes of a comeback within six weeks.

Posada, who asked out of the lineup on Sunday, said he had expected to need surgery immediately. He said he would revisit that possibility this winter, but was not ready to concede this season.

“I don’t care about the off-season now,” Posada said. “Right now is for me to get ready. I can have surgery or not and still have four months to get ready. I’m not worried about it, even if I have surgery or if I don’t.”

Posada met with three doctors and shared his magnetic resonance imaging results with a fourth. He said the doctors told him that he had rotator cuff inflammation but that he had not damaged his labrum, which was surgically repaired in 2001.

Posada was found to have a small tear in his subscapularis muscle in an M.R.I. on April 9, and he did not catch for two weeks. Doctors told him to rest for six weeks this time, but Posada said he would rather not wait that long before starting a throwing program.

“I don’t think it’s going to happen,” Posada said. “I just hope that when I start throwing, there is some improvement and I can get stronger.”

Manager Joe Girardi said the most optimistic timetable would have Posada back in five weeks from the time he aggravated the injury on Sunday. Posada will not throw for two weeks, Girardi said, and if he improves, he will then begin two weeks of strengthening exercises.

If that goes well, Girardi said, Posada will need to ease back into the rigors of daily catching with a stint in the minor leagues. Girardi said it was possible Posada could be activated as a designated hitter while his arm recovers, but he seemed leery of that.

“I’m sure we could talk about it and see, but you have to be careful he doesn’t have a setback,” Girardi said.

Posada said he believed the injury dates to a spring training problem that seemed minor at the time. Posada had a sore lat muscle — in the upper back, near the shoulder — and missed five days in early March.

“Looking back, it’s probably all related,” Posada said.

July 24, 2009: The one thing Jorge Posada knows for sure is that he needs surgery to repair damage in his labrum and shoulder capsule. But Posada is not ready to concede the rest of the season, even if it means that his recovery will cost him part of 2009.

As recently as two days ago, Posada was convinced his season was over, no matter how much the Yankees might have wanted him to continue. But he told reporters Wednesday that while he would not catch the rest of this season, he would use the next two weeks to determine if he could hit without restrictions. If he can, Posada said he would return as a designated hitter and first baseman, and put off the operation until the winter.

“It’s not about me; it’s about the team now,” Posada said. “How can I help the team? That’s why I’m going through rehab. If I’m able to hit, then I’m going to try to do that. If I’m not able to hit, I’m going to have surgery.”

Posada said he hoped that by not throwing, his shoulder could be strong enough to make him a viable hitter. He has not helped much on offense this season, with three homers and a slugging percentage of .411, his lowest mark since becoming the regular catcher in 2000.

Manager Joe Girardi said Posada still wanted to contribute now, even if it meant missing time in 2009 from an operation that will require six months of recovery. “There’s a risk-reward, yes,” Girardi said. “It could run into next year if he had the surgery Nov. 1, absolutely.”

July 28, 2008:

Jorge Posada arrived at Yankee Stadium on Monday and went to work in the batting cage in his effort to return as a designated hitter. Two hours later, he learned his season was over.

General Manager Brian Cashman and Manager Joe Girardi told Posada he was free to have season-ending surgery to repair labrum and capsule damage in his right shoulder. The trade for outfielder Xavier Nady makes Johnny Damon the full-time D.H.

The surgery is tentatively scheduled for Wednesday, and Cashman said the recovery would take a minimum of six months. But considering Posada's age (37 next month) and the unpredictable nature of shoulder injuries, it could take up to a year.

''You can't expect anything -- you hope,'' Cashman said. ''When you mess with shoulders, those are the dangerous ones.''

Posada, who had told reporters earlier Monday that he wanted to keep playing, said in a statement that he understood the need for surgery. He finished the season with a .268 average, 3 home runs and 22 runs batted in over 51 games.

    Are you seeing my point? If ARod needs surgery, isn't it better for him to have it now and miss the minimum amount of time? The four month estimate sounds as if it's a max amount of time and as Chase Utley is proving now, superior athletes in peak condition are generally able to cut a month or two off of the recommended amount of time they'll be out. For an organization that's supposed to be so smart and is treating youngsters like Joba Chamberlain so gently and with such paranoia that one would think he's a delicate geisha and a stiff wind might blow him away, why wouldn't they have ARod fix the problem and definitely be ready for the final 2/3 of the season? They could survive a couple of months with a stopgap third baseman, so what's with the reluctance to deal with it now?

• Why now?

    A small story on ESPN.com yesterday made me wonder even further about what goes on in the mind of Manny Ramirez. It seems that Manny waited until he'd officially re-upped with the Dodgers to put his Boston condo on the market----Story.

    Now, think about this for a second. What precisely was Manny waiting for before putting the place up for sale? Don't laugh, but did Manny have it somewhere in the recesses of his mind that there was even the remote possibility that the Red Sox might suddenly decide that they needed him back and offer him the money that he wanted, but wasn't going to get when he was playing hard and well for them early last season; as he acted like an eight-year-old hoping for candy and was on his best behavior until he realized the Red Sox weren't going to renegotiate and he started with his tantrum that eventually forced the team to send him away from Boston and pay his salary? Was this really somewhere in Manny's head as a possibility?
    Logic dictates that the condo should've been put on the market right after he was traded or, at the very latest, when the season ended and Manny could pay whatever attention Manny pays to such transactions regarding his personal finances. It's extremely odd that he waited until he signed with the Dodgers to put the place up for sale and if he did think that there was even a .000001% chance that the Red Sox would sign him, then he is insane. 

• The worst part of the latest ARod saga:

    The worst part of the latest installment of the Alex Rodriguez saga isn't that one of the best players in history (clean or not) is hurt and won't be at full strength even if he's able to postpone surgery on the torn labrum in his hip; nor is it that this is more of a distraction from everything else that's going on, but that even with the steroid allegations, in my upcoming book, I picked Alex Rodriguez to the win the AL MVP and it's too late for me to change it before publication without having to pay for it and delaying its release----something I have no intention of doing.

    Of course, ARod could still play and win the MVP, but it sounds pretty unlikely and this is startlingly inconvenient for me. It reminds me of the time when I was still gambling and was playing roulette; in the middle of a bad streak, I put a chip on or partially on every single number on the board except 36. Why? I dunno; but that's what I did; and I swear that this is true, the number that came up was...36. It was then that I called it a night; the ARod thing is similar.

    Counting pitchers, there are 350 players on an active American League roster on any given day; including a few minor leaguers who might pop in and out, you figure that number goes up to 500 names that would be possible MVP candidates in the entire pool. Whittling it down to the viable players, there are probably 25 names for whom you could make a case to be MVP candidates; and this is accounting for the names that are always there like Joe Mauer, Justin Morneau, David Ortiz, Mark Teixeira, ARod, etc. Then there's always about three or four guys that come out of nowhere like Carlos Quentin did last season; and the pitchers C.C. Sabathia, Roy Halladay and Jonathan Papelbon can't be discounted even though it's gotten harder for a pitcher to even come close to winning. So the odds of my picking ARod and having this happen were probably worse than picking him and seeing him win, but that's what happened and I'm sticking with the pick even though it's highly unlikely to come true. It's pretty aggravating.    

    Now they're saying that ARod has a torn labrum in his hip in addition to the cyst, in which case if he were to have surgery, that would put him out for four months----ESPN Story.*

* "Hello? Jon (Daniels)? It's Brian (Cashman); so, uh, how's Hank Blalock doing? You think he could play third adequately for us? Is he over his injury bug, y'know, hamstring, rib, neck and whatever else? So, uh, whaddaya want for him?"

    The Yankees want to avoid surgery, but they might be better off having it done instead of repeating the mistake they made with Jorge Posada last year when they had him try to play through the injury; Posada wasn't able to perform and had the operation done so late in the year that even this season's in question. Even though the Yankees can survive without ARod, this is a potential disaster.   

• There's panic in Yankeeland:

    In reality, if Alex Rodriguez is back by June, the Yankees could survive with some combination of Angel Berroa/Cody Ransom or whoever else they stick at third base. It's not as if ARod was Albert Pujols and on an island as the only run producer in the Yankees lineup; they'll score enough runs without ARod. If the hip problem is more serious, they could conceivably try and trade for Hank Blalock to play the position; a caller to WFAN brought up an interesting scenario in which Xavier Nady could play third since he played the position in college.

    Defensively, such an idea would cause a problem because even though both C.C. Sabathia and A.J. Burnett are power pitchers, they have almost identical ground ball/fly ball ratios; Chien Ming Wang is a pure contact sinkerballer; and Andy Pettitte is about even with the ground balls and fly balls too. Derek Jeter's declining range is going to make this an issue if they're going with someone at third who can hit rather than someone who can catch the ball and has great range. I'd bet that Nady would be serviceable enough over there, but it would be a short-term experiment if they tried it with the plug halfway in and halfway out.

    You have to wonder if the Yankees are wishing that they would've known about this a week ago when they could've signed either of the Athletics new infielders Orlando Cabrera or Nomar Garciaparra to hold the spot until ARod gets back. Maybe they can make a move on the available Bobby Crosby to play third since he's got a good glove. Overall, this isn't a giant problem unless it's more serious than the ten weeks without ARod that are being suggested.

• The pains in the asses in the headlines----who causes the most trouble?

    Discounting salary, which of the following is the biggest headache? Alex Rodriguez, Terrell Owens or Manny Ramirez? Here are their resumes, in brief:

ARod: Self-destructive in a passive aggressive way and probably the most purely gifted baseball player ever. ARod wanted to be the highest paid and signed with a bad team in a bad spot for him in Texas with the Rangers; he wanted out of Texas and was dropped right into the Yankees fishbowl 25 feet the right of his nemesis in so many ways, Derek Jeter. ARod is more talented; Jeter more popular; ARod is loathed by opponents; Jeter is universally respected; ARod has failed repeatedly in the playoffs; Jeter has four rings. ARod has been an off-the-field magnet for self-inflicted trouble and is now recognized as a steroid-cheat and a pathological liar; Jeter is above reproach. Now ARod's hurt.

T.O.: Owens has no concept of what it is he does to distract his teams; I honestly believe he doesn't think he's doing anything wrong. A magnet for controversy, Owens has betrayed teammates and worn out his welcome in even the best of circumstances; he's like the continually arrested miscreant who repeatedly promises to behave himself if he's given another chance and then----intentionally or not----sabotages everything. Part of what he does is calculating, but he's someone who is literally impossible to deal with. His brain doesn't seem to work correctly and there are trapdoors to his paranoia in which he sees endless conspiracies to pay others more than him; to throw the ball to others instead of him; to do things to Terrell Owens just because everyone is against Terrell Owens. His promises are empty and his skills are fading; five years ago, he was worth the aggravation; now he's not.

Manny: Aside from the despicable way he finally forced his way out of Boston...*

*I hate to peddle goods like a street hustler, but I'll do it anyway. Since my new baseball guide is coming out soon, I thought it'd be useful (to me anyway) to print an excerpt from last year's version regarding Manny:

Manny Ramirez had an off year with only 20 homers and 88 RBI. He’s becoming a liability defensively with his mental and physical lapses, but when he wants to play, he’s still one of the top five hitters in baseball. Manny’s contract is up at the end of 2008 and he’ll undoubtedly be complaining about the Red Sox not signing him to an extension. He’ll either let that affect his play and force the Red Sox to explore mid-season trade options, or he’ll have a massive offensive year. You never know with Manny, so I’m not going to make any predictions. There will be a large number of teams lining up to add Manny at mid-season; I don’t expect the Red Sox to re-sign him given his moodiness and that he’s not going to want to take a paycut. My guess is that 2008 will be Manny’s last year in Boston.

    It wasn't going out on much of a limb to think that Manny was going to cause a problem, but when he got off to a blazing hot start, the "experts" from ESPN and other venues were going on about how Manny was going to get a contract extension from the Red Sox, blah blah blah; but it turned out I was right, so purchasing this year's book would be a worthwhile investment (especially to me). 

...Manny has always put up the numbers and plays every day. Yes, he gets lazy in the outfield (he can play the position well when he wants to) and does his usual bizarre acts of Manny being Manny, but one thing you don't have to worry about with him is that he's not going to hit; and his teammates seem to genuinely like and respect him and his work ethic. He's a weird guy, but most geniuses are, and Manny is a genius in the batter's box. Of the three pains in the asses mentioned, I'd say that T.O. is the biggest one, but I'm curious as to the opinions of others in this case. So who is it? Manny, T.O. or ARod?  

    Jason.

    Michael Myers.

    Freddy Krueger.

    Alex Rodriguez.

    What do the above names have in common?

    They've all been the source of many a nightmare; the difference is that ARod is real and the others are fictional, immortal killing machines. If it's a saving grace, the only thing ARod's been guilty of killing is his reputation and possibly his own immortality with his short-sighted stupidity and insecurity. 

    The newest headline-generating mess is the cyst on his hip that needs to be surgically removed and will keep him out of action until late May at the earliest. Brian Cashman is either punching walls about how close the Yankees came to being rid of the ARod albatross or has washed his hands of the whole thing, secure in the knowledge that he didn't want ARod back after the contract opt-out debacle and can't be blamed for anything that's happened since (although that doesn't absolve him from having to deal with it).

    ARod is rapidly becoming a self-inflicted disaster on everything he touches. It's as if he made a trade off that he'll have all of this ability; accrue unspendable riches; but will have to be a ridiculed and despised pariah and lose everything along the way to exhausting that ability throughout his career. This steroid use is being blamed by laymen for the cyst on ARod's hip, but no one really knows where these things come from and the steroid use can't be specifically blamed for the problem, but this is another symptom of ARod's rapidly unraveling life and career and the Yankees must be shaking their heads and kicking themselves that not only do they have to deal with this constant crap, but that they're going to fork out nearly $300 million to be dealing with it for a player who is breaking down and ravaged by scandal, on and off the field. It's a nightmare worthy of any fictional boogeyman; except the Yankees can't wake up and have everything be all right, because this is real.  

• Washington Nationals tab Mike Rizzo to handle day-to-day operations----ESPN Story:

    Nationals president Stan Kasten is being smart in not caving in to the pressure from the stat-geeks who were all-too-eager for the club to install one of their "own" in Blue Jays assistant GM Tony LaCava as the new Nats GM. There were girlish and orgasmic squeals coming from the stat-geeks at the prospect of another of their brethren being put in charge of a struggling team when there were reports that former GM Jim Bowden was on his way out and LaCava was said to be the only candidate for the job. I'm not quite sure why one would be so enthusiastic in listening to the advice of Keith Law and Rob Neyer, but that was said to be the direction the Nats were heading; in fact, commissioner Bud Selig was prepared to provide the Nats with a waiver excluding them from interviewing a minority candidate for the job. Why? I dunno. 

    The premise behind the "need" to hire someone quickly emanated from the fact that it's spring training and the season's going to start very soon. Yeah? So? If it were November and this happened, then I'd say, fine, the Nats need someone to put a team together for the next season; but what is a new guy going to come in and do at this late date? It's a phony argument.

    First of all, I'm not picking on the guy; in fact, I know next to nothing about him; he might be the right guy for the job, but I can't imagine that someone like LaCava could arrive and begin engineering a quick fix with a club like the Nats when he probably knows almost nothing about them other than the bare minimum an opposing executive knows about a bad team in the other league; and judging by the state of the Blue Jays, he's got his hands pretty much full over there. This anointing is coming from those with an agenda to see the stat-based building of a team above any and all other reasons for building an organization and should be seen as such. 

    Rizzo is said to be respected and knows the Nats organization. Putting him in charge now will eliminate the feeling out process that any outsider would undertake if rebuilding the club properly, such a process would take at least this year to see what prospects are in the minors; which players in the big leagues need to stay and go; and assess the manager and coaches. Hiring someone based on recommendations of others while looking for praise from armchair experts is a fantastic way to turn a mess into a disaster; and the Nats are smart to take their time and think before diving headlong into another mistake.

• This don't sound good:

    Oakland Athletics ace Justin Duchscherer is going for a second opinion on his balky elbow. The first doctor he went to came up with the following bit of medical vernacular:

Duchscherer had an MRI exam Tuesday and it showed no significant damage. A doctor recommended the two-time All-Star rest his arm for a week. 

    "Rest for a week" sounds eerily like "take two aspirin and call me in the morning" or even, "yeah, whatever; gimme my check and get the hell outta my office".

    The newly refurbished Athletics need Duchscherer if they truly intend to contend. Their starting rotation is young and shaky as it is; Duchscherer has had injury problems to his hip and arm over the past few years and if they don't have him, they're going to have a big problem. I think the A's splashy moves have led to them being overrated a bit anyway; they still don't have an established closer in addition to their rotation issues, so this is only going to add to the question marks surrounding a team that is a sleeper pick in some circles; many of those circles are too busy looking at Billy Beane with lust in their eyes instead of seeing the reality of their flaws.     

• Even innocuous Alex Rodriguez statements come out wrong:

    By now everyone's formed an opinion on ARod's lavishing of praise all over Jose Reyes and, in the process, insulting Derek Jeter, intentionally or not. The statement follows:

"I wish he was leading off on our team or playing on our team; that's fun to watch."

    ARod is very calculating in his comments and is well-known to cultivate his public persona to what he thinks will draw the most attention while maintaining a "who me?" veneer; it's quite possible that he was just chit-chatting with a few people while watching Reyes and said something to compliment the Mets shortstop while not intentionally insulting Jeter. ARod's gotten to the point where he's in the same class of disingenuousness as Curt Schilling and one always has to wonder whether he's saying or doing something to garner attention or the attention is a byproduct of his past even when he's completely innocent. 

    I was totally wrong in thinking that ARod was playing clean, so I might be wrong about this, but I doubt he was trying to make a negative statement about Jeter with this one sentence, but who knows? It seems that no matter what he does, he can't win so maybe stapling his mouth shut isn't a bad idea. Which brings me to another point...

• The things numbers don't say:

    If someone was starting a team today and making their selections of everyday players based on talent alone, ARod would be one of the first five players selected (in that group would also be Albert Pujols and Hanley Ramirez); but despite what the stat-geeks will tell you, there's more to life than just black-and-white numbers and taking everything into account----salary, off-the-field issues, success in the post-season----and ARod would drop far down the list.

    It goes without saying that had Yankees GM Brian Cashman and the Steinbrenner sons known about ARod's steroid use, they wouldn't have traded for him at all, let alone signed him to that lucrative contract after he opted out of the contract he'd signed with the Rangers; but even if he was clean, the extracurricular activities that have nothing to do with baseball combined with his failures in the post-season and the controversy he attracts even when he's completely innocent make him almost as much of a distraction as he is a lineup threat. Eventually it gets to a point where it's not worth it to deal with the ancillary stuff to get the numbers that ARod puts up, but the Yankees are going to be dealing with this for the next nine years, much to their private chagrin and public embarrassment. 

• The non-story about Johan Santana's opening day/not opening day start:

    The more we hear about it, the more stories that are written about it, the more likely Johan Santana is to try and push his preparation time----a regimen that has kept him healthy and durable for his entire big league career and allowed him to pitch at least 219 innings for the past five years----to be ready on opening day. I have two words to say about the possibility of Santana not pitching opening day: so what?

    So what? 

    Who cares? 

    The drama of the opening day start shouldn't take precedence over the health of the player, especially one as valuable and well-paid as Santana; opening day is game 1 of 162 and isn't more meaningful or meaningless than any of the other games they're going to play in 2009. If Santana starts one of the first five games of the regular season, he'll be on track to make his 33 starts, which is pretty much all he's going to make anyway; so what's the big deal?

    The more it's talked about, the more it becomes an issue; and the more it becomes an issue, the more likely Santana is to try and push the envelope, which is why he started having the stiffness in his elbow to begin with under the misguided notion that the team might decide to let him pitch for Venezuela in the World Baseball Classic. If I were the Mets, I'd tell him straight out to forget about opening day and when he's ready to pitch, he'll pitch----and it'll probably be in the warmth of Florida on Friday, April 10th so there won't be any chances taken pitching him in the presumably chilly weather of Cincinnati. In fact, I'd name Oliver Perez the opening day starter now. It would make the decision final; Santana and the media could stop going on about it; and it might actually help Perez get off to a good start because the feeling of being the opening day starter and the cachet it apparently brings. Santana doesn't need the cachet; he brings the cachet with him, but it might spur Perez into having a big year. Just as the WBC decision was taken out of Santana's hands, so should the opening day nonsense, and by proxy, it would force the media to talk about something else.

• I'm not sure what this means:

    Keith Olbermann broke the news at the end of his show about Alex Rodriguez having a cyst on his hip which may prevent him from playing in the WBC. ARod's going to see a specialist in Colorado about it. For some reason Olbermann winked as if it were a code or a conspiracy for something; I'm not sure what. I admit it. I don't get it. What was the implication? Could someone explain it to me...v...e...r...y......s...l...o...w...l...y?

• ESPN is reporting that Manny Ramirez and the Dodgers have agreed to terms----Story:

   Much like the Ken Griffey Jr signing by the Mariners, the most important part of this was that I okayed the final draft of my Baseball Guide today and atop the section about the Dodgers was this note:

*Note: At the time of this writing, Manny Ramirez is still a free agent. He and the Dodgers are discussing a deal, but the only thing keeping Manny from going elsewhere is that there doesn’t appear to be anywhere else for him to go. He’ll be listed as part of the lineup with the expectation that he’ll eventually sign a contract to stay. 

    Everyone rejoice not because the whole Manny-mess has apparently been settled, but because I wasn't inconvenienced. (I didn't pick the Dodgers for the NL West anyway, so it doesn't make much of a difference one way or the other.)  

    Another note: Stephen A. Smith has delved into his well-known baseball expertise to suggest that the Montreal Expos and Seattle Pilots are going to battle it out down to the wire to win the NL West. (To understand this joke, you have to click onto an old posting of mine at Prince of New York. I thought it was funny anyway; not funny ha-ha, but funny sad.) 

    Has everyone seen this NY Times story about another "memoir" whose validity is being put into doubt? The book, Odd Man Out, written by a former minor league player turned Harvard-trained doctor named Matt McCarthy is receiving widespread refutation by those that were there, many of whom are still in baseball and have either been promoted (Angels GM Tony Reagins) or are very well-respected in their job (minor league manager Tom Kotchman). 

    In reading the article, it again appears as if the book company has looked the other way in their research by not even attempting to verify some of the stuff (such as box scores among other things) that would've either disproved what McCarthy was saying or at least shattered his timeline. In fairness, he could be getting times mixed up and telling the truth about much of what he recalls, but he's also claiming to have detailed notebooks, so one would think a guy who's smart enough to get into Yale and Harvard would also be smart enough to date his entries into said notebooks. 

    I remember reading something similar to this story...when I was editing my own novel (keyword: NOVEL) Breaking Balls published in 2001. If I had been the one editing McCarthy's "memoir", I probably would've spotted what he was doing. My book (as flawed as it is; I wrote it when I was 26 and thought I was well on my way to being the next John Grisham/Stephen King/Thomas Harris; parts of it make me cringe at the clumsiness and that a big chunk of it is crap) had basically the same cast of characters as there are in McCarthy's book: there are the steroid users; the spoiled bonus babies; the recreational drug users; the racists; the unhinged raving lunatic manager; etc.

    The difference is that McCarthy's getting called out on what he did, not because the book isn't any good (I have no intention of reading it), but because there are people and documentations to strenuously cast his recollections into doubt. It appears as if it's not a "memoir", but creative non-fiction because there probably wasn't enough of a story to get the thing published if it was a pure diary, so he had to embellish; as a result McCarthy's got a big problem because the people he disparaged aren't going to lighten up about it and the book might end up just like the books mentioned in the article by James Frey and that absurdly nonsensical and unbelievable holocaust survivor story. Frey came back with a novel, but it didn't sell well because people don't like being lied to----you can sell them junk, but don't make it dishonest junk; McCarthy's writing career may be over before it began because I'll bet the books going to be recalled; he'll just have to live with being a doctor instead of a writer.   

    Let's take a look at some comments and notes I've received as I come up with witty retorts and/or pompous responses. I'm still trying to figure out how to add a commenter thing, but is signing the Guestbook or commenting via Email at the bottom of the page that bad? 

• From Gabriel rock_bard@hotmail.com (a loyal reader who followed me in my exile from MLBlogs) RE: my comments on the WBC and a player's loyalties to his team:

"I disagree with you. Above all, baseball should be fun, and even though there are times when a player has to think foremost in his club and his job, the WBC was created with special rules and all that for a reason: to protect ballclubs. In soccer, a similar situation is going on between the most important clubs in Europe and the FIFA, with one huge difference: all the leagues in contention are subordinated to the FIFA, while here, the WBC is being arrested by the MLB clubs. The situation is a combination of injured players wanting to participate, and clubs wanting to contend. It's a lose-lose situation, that eventually is going to extinct WBC if nothing is done to soften the clubs about their player's participation."

   I actually think the WBC is a good idea and the players really seem to dig it, but they have to come up with a time and place for it to be played and this is a situation where baseball is really in a tough spot because it's all but impossible to stop the regular season in the middle (as some have suggested) and play the WBC; and it's not feasible at any other time except perhaps as a replacement for the winter leagues, but teams would hold out their stars then as well.

    There's only been one major injury incurred (that I can remember) during the WBC and that was when Nats pitcher Luis Ayala blew out his elbow last time. What's going to happen if Alex Rodriguez tears a hamstring; or Jake Peavy blows out his arm? The Yankees and Padres are going to scream blue murder and they'll be right. With the money these players are paid, the teams do have a strong say in where they're playing and if they get hurt during the WBC, doing something that has no bearing on their team, they have a right to tell them they're not playing in it as the Mets did with Santana. (They made it sound like he had a say in the situation, but he wasn't pitching in the WBC one way or the other.)

    If a team allows one of their stars who are under an existing contract which still has more than $120 million (in Santana's case) or nearly $250 million (in ARod's case) remaining, they have a strong say on where he uses his skills and under what circumstances; and if I was the one signing the checks, he'd know that if he gets hurt, it'll be playing for me and not for the Dominican Republic; Venezuela or the USA.

• From Jeff at http://redstatebluestate.mlblogs.com/ RE: Suzyn Waldman:

Suzyn sucks. I can say that on here, right? Yes. Thanks for putting a face to the name... while reading, I envisioned the wicked witch of the west.

    The world of cussing (far beyond just using "sucks") is your oyster here on PAULLEBOWITZ.COM, Jeff. Go nuts. Everybody, go nuts.

• From Jane Heller at Confessions of a She-Fan RE: my cryptic comments about Nomar Garciaparra in my last posting:

So you think Nomar did 'roids? I don't remember him looking pumped up, but he did take a drastic fall.

    Some forms of the juice are more performance-related; Rafael Palmeiro wasn't much bigger in his later Rangers/Orioles days as a power hitter than he was with the Cubs and early Rangers days as a singles hitter. Nomar's collapse----physically and statistically----coincides directly with the attempted crackdown. I'm not casting false aspersions on anyone, but if you look at the era; Nomar's stats; and that his downslide started at age 30 when he should've been in the middle of his prime, the circumstantial evidence is pretty clear. If I had to guess at one of the hidden names on the tests that busted ARod, I'd say Nomar's on there too.  

    Billy Beane either has his eye on taking a shot at contending early this year and dealing his veterans if the team doesn't comply, or he's throwing more ingredients into his stew to see if he comes up with a winner. 

    Orlando Cabrera agreed to a 1-year, $4 million contract and will (presumably) replace Bobby Crosby at shortstop. They're also negotiating with Nomar Garciaparra (I'd guess to play third); and Crosby will either be traded or become a utilityman. Cabrera's a better hitter than Crosby and their fielding numbers are similar (both are seemingly respected for their glove work); Cabrera's almost guaranteed to play in 150+ games which is also a step up from Crosby, who's been injured and missed half of the 2005, 2006 and 2007 seasons; on a short-term deal, this is a good signing.

    What they want with Garciaparra is anyone's guess. Nomar's numbers and durability have taken such a nosedive that I don't think it's out of line to speculate as to how he achieved those heights earlier in his career and why he took such a drastic fall. He had tendon injuries and his power and durability all but disappeared. Do we need to speculate what was going on? This doesn't bode well for a return by Eric Chavez either; Chavez has played in 113 games over the past two seasons and if he was expected to be able to play this year, what would Beane want with Nomar? Chavez's backup, Jack Hannahan, can't hit; and a combination of Crosby and Nomar would be better than nothing.

    Beane's received criticism for letting go of all of the star players from the early decade A's and for looking like he's never going to really go all out to try and win, but even though the return on Tim Hudson was a washout, the Mark Mulder trade (in which Dan Haren was one of the players coming back) was a winner overall. The one guy that he kept was Chavez and he's paying for it now. Chavez's contract owes him a guaranteed $26.5 million over the next two years and it's hard to see him earning any of that money on the field even if he comes back and is at all serviceable. The idea behind dealing guys like Dan Haren and Joe Blanton while they're healthy and pitching well is proving to be valid considering how the earlier stars like Hudson, Mulder, Barry Zito and Jason Giambi all got hurt, endured controversy or performed worse than what they did with the A's.

    The bottom line of all this doesn't change the simple fact that the A's still aren't any more than an 86-win team; now that may be enough to take the watered down AL West with the weakened Angels, but the Athletics starting pitching is very young and shaky and although they've beefed up their bullpen very well, you can't tell me that they're confident that Brad Ziegler (who struggles against lefties); and Joey Devine are going to be able to handle the closing duties. 

    It seems to me that Beane is going to roll the dice early in the season to see if the Angels are ripe to be taken down (and they're not that good this season either); and if they are, he'll make some mid-season moves to add a veteran or two; if not, he can trade the likes of Cabrera, Nomar and Matt Holliday to contenders and bring in some prospects to replace what he's given up recently. But if people are going to start jumping on the A's bandwagon because of these additions, they're making a big mistake.   

    Jim Bowden has less of a chance at becoming a big league GM again than Bill Bavasi and Paul DePodesta combined; in fact, teams would sooner hire Hawk Harrelson than they would Bowden, but despite the scandal-plagued way he's going out as GM of the Nationals, it's hard to pigeonhole Bowden as a typically "bad" GM based on the way he ran his team and some of the failed decisions he made; he actually occasionally made some good and gutsy Al Davis-style decisions giving people who other clubs wouldn't touch second and sometimes third, fourth and fifth chances to redeem themselves. Let's take a look at Bowden's tenure and memorable maneuvers:

• In 1993, Bowden fired Tony Perez as manager of the Reds after 44 games: 

    Most GMs would give a rookie manager a chance to get himself acclimated to the job before pulling the trigger on him at the slightest hint of adversity, especially a rookie manager who's a legend in the town; but Bowden said at the time he didn't like the way Perez was running the club----especially during games----and fired him. What's more, he replaced him with the previously blackballed Davey Johnson.

    The Mets have always denied that they put negative word out about Johnson after they fired him in 1990, but how does one explain a manager who was as successful as Johnson----no matter how outspoken----not getting one offer to manage anywhere else for three years? That was an indication of how Bowden worked; he didn't care what others said about the way he ran his club; he wanted an established manager to run things on the field and he brought Johnson back into the managerial fold. Johnson eventually would've gotten another job, but who knows how much longer the lack of discipline he doled out on those wild Mets teams of the 80s would've hindered him?

• Claiming players on waivers to block trades after the trading deadline:

    Years ago, there was a "gentleman's agreement" amongst the GMs that if a player was going through waivers after the trading deadline, no one would claim him to block said player from going to a rival; Bowden wanted no part of that and put in claims on any and all players that could possibly have ended up with one of the Reds rivals in the early 90s. Opposing GMs were aghast at the betrayal, but Bowden owed his loyalties to one place: the Cincinnati Reds; his putting in claims not because he wanted the players, but because he wanted to block them from going to the Giants or Dodgers or any other NL West team was well within his rights even if it was an unwritten rule against it. Nowadays it's a regular occurrence because Bowden kicked down that door.

• The Ken Griffey Jr. trade:

    It was interesting how Bowden wouldn't throw a bone to anyone if he had the upper hand in a negotiation. It was well known that Griffey wouldn't approve a trade to any club other than the Reds, so Bowden used this to his advantage and gave up Mike Cameron, Brett Tomko and two minor leaguers for the then-in-his-prime Junior. The Mariners were demanding Pokey Reese as part of the deal (think about that for a second) and Bowden simply said no. 

• The halfway house for troubled youth:

    With the Reds, Bowden scoured anywhere and everywhere for players and was willing to sign those that had checkered personal pasts or were recovering from injuries to squeeze something out of them. The list is long and the successes and failures were about even: Kevin Mitchell; Deion Sanders; Ron Gant; David Wells; Vince Coleman; Marcus Moore; Pete Schourek; Ruben Sierra; Kent Mercker; Pete Harnisch; Juan Guzman; Jason Bere; Dmitri Young; Lastings Milledge; Scott Olsen; Elijah Dukes----some were useful; some weren't; some rehabilitated their careers to extend them further than anyone could've imagined possible.

    Bowden's penchant for giving players another opportunity had become a foundation for failure as he ran the Nationals; the players he should've dealt away once they replenished their image on and off the field became expensive mistakes as he re-signed the likes of Young to long-term contracts, blocking the way of younger players and not taking advantage of the opportunity to get something out of nothing to rebuild the team more quickly.

• The prospect skimming scandal; the misidentified bonus baby; and the lack of development of the Nats:

    I don't know whether Bowden skimmed money from the signing bonuses of Latin American prospects, but the way he ran his club as if there was only a faint glimpse of the future might have contributed to a little extra money finding its way into his pockets. A quote in the MLB.com article about Bowden's firing makes him appear to be of generous heart because of his penchant for bringing in troubled players:

Bowden showed a good heart by acquiring reclamation projects such as Dmitri Young and Elijah Dukes. Young rewarded Bowden by winning the National League Comeback Player of the Year Award in 2007.

    Bowden wasn't doing this out of charity. On some level he was probably looking to give people another chance, but he was also trying to get bargains for his club and help himself. In a way, he reminds me of the Joey Zasa character from Godfather 3; not all that competent, but having a ballsy, somewhat flamboyant way about him as stated by Michael Corleone during the ill-fated commission meeting in Atlantic City:

You all know Joey Zasa. He is, I admit, an important man. His picture is on the cover of the New York Times magazine. He gets the Esquire magazine award, for the best-dressed gangster! The newspapers praise him, because, he hires Blacks into his family, which shows he has a good heart. He, is famous. Who knows? Maybe one day, he will make all of you, popular.  

    Much is made of the misidentified prospect whose age was supposedly 16 when he was signed, but was in reality 19 (I discussed this the other day); frankly, I don't know how Bowden was supposed to be blamed for this; how was he supposed to know the kid's real identity and how old he was? Was he going to check the kid's teeth like he was an animal and determine his age that way? If a prospect is saying he's a certain person and presenting a birth certificate to prove it, and he can play, what else is an executive supposed to go on? This was just a way to pile on Bowden to prove incompetence and get him and some of his assistants ousted; and it worked. This has probably happened to every single organization who's signed a player from one of the developing countries that have kids seeing baseball as their only way out of poverty.

    The way the Nats have struggled is a viable reason to dismiss Bowden. The team is constructed oddly with the aforementioned troubled players who were overpaid or kept too long; and he hasn't rebuilt the farm system into something productive in his nearly five year tenure at the helm. His time as a GM with the Reds and Nats showed that he developed few prospects and the ones he did develop always found their way back to him because he A) believed in them strongly; and B) seemed to want to prove that he knew how good they were. 

   In all, Bowden's time as a GM for two clubs isn't as bad as it's being portrayed, but he's more suited to being an advisor than the front man because he has some strengths and many weaknesses as the top executive and the Nats are better off getting someone else in there to facilitate a true rebuilding process. They just can't compound things by jumping on the new hot name like Tony LaCava without doing extensive interviews to make sure they have the right guy because that could make things worse than they already are.

• A solution to the injury problems of the WBC:

    Johan Santana's elbow is barking and the Mets are saying that it's an irritated triceps tendon. Well, it'd better be nothing more than an irritated triceps tendon. Santana had been pushing his usual preseason routine in the (non-existent) hopes that the Mets would let him pitch for Venezuela in the World Baseball Classic and now he's going to be watched carefully and could even miss his opening day start. This adds to the number of players for whom the WBC is causing friction between themselves and their employers, the individual clubs. Adrian Beltre was cosidering going completely against the wishes of the Mariners and playing for the Dominican Republic anyway (it's since been decided that he's not playing). Then there are the pitchers who are coming off of injuries and have stressful motions to begin with like Jake Peavy, who I wouldn't allow to participate either. It's a problem.

    I understand the enthusiasm the WBC generates among players and some fans; it's an interesting concept; but the players' loyalty should be first and foremost to their teams and this whole issue could be solved with one small addition to everyone's contract from here on: "If you adjust your workout regimen to participate in the WBC and/or get hurt while participating in the WBC, you're not getting paid." If that's the risk/reward of participating, then we'll see how deeply the patriotism goes if they're not going to get paid if they get hurt. I think we all know how the players would respond to such a hard line, and it's for their and their employer's benefit. Their country ain't payin' them; their individual team is, and the team should take precedence over pride of country.

• Royals sign Juan Cruz:

    Cruz is a good reliever and will help the Royals, but is he worth a high draft pick (and considering where I think the Royals are going to end up this season, it's going to be a very high draft pick)? This all could've been avoided had GM Dayton Moore not traded two valuable relievers in Ramon Ramirez and Leo Nunez for journeymen Coco Crisp and Mike Jacobs; then he signed Kyle Farnsworth to serve as the set-up man for Joakim Soria and it must've finally sunk in after a couple of weeks of pitchers and catchers that even if the Royals starting rotation developed and pitched well, Farnsworth was going to be blowing games left and right; now they've signed Cruz. I had the Royals at 72-90 this year, and this doesn't make them much better, if they're any better at all.

• Jim Bowden resigns as GM of the Washington Nationals:
  

    Claiming he's the victim (a recurring theme in his mind), Nationals GM Jim Bowden resigned today----ESPN Story. The scandals involving skimming of bonuses, combined with the misidentified prospect that cost Jose Rijo his job as Bowden's assistant must've become too much and Bowden was presumably allowed to quit before he was fired. Apparently, it took this stuff to wake up the ownership and team president Stan Kasten to realize that Bowden wasn't going to be part of the solution, but such was obvious with his transformation of the Nats into a halfway house for wayward youth as he acquired one more convicted misanthrope after another. Any clubhouse with (among others in the past few years): Elijah Dukes, Lastings Milledge, Scott Olsen, Dmitri Young, Odalis Perez and Paul Lo Duca wasn't going to be a harmonious place; and Bowden's minor league system has been terrible.

    Now we'll see if the rumors of the Nats hiring Tony LaCava are true. I stated the other day that a team like the Nats needed to do extensive interviews and make sure they got the right guy instead of someone who the stat geeks are heartily recommending; whether they'll compound the mess they got into with Bowden by not doing due diligence in finding his replacement will set their course, positively or negatively, for the next ten years.

• Can we stop hearing about Matt DeSalvo's reading list please?

    When he was with the Yankees Matt DeSalvo was the subject of interest among their beat writers because his face was always buried in a book; he went on about how he wanted to read a certain amount of books before he died, or some other pretentiously silly statement. Now, he's in camp with the Mets and the NY Times printed the following snippet in an article about the long bus rides journeymen players and youngsters take in spring training:

Another popular option was total immersion in an iPod, but reliever Matt DeSalvo was carrying a copy of Sophocles’s three Theban plays. DeSalvo, who sifted through two encyclopedias of literature when he decided to broaden his reading horizons, recently worked his way through “Antigone” and “Oedipus the King.” Now, he said, he was enjoying “Oedipus at Colonus.”

“I’ve been in baseball for six years,” he said, “and I’d say I’ve read about 300 books.”

DeSalvo, who allowed a home run in his single inning of work and has mostly toiled in the minors, is unlikely to make the final roster. Once the roster starts shrinking, the bigger names will no longer be spared the long bus rides.

    I have no idea whether DeSalvo's really reading this stuff to expand his horizons, but he's certainly making sure everyone sees the books he's toting around; whether he's doing it to attract girls or if it's an attempt to look quirky and therefore, colorful are all legitimate possibilities; but it's enough already. The guy's 28 and and with the way he's gotten shelled in his big league career, he'd be better off sifting through the library of Tom Seaver and Nolan Ryan than Homer and Joyce. If he wants to read about a tragedy, he should look at his stats because they'd really give him something to think about.

• Ah, Suzyn, what would we do without you?

    I was thinking about Suzyn Waldman and how arrogant she seemed in Jane Heller's book Confessions of a She-Fan and decided to find and post two of Suzyn's most embarrassing instances as a "reporter" for the Yankees; they follow: