• Does the Mets hierarchy need to see any more?
  

    Indulge me for a moment.

    Your team has lost over 90 games and is going nowhere. Winning two or three more games over the last week of the season is going to do nothing one way or the other to save or lose the job of the manager or coaches. With most organizations----even the Mets----the decision will have already been made. With a 4-3 deficit to the equally horrendous Washington Nationals in Washington and a runner on second base with two outs, why----why----would any manager in his right mind bring in his closer, Francisco Rodriguez, to record one out?

    What was the plan for the bottom of the ninth had the Mets tied the game or taken the lead?

    Was Mets manager Jerry Manuel going to have the audacity to have K-Rod pitch more than one inning now? Against the Nationals with both teams just running out the clock for the season to end? Was this some self-serving attempt to "win as many games as possible" for no reason whatsoever? The season's gone. Let it go. And to bring K-Rod in for more than one possible inning when: A) he simply isn't good at pitching two innings, nor is he built to pitch more than one inning in anything other than an extraordinary circumstance such as, oh I don't know, a playoff game; and B) the season is over----it's lost----risking any injury to K-Rod now is plain stupid even if not using him is Yankee-level paranoia over the innings and pitches of Joba Chamberlain.

    And they lost the game anyway.

    I don't want to hear stuff like "we're trying to win"; or "K-Rod hadn't pitched in four days"; or "whatever, whatever, blah, blah, blah". I'd consider shutting K-Rod down completely before I'd use him the eighth inning on the road and obviously plan to use him for more than one inning.

    How much more do the Mets need to see?

    Let's be pragmatic here. The coaches are going to learn their fate on Monday. It's obvious that the entire staff is either going to be fired or re-assigned within the organization. Does it make sense then to bring back the manager while firing all of his coaches? Logically, the Mets have to ask themselves a series of questions: Are they going to give Manuel a contract extension so he's not a lame duck next season? No. Are they going to fire him early if the club (presumably healthy) gets off to a bad start? Absolutely. Is he making big money to preclude the write-off from firing him now? No. 

    So why the vacillation?

    Bobby Valentine has taken a job with ESPN to work the playoffs and possibly beyond, but there's an out to take over as some team's manager. Are the Mets going to continue down the road they're on and throw more money at their problems? Are they going to let someone else hire Valentine, who belongs in a Met uniform and wouldn't simply be taking the job for the money or because no one else has given him a chance? Or are they going to make a decisive and explosive move to ignite the fan base again, say they mean business and are no longer screwing around? Bottom line, what are the ticket sales going to look like if they bring this current field management team back without doing something drastic in acquiring players?

    What more do they need to see to make the move?

• Speaking of using closers for more than one inning:

    Most closers are unable to pitch more than one inning because they've been trained to only pitch one inning. Some teams overuse their closers to their eventual detriment and such appears to have been the case with the Royals, manager Trey Hillman and closer Joakim Soria.

    The Royals used Kyle Farnsworth----yes really!----to try and close out a 3-2 lead over the Yankees last night and naturally, Farnsworth found a way to blow the game. (Actually, he pulled a Scott Norwood and kicked it away with two plays that were bounced right back to him and fumbled around like someone had flung a hot piece of charcoal at him.) But that's irrelevant. Farnsworth is what he is. But where was Soria?

    One would assume he was unavailable after throwing 46 pitches on Tuesday and the "strategy" that Hillman has used with Soria over much of the second half has been to use him for more than one inning. Eight times since the All Star break has Soria pitched more than one inning. For what? Are the Royals in such a position that they need to be using one of their few marketable assets to such a degree? Add in that Soria has had shoulder problems and the transgression becomes far worse. You not only have your closer unavailable for stretches at a time (hence Farnsworth), but you run the risk of injuring him for subsequent seasons being overworked for a team that's lost 94 games.

    Great work.

• Viewer Mail 9.30.2009:

Jane Heller at Confessions of a She-Fan writes RE Sal Fasano:

Poor Sal! And bad Rockies! That post made me even madder about the state of health insurance in this country, but I won't even start blathering about that or I'll........... 

    You can start blathering. The more we blather, the more we might get done. I spend the majority of my day blathering. It's not such a bad deal. Sometimes I come out with something that makes sense!

Jeff at Red State Blue State writes RE Pat Gillick:

I assume that when you say "in some capacity" in regards to Pat Gillick possibly teaming up with the Cubs, that you mean in some capacity other than GM, right? Because the talk around town here is that Hendry ain't goin' anywhere. And I may be wrong, but just judging by Lou Piniella's body language, he's outta Chicago after his contract is up... unless they miraculously put together a great season next year (they won't).

    Gillick does not need the time-consuming stress of being a day-to-day GM again (especially for the Cubs), but as club president? I could absolutely see it happening. And he's a smart executive; plus he and Piniella are tight. He'd let Hendry handle the everyday stuff----like getting rid of Milton Bradley. Good luck.

Gabriel writes RE the Blue Jays:

Good reference to Dark Knight. You think that the Blue Jays would care about their "retiring" manager? The organization is a mess, and nobody has interest in being a respectful baseball organization. They're like Rachel Phelps, one would think that with the effort put into making the organization a good baseball club, they want to be moved out of Toronto. I know it might be best for the team to trade Halladay for some arms & bats with value, but come on, don't go with the "We'll let him go because he wants to win". Build the man a good lineup (like in '92 or '93) and see the man shutout his way through a pennant. I'm very disappointed with the lack of effort the Blue Jays have displayed this season.

    Gaston would be doing the organization the biggest favor if he retired. It would save them from having to fire him if he refuses to leave. You can't bring in a new GM and dictate to him who the manager's going to be; it's a recipe for disaster and the club really isn't that far away from being pretty good. If they trade Halladay, it'll be due to finances and getting something for him before he ups and leaves after the season as a free agent. The club does seem to have packed it up and gone home, which is the death knell for the management team no matter who they are. 

Megan writes RE a managerial candidate for the Mets:

Why can't the Mets promote from within the organization for the managerial position? Mr. Met has been there FOREVER. Give him a shot for Pete's sake. All Mr. Met has received is a mug with Rusty Staub's face on it and Certificate of Merit for his years of service.

    I doubt Mr. Met needs the aggravation of dealing with Jose Reyes and Oliver Perez. He might start smoking and drinking again. And he tends to get a big head if things go well. Or poorly for that matter.

• Only when it's convenient...

    There's a bit of a cause running through the interwebs about big league journeyman/lovable lug Sal Fasano and his desire to make a brief appearance in the big leagues this season not for glory; not for ego; and not even for money----but for health insurance.

    Jeff Pearlman writes of Fasano's plight on SI.com. Fasano's 2-year-old son has a heart condition that has required numerous surgeries almost since the child's birth and Fasano, never a big earner, needs the health insurance big league players receive automatically upon spending one second on a big league roster to pay for the massive costs of the procedures. All Fasano needs is to be on a big league roster for a second. That's it. And what makes this situation even more egregious is that Fasano plays for the Colorado Rockies, a team whose GM, Dan O'Dowd, has gone to great lengths to permeate his organization with players who adhere to a "Christian moral code"----NY Times Story.

    Did O'Dowd miss the part of the Christianity stuff in which he's supposed to help his fellow man?

    Or is he just using it out of convenience to ingratiate himself with his bosses and his community in an attempt to save his job? Obviously, considering the amount of luck O'Dowd's had as his job was on the line numerous times as he's made desperation managerial changes and his club has gone on ridiculous hot streaks, it's working for him on some level, but how about putting the "code" into practice to help someone who needs the help?

    No one's saying that O'Dowd is consciously keeping Fasano out of the big leagues and I do believe him when he says in the article that any promise of a promotion for Fasano was misconstrued. The Rockies are in a pennant race and can't be letting off-field issues affect what they do with their roster; but I can't believe they couldn't have: A) fiddled with the roster to bring Fasano up to the big leagues as a September call-up; and B) couldn't find a team to trade Fasano for a bag of balls to get him to the big leagues elsewhere.

    It's not unusual for clubs to do "favors" for people in promoting or using individuals who shouldn't be anywhere near a big league field. The Mets brought minor league roster filler Mike Glavine up late in the 2003 season so he could get a couple of games with his brother Tom. In the real world, Mike Glavine had about as much business being in the big leagues as I do, but the season was lost for the Mets and what was the difference? It was a nice thing to do.

    In spring training, teams do things that could be referred to as outright absurd as "favors" to people. Garth Brooks played with the Mets in spring training for charity; and the Yankees put the 60-some-year-old comedian (who hasn't been funny for about 25 years and is now known more for his arrogance than his comedy) Billy Crystal into a game as a birthday present. Are you telling me that one of Fasano's former teams wouldn't take him just to help out?

    The Indians are going nowhere; the Mets are too kind-hearted for their own good sometimes and might want to help; for all the criticism he receives as an owner, Peter Angelos with the Orioles is known for being a nice, generous man. No one can help? Trades can still be made. Why wouldn't there be a spot somewhere for Fasano to get that briefest of time on a roster so he and his family are covered? 

    It's not as if Fasano is just some guy who has no place whatsoever in the big leagues; he does have certain things he can contribute. He's likable; and he can catch.

    One would also think that former teammates like Alex Rodriguez, Derek Jeter, Ryan Howard and Grady Sizemore----for whom the money that the surgeries to the child are going to cost is, let's be honest, chump change----would want to help a former teammate in need. It wouldn't take much for a group of them to toss something into the pot to help out.

    All the forced benevolence and insincere piety is great when players are trying to get themselves out of jams, place themselves in a favorable public light or are trying to hold onto their jobs, but when it's really necessary to live by that code, where are they? What happened to the "core beliefs" that are so ingrained in their lives? 

    Sadly, if anything is done, it'll only be because there's such righteous indignation at the hypocrisy and self-serving nature of such a public airing of their so-called "beliefs" that Fasano might get what he needs. It'll be the same result, but it won't be as selfless an act as it could've been had his big league call up happened because it was a nice thing to do and not due to a public outcry and self-preservation.

• Cito Gaston's talking a lot for a guy who probably won't be back:

    With GM J.P. Ricciardi's firing almost (I say "almost" since it's Ricciardi and he's like a cockroach in a nuclear holocaust----he just survives, somehow) inevitable, why is manager Cito Gaston suddenly so verbose in his analysis of former players (B.J.Ryan----Gaston wasn't impressed); and the future of the club's starting rotation (he's not sure if Roy Halladay will be a Blue Jay----no kidding!)?

    As popular as Gaston is in Toronto, is Paul Beeston going to force whoever replaces Ricciardi to keep Gaston as his manager? The fans have lost interest in the club as it is; they're going to trade Halladay; and new regimes always have their share of growing pains. Is it smart to keep Gaston? And if they know that he might not be back, why isn't someone telling him to keep his mouth shut?

• Speaking of the Blue Jays:

    Former Blue Jays GM Pat Gillick's name was being floated to oversee the rebuilding of the organization after (if) Ricciardi's gone, but Gillick squashed those rumors saying that he's not ruling anything out, but it would have to be the right situation near his home on the West Coast.

    Mark this down. Gillick is going to return to baseball, but it will be with the Chicago Cubs in some capacity to rejuvenate another organization as he did the Phillies and Mariners and to help his friend Lou Piniella. Watch. 

• The Mets coaches will learn their fate Monday; what about the manager?

    It's being widely reported that the Mets will decide on their coaches right after the season. The truth is that the decision has been made and they're going to wait until the season's over to announce it to both the coaches and the media.

    But what about the manager?

    It's going to do a lot to dictate the future of the Mets if they keep Jerry Manuel. Objectively, no one can look at this club and be angry about them losing; but there have been so many fundamental gaffes and a bare-minimum effort offered by a chunk of the roster that it reflects on the manager. Poorly.

    The dark cloud over the club needs to be aggressively dealt with. The coaches are learning their fate on Monday; so should the manager. And he needs to go.

• Viewer Mail 9.29.2009:

    The zombies are a popular subject today.

Jeff at Red State Blue State writes:

Brains! Must... have... EAT... BRAINS... Pygmalion... Theorem... Win Theorem... *SLURP, CRUNCH, CHOMP*... BRAINS... Rob Neyer... YUM... Likey like... Murphy... Beane... GREEK GOD OF WALKS... CHAD BRADFORD... MMM... ME LIKEY...

    Jeff, I knew there were innate reasons deeper than a Fulbright scholarship and unending loyalty that I named you Mid-West Capo and my faith has been rewarded.

Jane Heller at Confessions of a She-Fan writes:

Could you never write about the zombies again? My eyes kept crossing and now they won't go back to normal, which makes blogging very difficult.

    Jane, you know I would do anything for you, but this favor I cannot grant. I need the zombies. I could neither function nor live without them. They...they....complete me.

Megan writes:

No mention of Murphy's UZR? I'm highly disappointed. You just lost a valuable reader.

    You've been infected with a zombie microbe. There's a cure. You must follow me. I'll do anything for my readers----especially my female readers. I can save you, but you have to trust me. 

Karim writes:

Good one on gratitude and it helps a lot.

    Uh. Thanks?

    (Huh?!?)

• They're referred to as "zombies" for a reason:

     One of the things that most amazes me about the stat zombies is how they not only attack those that deviate from any and all things that they believe, but they attack each other with an even greater fervency than they treat their enemies. The term "zombie" itself implies a lack of conscious mind, but one would think that they'd at least try to keep those that agree with them on the same side. But if you look at the "discourse" in the comments on Baseball Think Factory and sabermetrically inclined sites, all you see is the nitpicking and fighting that goes on with people who are so socially backward that they're unable to engage with anyone in any context; it extends from not being able to relate to people in person to the anonymity of the internet----and it's contributing to their inevitable downfall.

    They've come after me in their anonymity several times and been backhanded so quickly and with such force (and I've been gentle out of kindness) that they either cower in the corner or disappear entirely, but I'm not one of them and am easier for them to dismiss regardless of what I say or do. Yesterday though, they went after one of their own----Rob Neyer----after he posted an analysis of the Mets Daniel Murphy and his potential as a starting first baseman. Some of the comments were attacks based on the surmising that Murphy is not an everyday option at first base. The main quote:

First, anybody who says a first baseman has to hit home runs is an idiot.

Second, it's hard to win a lot of games with a first baseman who can hit (the Dodgers this year being a notable exception).

Third, anybody who thinks Daniel Murphy can hit really isn't paying close attention.

This season, 23 major league first basemen have enough plate appearances to qualify for the batting title. Among them, Murphy ranks 20th in slugging percentage and 22nd in on-base percentage. He's just not getting the job done, and isn't likely to. You can compare him to James Loney, except James Loney isn't getting the job done, either. You can compare him to Keith Hernandez and John Olerud, except Hernandez and Olerud were both on-base machines. Olerud posted a .425 OBP in his three seasons as a Met; Hernandez a .387 OBP in his seven seasons.

    Then the comments were of the following variety:

So you took a virtual rookie, playing out-of-position, that happens to play on the worst offense in the Major Leagues and in the second best pitcher's park in baseball - and you deduced that his sub-par on-base-percentage and slugging percentage isn't beneficial to the team. Way to go out on a limb!

 

Second, it's hard to win a lot of games with a first baseman who can hit (the Dodgers this year being a notable exception).

Maybe the dumbest statement ever from Rob Neyer. And that's saying something.

 

It's a wonder how the Cardinals manage to succeed. They just won the NL Central despite all that hitting their first baseman insists on doing.

In other news, the proofreading in this post is risible. Did you get so excited about tearing Jim Luttrell a new hole that you forgot to edit? It almost seems as if you really aren't paying close attention...

 

rob neyer you are a horrible writer

 

i am overly confused by this post, not really sure what your trying to say here rob, this post is not well written

"Second, it's hard to win a lot of games with a first baseman who can hit (the Dodgers this year being a notable exception)."

I'm assuming you meant "can't hit," right?

    Good grief!! 

• The blazing Braves:

    Left for dead two weeks ago, the Braves have ripped off wins in 13 of 15 games and gotten to within striking distance of not just the Wild Card lead (2 1/2 games behind the Rockies); but a Phillies collapse away from the division title (5 games).

    Granted, they've made the majority of their hay against the Mets and Nationals, but they don't make the schedule and they did sweep the Cardinals last week. No matter how and against whom they've done it, the Braves have staged a remarkable and heroic comeback into contention after they were left on life support after being swept by the Reds three weeks ago. With three games against the still fighting Marlins this week, then four more with the Nationals to end the season, the Braves are right in the thick of the Wild Card race. 

    What's even more impressive is that the Braves have done this with little-to-no help from Chipper Jones, who's struggled so badly that he's openly spoken of retirement. They've also dealt with the job speculation of manager Bobby Cox; the revelation of a rift between the manager and GM Frank Wren; and the announcement that 2010 would be Cox's last on the Braves bench. 

    Their starting pitching has been the team's strength; the bullpen has straightened itself out from their earlier season inconsistency; and their hitting has been clutch. The Braves have pulled a shocker by getting back into the race and with the schedule advantage, they could pull an even bigger stunner by coming from nowhere to still be alive----and possibly more----a week from now.

    I thought they were dead.

    But they're not.

•  Panic setting in in Philadelphia----and with good reason:

    In what's an even stranger confluence of circumstances, the Phillies have what looks to be a safe five game lead in the NL East, but if things go horribly wrong for them (and it's not out for the realm of the possible judging from the burgeoning disaster that is their bullpen), they could actually find themselves sweating their own position come Friday.

    The Phillies have today's game against the Brewers (apparently playing----or not playing depending on your perspective----for manager Ken Macha's job), four with the Astros and end the season with the Marlins. If things break wrong for them, they could be in a similar situation to the Mets in 2007 and 2008 and fall completely out of the playoffs. The five game lead with a week to go is tough to overcome----but that's what the Mets thought.

    It's highly unlikely that the Phillies will collapse so they blow their lead, but what happens once they do enter the playoffs? With that bullpen in its current state, how can they expect to get through a first round series with the Dodgers or Cardinals? The answer is simple: they won't.

    On the bright side, they'll get an earlier start sending Brad Lidge back to the labor-a-tory to find out what's wrong with him, inside and out. That's something to cling to.

• Floating in the wind with the Mets:

    There are some strange happenings with the Mets these days and I'm not referring to the ridiculous number of injuries they've sustained to the entire roster. Manager Jerry Manuel fielded a lineup last night that, at best, were difficult to explain. 

    What sense does it make, with a week left in the year and the season lost, to have both Fernando Tatis and Omir Santos in the lineup? Although he homered, Tatis isn't going to be back unless the Mets revert to their trend in the early part of the decade of giving contracts to players based on personalities rather than performance; Santos has proven that he's a backup catcher and little else. Nick Evans is sitting on the bench and needs to be given a close look to see what he is; Daniel Murphy isn't going to get any better hitting against lefties if he doesn't get the chance to hit against lefties. Josh Thole isn't ready to catch or hit in the majors, but they might as well let him play. What's the difference?

    The Mets broadcasters Gary Cohen, Ron Darling and Keith Hernandez were openly wondering about this themselves. The conversation turned to the possible Manuel concerns about his job security and the idea that he might be thinking he needs to try to win as many games as possible over the last week of the season. This leads me to wonder if it's floating around the club that there could be a managerial change. Occasionally teams float trial balloons disguised as rumors into the air to get a gauge on fan reaction; I doubt most Mets fans would care if Manuel was shown the door; someone has to be sacrificed for this and the manager is the easiest solution. And realistically, even if the Mets win all of their remaining games, it'll be like dressing up a D grade on a test with a plus. D? D+? Who cares?

    Darling brought up a good point when he said that the injuries shouldn't be discounted as a major factor for the downfall, but that's not an excuse for everything. I hate to keep returning to the same theme over and over again, but a decisive maneuver has to be made to reignite interest in this team and with the Wilpon financial situation still murky, buying their way out of trouble by going after the likes of John Lackey or Matt Holliday won't solve the underlying issues that have plagued the club since the end of 2006. 

    The Mets history has been to vacillate. When the Bobby Valentine/Steve Phillips era was drawing to a close, they were intent on dumping both if they dumped one; instead, they hedged and allowed Phillips to fire Valentine and hire Art Howe, setting the organization back further than they would've been if they'd pulled the trigger on both. With Willie Randolph, the voices wanting to replace him after 2007 were quieted and it left the manager hanging in the wind, with both him and the club----and most importantly, the players----knowing he was under a death watch and would be fired with the slightest hiccup. Sometimes taking a step back and holding back on such a move is smart; but in most cases, a decision of finality is better than the alternative even if it means making a mistake. In the case of Manuel, I can't imagine that the final week is going to alter that conclusion one way or the other. If the decision's been made, it's been made no matter what they look like in the final days of the calamity of 2009.

    Are the Mets going to make the same mistake of letting the circumstances play themselves out before taking action and have no solid alternative? They need to make a bold move and that is to bring Bobby Valentine back right after the season ends. If they don't, someone else will hire him and they'll again be on the outside looking in on what they "should've" done. This Mets foundation can be scotch-taped together very quickly for a playoff run next year, but not if they're still too nice and try to be all things to all people. They need to be brutal this one time and make the move before it's too late.

• La Russa wins in more ways than one:

    Since the firing of Tony La Russa cohort Walt Jocketty and the prior stripping of his organizational power as owner Bill DeWitt somewhat cleverly played the stat zombie/scouting operations against one another with the hiring of Jeff Luhnow and a sudden reliance on numbers and cheapness, La Russa has quietly stewed over the penny-pinching and ignoring of his suggestions.

    Now, with another division title in the bag and a pretty good shot to win the pennant, the Cardinals placated their free agent-to-be manager with the aggressive and expensive acquisitions of Matt Holliday and Mark DeRosa. DeWitt has stated his intention to not just lock up Albert Pujols past his current contract (expiring after 2011), but to do everything he can to keep Holliday. La Russa looked like he was halfway out the door several times with the interference of armchair experts who disregarded his and pitching coach Dave Duncan's advice, but he's won in more ways than just on the field. He's not going anywhere; and even with Duncan's anger at the treatment by the club of his son Chris, it's hard to see him leaving either. He and La Russa are attached forever; where La Russa is, so will be Duncan; and where that will be is St. Louis. 

• Viewer Mail 9.27.2009:

Jane Heller at Confessions of a She-Fan writes RE Joba Chamberlain:

Joba would never have gone past the sixth, perfect or not. The point was for him to pitch well, and he did. But it would have been fun if he'd retired every Red Sox hitter he faced.

    You're right and it would've been interesting, but the organization did not need the aggravation that would've come with yanking a guy who had a perfect game going. It's just as well that things transpired as they did for everyone involved.

• Overt scumbaggery:

    Jeff at Red State Blue State mentioned the John Stossel-Kevin Trudeau interview yesterday, so I found it on YouTube and posted it below. It has that rare combination of Scientology, snake-oil and horseshit. It's a textbook case of capitalism at its worst and you have to grudgingly admire it.

• A proven closer might've made the difference for the Marlins:

    They're not dead yet, but after last night's devastating loss to the comatose Mets, the Marlins are on life support in their playoff chase. Given how they've been given last rites so many times this season, it would be foolish to count them out with a week left in the season----anything can happen----but one can only wonder what might've been had they followed through on their attempts to beef up their bullpen at mid-season. Are they going to be hovering around the firepit in the backyard and reminiscing over their season while still wondering what might have been?

    Having sniffed around and gotten into serious discussions with the Padres about Heath Bell, but deeming the demands too steep, the Marlins stuck with what they had, relied on journeymen like Brendan Donnelly and shut their eyes going with skittish Matt Lindstrom and the young and inexperienced Leo Nunez. It's cost them more than one game and could very well have cost them a playoff spot.

    As talented as Nunez is (and I still can't fathom what Royals GM Dayton Moore was thinking when he traded that arm for Mike Jacobs), he's not experienced at closing; his command isn't very good; and he tends to leave fat pitches out over the plate because he relies too heavily on his velocity and gives up a lot of home runs. Eventually, he's going to be an All Star closer, but he isn't now. What would the Marlins look like had they made the move for Bell; or if they'd gotten Billy Wagner from the Mets; or Brad Ziegler from the Athletics? There's no way to answer the question, but one can only assume they'd be better off now with those four of five extra wins they would've gotten with a legit closer.

    It's only par for the course for the Marlins to shut their eyes and go with what they have, for better or worse. For much of this season and under Jeffrey Loria's ownership and Larry Beinfest's running of the organization, it's worked brilliantly; but the downside of that is sometimes the learning process costs a team games and that's what's happened with the Marlins and their closing situation. An inspiring season for a club that few expected to contend is now assured; but it could've been so much more.

• A simple strategy for Jeff Francoeur:

    Jeff Francoeur has been a revelation for the Mets with his enthusiasm, attitude and all-around hustling play. He's embracing New York and New York is embracing him; his acquisition for the mediocre and somewhat miserable Ryan Church will be seen as a huge win for the Mets and Omar Minaya in the coming years especially if Francoeur is able to fulfill his multiple-MVP talent in a Mets uniform. 

    That said, there's still the problem of a football player's over-aggressiveness that's hampering Francoeur from maximizing his ability. Every hitting coach has a theory on how to combat this, some make sense and some don't. One of the problems that Francoeur had in Atlanta was that he was playing near his home and had dozens of people diagnosing and treating his struggles with various remedies. Once he started slumping, being dumped on by upper management and ripped in the media, he was a mechanical and mental mess trying to incorporate everything that anyone and everyone suggested which placed him into an even bigger funk.

    What I'm wondering, amid all the ideas of opening up his stance; closing his stance; moving his hands higher or lower; checking his eyes; etc, did anyone think of the simplest strategy there is? And that strategy would be to treat the beginnings of his at bats as if he's ahead in the count 2-0, 3-0, or 3-1 and pick a zone in which he'll only swing if the ball is there. Without being condescending for anyone who doesn't know what I'm talking about, hitters ahead in the count look for a pitch to crush and if the pitch isn't in their "happy zone", they let it go. What's to stop Francouer from implementing this simple yet effective strategy to increase the number of pitches he sees and thereby raising the number of pitches he has to choose from and getting more pitches to hit? He'd definitely walk more under such a mandate and he'd have a chance of becoming the superstar all his tools suggest he can be.

• What would the Yankees have done with Chamberlain if he had a pefect game going into the middle innings?

    Twitter was abuzz as Joba Chamberlain retired the first 11 Red Sox to face him last night. "Perfect game!!!!" Blah, blah, blah. There was little chance of that really happening, but I was left wondering what the Yankees would've done had Chamberlain entered the seventh inning or so with his pitch count around 90 and had a perfect game going.

    Would Joe Girardi have bowed to history rather than the JOBA RULES/JOBA RUINATION? Would GM Brian Cashman have called down at a certain point and said to get Chamberlain out of the game and that he didn't care how deeply he was into perfection? Would the bench have deliberately called an inappropriate pitch from the dugout to try and bust it up?

    We'll never know because it didn't get that far, but I'll tell you what would've happened----they would've pulled him if his pitch count got high enough. Period. After all they've gone through with babying him, they're not going to let history or anything stand in the way of their "plan", as faulty and stupid as that "plan" is.

    I'm not saying they would've been wrong. I wouldn't let him pitch 120-140 pitches either. It would've been interesting to see; and I can tell you right now that Girardi, pitching coach Dave Eiland and Cashman all breathed a sigh of relief when Victor Martinez took Chamberlain deep. 

• Viewer Mail 9.26.2009:

Jeff at Red State Blue State RE Rich Harden and Kevin Trudeau:

I think Harden asked not to pitch again because he's embarrassed to be a part of that club. I would be.

As for Trudeau, remember when John Stossel got his ass?! That was brilliant. How he's still going I haven't the faintest clue. These are the same people who voted for Strom Thurmond over and over again (I presume).

    I think you're letting partisan politics affect your view of the Cubs, Jeff. They've underachieved, but it's not like the current mess we have here in New York with the Mets; or in Cleveland with the Indians. 

    I did see the John Stossel-Kevin Trudeau interview. I don't know how he does it either; the guy's a genius in his way. It's like he had a grand plan for when they shut down his Coral Calcium operation to become a healthy living advocate and drug company whistle blower. He's a chameleon and as disgusting as he is, I can't help but admire him for his sheer audacity. It's those kind of balls that make someone very, very rich. 

Jane Heller at Confessions of a She-Fan writes RE Kevin Trudeau and his "public service":

What a great idea. Writing books as a public service instead of making money on them! There's just one hitch: paying our bills. Does he address how we're supposed to do that in his infomercial????

    The man's a sociopath, Jane. 

John Seal writes RE Rich Harden:

As an A's fan, I'm of two minds about Rich Harden. One says he's a big baby: with the A's, he'd repeatedly shut himself down because he didn't 'feel right'. He'd then spend three or four weeks nursing his boo boos (which frequently were never diagnosed as anything) before taking the mound again for a few starts, after which the whole cycle would start over again. My other mind says: isn't is refreshing that there's a baseball player who won't try to man his way through an injury, only to make it worse? On this point we agree: it is well past time for Harden to move to the bullpen. It's clear that his body isn't built to support a starter's workload, and he could be a superstar closer if he wanted to be. Let's hope there's a team out there willing to try the experiment.

    Jim Palmer was the same way with the refusing to pitch unless he was 100%, but Palmer won three Cy Young Awards. I honestly think Harden's got something wrong with his entire musculature; it's always something different. Maybe he needs a higher fat content in his diet and body. I'd hesitate to give him too much credit on his own for this decision to shut it down; he's definitely got people whispering in his ear to protect himself for impending free agency, but no one's telling him that the economy is in such a state that the days of teams throwing money at anything and everything are over.

    The one thing that will preclude him from being a closer is that he obviously wants to get paid and starters make far more money than closers do. If it happens, it'll be because some team signs him as a starter, he gets hurt again and they agree to make the move. Since he's never closed before, he wouldn't get much money at all to do the job out of the box. He's going to have a hard time getting more than a 2-year deal and it's going to be with a team that wants him as a starter. The move to the bullpen will be done in desperation after another injury-riddled, teasing, lost season.  

• Your numbers are nothing to my analysis:

    A nod and tip of the cap for the above line goes to my newly crowned Tex-Mex Capo, Gabriel Gutierrez. I wish I'd come up with it. My power base is beginning to consolidate and my strong suggestion is to jump on the train...before you find yourself under it. 

    The season's not even over yet and the stat zombies are already laying the groundwork to formulate canned excuses why they were wrong about so many different things this season. And I don't want to hear it. Some examples of what you can expect to read and hear repeatedly follow:

"Predictions are based on historical performances and cannot be taken literally over a long season."

"Injuries and managerial ineptitude contribute diminished production."

"This is not an exact science; mid-season issues alter results."

    In other words, "We would've been right if...."

    That takes balls. I'm serious about that. It takes a sheer and unrivaled audacity to be so horribly wrong about so many things while still claiming some faulty appellation of expertise. It's great because it's only going to contribute to their rapid downfall.

    We know the truth. 

    It takes no skill or analytical ability whatsoever to plug numbers into a calculator or computer based on some formula and spout predictions, then hem and haw as to why they were wrong; the myths promulgated by the stat zombies and armchair experts will continue ad nauseam, but the number of people who are afraid to protest is declining exponentially.

    The Fall of the House of Moneyball has emboldened those that were reluctant to challenge the experts and the second look at baseball's numerical age will be its undoing. Watch.

    It's a dirty job cleaning up the toxic wasteland created by the out-of-context numbers that have overrun the game, but somebody's gotta do it. Might as well be me.

• Why would someone want to go see this game?

    There's rampant disbelief that such a small crowd attended the clash of the titans between the Cincinnati Reds and Pittsburgh Pirates at PNC Park in Pittsburgh. The estimated number of fans in attendance is generally reported to be about 3000 people. The G-20 summit is being cited as a reason for this, but how many people would want to go see those two teams in the middle of a workday as the season winds down? The Pirates are atrocious and the Reds are riding a hot streak to a relatively respectable record considering where they were a couple of months ago.

    What was there to watch? Why is this even an issue? They could've given the tickets to this game away and the crowd wouldn't have been much larger. Who cares? 

• I admire Rich Harden in a weird way:

    Unlike Milton Bradley, who was asked to leave the Cubs clubhouse for the greater good, Rich Harden has requested that he not pitch again for the rest of the season due to arm fatigue----ESPN Story.

    It's strange how this works. Harden, a free agent at the end of the year with Cy Young Award talent when he's able to drag himself out the mound on a regular basis, is refusing to push himself to try and prove his health and maximize his dollars on the free agent market. While there are always pitchers who have their big years when free agent money beckons----A.J. Burnett and Ben Sheets to name two----and then revert to what it is they are when they're safe and secure, Harden is being honest about his situation and it's going to cost him a lot of money.

    At least he's being honest.

    In regards to what to do with Harden, if there ever was a pitcher who has the talent to be a top starter but not the stamina or durability, it's him. He needs to move to the bullpen because he can't handle the workload of a starter. He's got the power fastball and wicked slider to blow people away for one inning at a time; someone has to convince him of that fact and he could be a star----a healthy star.

• You see more interesting things at night...in the dark:

    One of the best things about waking up in the middle of the night is that you get to see the newest of the new Kevin Trudeau infomercials. The latest from the "leading consumer advocate, health counselor, drug company whistle blower"/ex-con sociopath is a book called: "Free Money 'They' Don't Want You To Know About".

    Awesome.

    Much as I admire Rich Harden's honesty, I admit a grudging admiration for Kevin Trudeau. He's such an unrepentant scumbag that you can't help but shake your head and acknowledge his nerve. The best line from the newest product is that he's not making one penny on the new book. He's doing it as a public service.

    Yah right!!!!

    Maybe he's onto something though. From now on my books and analysis will be presented as a favor to society as a whole. No need to thank me. My benevolence knows no bounds.

    But then, I'm not a very good liar; so it wouldn't work. I'll have to push forward as is. For better or worse.  

• A lame duck veteran manager is a recipe for disaster:

    For what possible reason would any GM want to put his manager in the position where he has to endure what amounts to a farewell tour amid speculation as to who's going to replace him? And why would that same GM do that to a Hall of Fame manager who has contributed so mightily to his organization?

    Atlanta Braves GM Frank Wren has had a checkered career so far as a boss. I've repeatedly mentioned his one year in Baltimore as the Orioles GM where he made the brilliant maneuver to take on Cal Ripken Jr in a power struggle. Wren lost. (Or won, depending on whether you think getting fired from the Orioles was a negative or positive.) Then, after replacing John Schuerholz as the Braves GM, Wren botched the parting of the ways with both Tom Glavine and John Smoltz and alienated Cox to the point where the manager was prepared to pack up and go home in spring training of this year. He overpaid terribly for Derek Lowe; and messed with the head of Jeff Francoeur so horribly that they traded him to the hated Mets for a mediocre Ryan Church. Now, he's made another gaffe in announcing----a year before the fact----that longtime manager Cox will retire after the 2010 season.

    I don't care who the manager is, it's hard to maintain discipline and respect if it's known that he's going to be gone after the season. Cox has lost a step as manager; he's made some strategic and personnel gaffes that have cost his club games; and while he's not making "old man" errors as Connie Mack did while he was still sitting in his suit and waving his scorecard managing the Philadelphia Athletics into his late-80s, it won't take much for the whispers to start next year if his mistakes continue or get worse. Would it have been that big a problem for the Braves to say that Cox is planning to manage in 2010 and possibly 2011, knowing that he had no intention whatsoever to manage after next season? He's under contract as a consultant as soon as 2010 ends, what would be the difference?

    This is another huge mistake on the part of an overmatched GM----specifically when it comes to dealing with people----and it's going to come back and bite the Braves. As they get further and further away from their glory days and the stars from that era disappear one-by-one, it'll be Wren who tries to rebuild the club to what it was. His bad start is getting worse and worse and I don't care how much young talent the Braves supposedly have on the horizon, their GM is making a big mess that he's utterly incapable of cleaning up.

      I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing for a manager to be functioning under the terms of his contract even if there's only one year left on the deal, but Bobby Cox is different. He doesn't deserve to be left hanging in the breeze, but that's exactly where he is and it's just plain wrong.

• Well, this is no more ridiculous than Moneyball:

    I got an Email from I-Universe today asking the following:

    I wrote the following line on Twitter and it was strangely well-received for something that popped out on a whim. I was watching TV and a Cymbalta commercial came on, and the following simply emanated from my empty head:

Side effects of Cymbalta include dry mouth, constipation and diarrhea. These are also side effects of being a Mets fan.

    It's funny but also sad. Because it's true.

• There's a legitimate case for Brad Lidge to not even be on the Phillies post-season roster:

    If the decision was based on merit and not past performance, it would be a no-brainer----Brad Lidge would be left off the Phillies post-season roster entirely.

    Last night was the latest in the long line of heroically heinous performances from the highest of the high/low pitchers in recent history. The same Brad Lidge who carried the Phillies to the world championship in 2008 and had viable cases for both the Cy Young Award and the MVP has been quite possibly the worst pitcher in baseball this year. If the Philles playoff spot were in any doubt, Lidge would not be pitching save for a blowout on either end. The club can't go on trying to straighten out a mentally and mechanically shot pitcher regardless of what he did for them in the past.

    Looking at the play-by-play of last night's blown save to the feisty Marlins, it doesn't look as bad as it actually was. Lidge started the inning by giving up a rocket down the right field line to Ross Gload that went for a double; after Chris Coghlan flew out to right field and Gload advanced to third, the pitcher very nearly escaped with a high-wire save not for anything he did himself, but for a series of strike calls from home plate umpire Sam Holbrook that were, at best, horrendous. Two pitches to John Baker were so rotten that Baker----a disciplined hitter with a great handle on the strike zone----didn't know what to do next. The 3-2 pitch wasn't even close to being a strike; not only was it low, but it was outside; but Holbrook called strike three. After Baker was rung up and protested, Holbrook started jawing back and forth with Marlins manager Fredi Gonzalez, who he subsequently ejected.*

*The Marlins telecast had a closeup of Gonzalez and Holbrook going jaw-to-jaw and it was a fine example of what really goes on during the majority of these manager-umpire screaming sessions. Some spittle from Gonzalez's mouth got on Holbrook; Holbrook screamed at Gonzalez not to spit on him and things degenerated from there. Most of those arguments are rarely about the actual play after the initial discussion. They usually end up with talk about spitting, gum and bad breath; and of course an ejection.

    Hanley Ramirez was next to bat with two outs and Holbrook made another horrible strike call. Ramirez eventually walked. Jorge Cantu was smart enough to start hacking as soon as he got to the plate and ripped a single to center to tie the score and send Ramirez to third. Brett Carroll, hitting for the pitcher, drove another single to center to win the game 7-6 for the Marlins. (He also received, in order, a shower from a Gatorade jug and a series of cream pie facials. Looked like fun.) 

    The win kept the Marlins playoff hopes alive and may have not only sent the Phillies to the inevitable, final decision for 2009 not to use Brad Lidge under any game-winning/losing circumstances, but to seriously consider not even having him on the playoff roster. While that would be an earth-shattering and ballsy move to make considering what he did for the club last year, what would they do if Lidge were just "some guy"? It wouldn't even be worth a conversation. He wouldn't pitch and wouldn't be on the roster. 

    Lidge's problems aren't going to be solved within the next two weeks. It's going to take a chunk of the off-season and next spring to get him right. If he's physically injured, it'll take a handling of whatever issue is affecting him; and his mechanics and mental condition are in such disarray that a combination of Sigmund Freud and Dave Duncan couldn't fix him in such a short time frame.

    The Phillies have a problem heading into the playoffs. A big one. And I don't know what they can do to fix it. Nor do they.  

• More on Bobby Valentine:

    The speculation that Valentine's reported agreement to return to the position of ESPN studio analyst is that he's putting managing next year on the back burner for now. It's nonsense. (Although one fascinating byplay if he is in the studio will be how he'll interact with his former boss/nemesis Steve Phillips from his Mets days. I'm wondering if the two have made peace in the intervening years. Knowing how both of them are, I'd say there's a detente and little more.)

    Valentine wants to manage and he wants to manage on the big stage. There's been talk about Washington and that's a good job with primary access to plenty of money and power. (I'd want to run the Washington franchise if I had my choice.) But Valentine wants the Mets job and everyone knows it. He's hedging his bets with the ESPN gig and has the same out clause that every manager who heads into a studio has in case a job opens up. He doesn't want to be seen as sitting and hovering around another man's job waiting for his desired position to open up. (Joe Girardi was ripped for doing that during his year in the YES studio.)

    As for the talk of his Mets tenure ending badly, was he really at fault for that? Look at the roster he had to deal with in 2002. There was a horrible mix of personalities. Mo Vaughn looked more like he was training for a Sumo competition than to play baseball; Roberto Alomar arrived shot; a mercurial Jeromy Burnitz was awful; and there were a bunch of journeymen and poor fits for New York, Valentine and the Mets.

    Are the Wilpons watching this current Mets team as they stumble along functioning as a pug looking to make some fast cash being brutally beaten by the climbers? They're not just losing; they're non-competitive. It's not even a salvageable circumstance where they can have a look at some promising prospects because they simply aren't there. Josh Thole? A slap-hitting catcher who's weak defensively? I'm confident I can find one of those pretty quickly and cheaply. Bobby Parnell? Great talent, needs to work on his command. Daniel Murphy? I'm sorry. Not an everyday player for a contender.

    Manager Jerry Manuel doesn't deserve the blame for what's gone on this year, but can the Mets justify bringing him back and spending even more money to place gauze over a wound that requires drastic surgery? 

    If they wait; if they sit on their hands out of a misplaced sense of "fairness" and "doing right", they're going to see the manager they need----and who needs them----take another job because he couldn't sit out any longer.

    Then where will they be?

    They'll be in a bigger mess than they're in now. A mess that can be scotch-taped together relatively quickly with the right manager. That manager is Bobby Valentine.

• Viewer Mail 9.24.2009:

Megan at YankeeMeg writes RE Curt Schilling:

 Prince,

"The Sock" had a better chance of winning Kennedy's seat. But then again, Schilling would had "quieted" the sock somehow. Perhaps in a windowless room with his family. The Sock's ego may be as large as Curt's.

    I think we may have the basis for a potentially lucrative horror movie here. "The Sock" takes on a life of its own a la Invasion of the Body Snatchers; or steals Curt's identity like Single White Female; or a hostage drama with Samuel L. Jackson as the negotiator/former NAVY SEAL who rescues Curt's family from the hideously deranged prop, er, sock. Let's get to work on a collaboration. My name on top, of course.

Jane Heller at Confessions of a She-Fan writes RE Schilling:

I was hoping Curt would run. It would have been so entertaining to watch him get, like, two votes.

    Part of me wanted to see it; part of me still has some sympathy/pity remaining that I've been unable to exorcise completely in my quest for pure ruthlessness. It might've been painful to see the guy embarrassed as badly as he would've had he made the plunge (which he probably never had any intention of taking anyway). Curt needed an attention boost and he got it. We won't hear from him...until the next time. 

Jeff at Red State Blue State writes RE Curt Schilling and Brian Cashman:

The "Sock" is in the Hall of Fame. You know how fucking stupid that is!?! Jesus.

As for Cashman being a student of Sun Tzu, I'm not so sure. Sun Tzu's strategies teach methodical planning which results in stupefying your opponent and, ultimately, BEATING your opponent. He may have racked up some trophies a while ago, but not since implementing his newfound albeit odd strategies (Joba-rules included).

    Perhaps you're right about Sun Tzu. I have the book, but haven't read it for awhile. Cashman might pick and choose his use of strategies outlined. But maybe this is all part of some grand design. (Yah right!)

    Cashman racked up trophies using Yankee-money and what was built by Gene Michael. He wants his recognition and is doing whatever he has to to get it. For better or worse.

    Will wonders never cease?

    After ten days, my website is back running. 

    Hooray!!!!

• If the Mets want payback on the Phillies, here it is on a silver platter:

    Not only have the Phillies overtaken and humiliated the Mets over the past two seasons, they haven't even had the class to shut up about it. It's easily forgotten, now that the Phillies are the reigning world champions, that they were the ones who could seemingly never win a big game; who got Larry Bowa fired with their gutless down-the-stretch stumbles in 2003 and 2004; blew two more playoff chances in 2005 and 2006 and were within days of getting Charlie Manuel fired in 2007. The Mets blew their lead in September of that year and the Phillies finally played up to their potential in making the playoffs in 2007 and winning the World Series in 2008. Now the Mets, who've been cowed and battered by the Phillies since that fateful September of 2007 have a chance to upend the bickering and staggering Phillies as they limp toward the finish in defense of their title.

    It's right there for them. All the circumstances are in place. The young Marlins----fearless in part because they're too young to know that they're not supposed to be doing what they're doing and in part because they have nothing to lose----are closing like a runaway train on the shaken Phillies. While the Marlins are nearly coming to blows in their clubhouse because of playoff-style intensity and turning a swoon into a hot streak, the Phillies are conducting group therapy sessions and Fight Club-style male bonding meetings to gently discover what's ailing the fragile mind of closer Brad Lidge, their division title and playoff spot are no longer so secure. 

    That's where the Mets come in.

    How sweet would it be, in this lost year of injury and underperformance; of ridicule and upper management gaffes in both player personnel and semantically; for the Mets to bash the Phillies playoff chances by doing what's been done to them in the last two years? Of getting revenge on those that have smitten them?

    It's right in front of them.

    The Marlins are playing the Nationals.

    And the Mets have four games in Philadelphia. If the Mets get angry enough; if the remaining players from 2007 and 2008 are able to whip the rest of the team into a frenzy to do to others what was done to them. This is a perfect time for David Wright to grab hold of the club captaincy that is destined to be his, taking the reins and leading the club in pursuit of vengeance and get a little payback; for Jeff Francoeur to send a message to the Phillies that playtime is over. Starting tonight. It's not out of the realm of possibility that the Phillies lead over the Marlins could be down to 1 1/2 games by Sunday night. The upstarts from Florida have six games remaining with the Phillies including the final three of the season. Justice can be served if the Mets help.

    Could the Phillies fold?

    Would they begin in-fighting?

    Would they conduct more psychiatric evaluations of their erstwhile closer to see why he can no longer get anyone out?

    Quoting Shakespeare from Macbeth:

Is this a dagger which I see before me,
The handle toward my hand? Come, let me clutch thee.

    This season is salvageable on some scale for the Mets and they can shut the Phillies up once and for all. These are the Mets playoffs for 2009. They need to take advantage of it for the sake of their own pride and to exorcise those demons from the lost years of 2007 and 2008. If they can.

• Viewer Mail 9.11.2009:

Jane Heller at Confessions of a She-Fan writes RE my chilling mention of Kenny Rogers yesterday:

Kenny Rogers? Uh-oh. A chill was definitely sent down my spine. Mission accomplished! 

    Interestingly, Rogers's heroic (in a baseball sense) ALDS masterpiece created my masterpiece in what I still think is the best posting of my so-called career----Prince of New York blog, 10.6.2006----Sometimes You Gotta Fight When You're A Man.  Something positive came out of it, from my end anyway. 

• As Derek Jeter closes in on Yankee history, this says it all:

    The championships, accolades, records and fame are fine, but if Derek Jeter is to be measured by one thing, it's that he's the epitome of the professional athlete for whom a parent can tell his child to play as he does on the field and comport himself as he does publicly.

    That's a record more impressive than any statistic.

• THE JOBA RUINATION:

    The Yankees "plan" for the first round of the playoffs----in which the intention of using their status as having the best record in the American League to take the option of extra days off and go with a three-man starting rotation----could explode right in their faces. 

    I'm not even getting into another Joba Chamberlain start in which he threw 55 pitches in three innings, was yanked and placed back into his airtight sarcophagus. It is what it is----ridiculous. But what the Yankees are going to do if they choose to have their top three starters take all the starts in the ALDS is allow their opponents (right now it looks like it's going to be the Tigers) to do the exact same thing. Justin Verlander and C.C. Sabathia are even money in the playoffs; but so are Andy Pettitte and Edwin Jackson, with Pettitte's experience giving him a slight advantage; then there's the struggling A.J. Burnett and rookie Rick Porcello.

    Porcello has been treated gingerly by the Tigers, but they've at least had a more reasonable plan for him and stuck to it. Porcello has taken his regular turn in the starting rotation all year long (and struggled here and there as rookies are wont to do); but he's been allowed to function as a somewhat normal starting pitcher. They've restricted his innings, but have done it in a far more intelligent and practical way. Porcello's only thrown more than 100 pitches once; and mostly been held somewhere around 90 or so. These limits will be off the table in October and the way Burnett's pitched lately, I'd be skittish about a matchup with the Tigers considering that they're able to match the Yankees with three starters of their own.

    If the games get into a battle of the bullpens, the Tigers are dead; but they stumbled into the playoffs in 2006, blew their division, and looked like fresh meat for the vultures...until they took out the Yankees in four games. Two words that will send a cold chill down the spine of any Yankee fan as to what disasters can await in the playoffs: Kenny Rogers.

    Underestimate the Tigers and Jim Leyland at your own risk.

• Astros 2-Braves 1:

    So Tommy Hanson couldn't have thrown 10-15 more pitches to finish his masterpiece? He'd only thrown 98 pitches through eight innings and hadn't exactly worked all that hard in doing it. The Braves playoff hopes were essentially extinguished before the game. Now? Play the kids.

    If the closer for the Braves was named Mariano Rivera, Jonathan Papelbon, Francisco Rodriguez or Joe Nathan, then fine. But Rafael Soriano? Who gacks up important games like a hairball inflicted cat? No way. 

    What I would do for the rest of the season is see if Tim Hudson was interested in trying to be a closer. He's got the mentality and the Braves have the hole If they can't see that, then there's no helping them.

• Why is there even a debate about the Phillies closer?

    I don't see what the controversy is.

    As I said yesterday, Brad Lidge has been so universally hideous this year that if the season ended today, they'd have a viable excuse to not just remove him as closer, but to remove him from the roster entirely for the playoffs. And it's not as if the Phillies have a 15 game lead in the division. The Marlins are six games back and if the Mets would really like to get some payback for the past two seasons and especially for the Phillies' yapping, they'll attack them like they'd stolen their meal money this weekend and hope the Marlins take care of business against the Nationals.

    A three game lead with two weeks left in the season won't look all that secure as the Phillies are trying an Oprah-style "share and care" approach with their closer, Lidge. How many more games does he have to blow before they officially remove him from the position? Are they going to be happy if they stay loyal and blow their playoff spot?

• Viewer Mail 9.10.2009:

Jane Heller at Confessions of a She-Fan writes RE the Yankees fourth starter situation:

I'm with you. Where's the Yankees' 4th starter in the playoffs? If they gain home field in the ALDS, they won't need one. But after that? Uh-oh. You might have to take the mound, Prince.

    Two words if it came to that: EVERYBODY DUCK!!!!

    And if you thought Joe Girardi had reason to grab someone around the neck when he was managing the Marlins and dragged Scott Olsen into the runway and nearly choked him to death while he was screaming at him, wait 'til he got a load of my flapping mouth. 

Jeff at Red State Blue State writes RE Brad Lidge:

To me, it seems ridiculous to throw Lidge out there if he's hurt. Why would he try to hide/lie about it? Who does that benefit? I'm not convinced he's hurt; but I am positive that he's back in that swoon of negative confidence. This guy is unreal. Never seen such a fragile, ceramic, big league pitcher when it comes to psyche.

    It's possible that he's simply not telling them how bad it is. If that's the case, the old Jim Leyland line of, "We don't need any fucking heroes" applies. But if they can't see that he's not right physically, then that's on the Phillies. 

    I can't give him a hard time about losing confidence if things are going downhill; some people are like that. The thing is, his stuff is so wicked that he should still be getting guys out by sheer ability and/or luck. He just looks----I dunno----off. 

• THE JOBA RUINATION:

    Here's a new one. Yesterday on Twitter, Jon Heyman posted the following RE Joba Chamberlain:

those of us who think joba's a reliever may get our wish in the AL playoffs, when he may join mo, hughes in pen.

    Then...nothing. 

    No answers to the inevitable and repeated question as to whom the fourth starter would be; whether the plan is to wait-and-see what the playoff schedule looks like to manipulate the rotation; no speculation as to what the "plan" would be if Chamberlain joins Phil Hughes and Mariano Rivera in the bullpen.

    I've gotten great, unexpected use from Twitter in a bunch of different areas; in fact, it's opened all kinds of new doors.

    So I, and a couple of others asked what the grand plan would be if they did indeed shift Chamberlain to the bullpen for the playoffs.

    Would they have the nerve to start Sergio Mitre or Chad Gaudin in a playoff game? Forget it unless they want to get the people who came up with that master stroke fired. 

    Could they check the dates and times of the games and go with C.C. Sabathia, Andy Pettitte, A.J. Burnett and Sabathia again on short rest? Sure. In fact, if the schedule worked out favorably, that'd probably be the smart thing to do. But no one came up with anything other than the baseless idea floated by someone, somewhere: "yeah, Chamberlain might move back to the pen in the playoffs". 

    Before the season started and it was determined that the Yankees had gone completely insane regarding Chamberlain, I had thought they'd use the fragile righty as a starter until his innings built up to a predetermined number and then shift him to the bullpen in August or so to get him ready for the playoffs and to be used as a set-up man. This seemed the logical thing to do and was a pretty solid plan. Then they started messing around. They moved Phil Hughes to the bullpen. They lost a major cog in the starting rotation when Chien-Ming Wang went down. Now they're essentially down to three big league starters; a delicate flower who'll fall apart if the wind hits him wrong (Chamberlain); one journeyman (Chad Gaudin); one guy who should, at best, be in the bullpen (Sergio Mitre).

    Where's the fourth starter? They'll be able to bluff their way through with three starters in the ALDS, but would need a fourth starter for the Championship Series. Who, other than Joba could it be? No one's answering because there is no answer to such a stupid and baseless theory unless it's another harebrained, Wile E. Coyote/ACME plot along the lines of the Joba Rules/JOBA RUINATION.

    Right over the cliff he goes in a puff of white smoke.

• One thing I don't want to hear after the season about Brad Lidge:

    Phillies manager Charlie Manuel is clearly conflicted by the loyalty to the closer who was the key to the World Series win in 2008 and doing what's best for his club in the present. It's understandable that he's feeling these pangs of guilt in knowing he has to replace Lidge as his closer for the rest of the season, but the implied vacillation of "he's my closer...for now" isn't cutting it. This is liable to cause an issue in the clubhouse if the players start squawking about it amongst themselves and whispering to the media that they can't win with Lidge pitching as he has. 

    And they can't.

    Lidge has been atrocious. Not "bad" as in blowing a few games here and there. Atrocious. I'm talking Eric Gagne-with-the-Red Sox atrocious. I'm talking the players in 2009 having a similar feeling as they had last season when Lidge's mere entrance into a game meant case-closed; it's the same thing now except they're expecting to lose rather than win. Whatever they do, they're going to have to come to an iron clad decision and stick to it and if that means using a closer-by-committee for the playoffs; going with Ryan Madson; or Brett Myers, then so be it.

    For his part, Lidge has a tendency to protest a bit too fervently when he's forcefully expressing how confident he is. He did it after Albert Pujols's blast in the 2005 NLCS sent him into a nearly two year tailspin of poor performance and self-doubt. Now, he's basically shrugging and saying that he's been told he's the closer, so he'll be closing. He's a "way-up/way-down" guy; and his confidence has to be completely shot now. 

    And I don't believe he's healthy. 

    Lidge had knee trouble early in the year and he's had some arm issues in his career. If he were healthy----even with his current state of mind----he would not be pitching this poorly. There has to be something wrong. I think it's the knee; but the Phillies and Lidge are insisting that it's nothing physical.

    Fine.

    The one thing I do not want to hear from the Phillies or their fans if they get bounced in the playoffs----because Lidge is either pitching badly or not pitching in his customary spot----is that he was hurt. It may be true, but saying it after the fact is an excuse, not a reason and they've had numerous chances to shut him down, but didn't do it. They've made this mess. They can clean it up without whining. 

• I'm willing to take a movie deal too!!!

    Jane Heller at Confessions of a She-Fan just got a movie deal for her book An Ex To Grind and that got me to wondering why no one has ever wanted to make a movie out of my novel, Breaking Balls. It ain't great, but there are worse things out there. 

    I'll just keep plugging away. I could always try a realistic horror film: "In a world overrun by stat zombies; a sole survivor tries to bring restore order to a society gone mad."

    At the rate I'm going anyway, maybe Hollywood would be interested in the current disaster tale I'm penning, alternatively referred to as my life. It'd be a mess, but it'd be watchable at least. 

• How good could Chris Carpenter have been if he'd stayed healthy?

    It's a bad question and there's no answer, only speculation; but given his dominance since returning from the disabled list in late May, it's reasonable to wonder what he could've done had he not missed so much time with various injuries to pretty much his entire body.

    Last night, Carpenter put on a virtuoso performance that deserved an encore. Aside from a Jody Gerut double in the fifth inning and two walks, Carpenter was nearly flawless in authoring his masterpiece. With a 16-3 record, Carpenter is heading for the wire like Secretariat as he inserts himself into the Cy Young Award debate along with teammate Adam Wainwright and the Giants' Tim Lincecum. 

    What's even more stunning about this is how so many (myself included) were shaking their heads at Carpenter's penchant for getting hurt. He's had elbow problems, shoulder problems and in April he strained an oblique that rendered him useless until late May. Considering his age (34) and history, I doubt that even the most positive thinkers were expecting much from him this season, if anything at all. It must also be remembered that Carpenter threw a grand total of 21 innings in 2007-2008 due to Tommy John surgery and other elbow problems. That he was able to come back this year and regain his form after missing two full seasons is amazing.

    What could a pitcher with Carpenter's combination of control and efficiency have been had he not sustained those injuries throughout his career? There's no way of knowing. With the way he commands the strike zone, is it unreasonable to think that Carpenter could've been a slightly better version of Greg Maddux if he had even a shred of Maddux's durability? Carpenter's stuff is far better than Maddux's ever was.*

*Few people are willing to discuss the widespread allegation amongst the players that much of Maddux's success and "mystical" movement of his inside and outside cut fastballs were actually an adeptness at controlling a spitball.

    Would we be talking about Chris Carpenter heading right into Cooperstown with a historic list of accomplishments if he'd stayed healthy? 

    Going down the "what-if" road is always a slippery slope. You can't quantify all the variables on and off the field that render such speculation meaningless. If Carpenter had been able to stay healthy with the Blue Jays, there's every chance that he's be in the same situation as Roy Halladay and be a great pitcher on a rudderless team that never quite takes the next step into contention (and is in the midst of a humiliating collapse that must signal the end of J.P. Ricciardi's tenure as GM). 

    As odd as it is now, the best thing that happened to Carpenter was former Blue Jays manager Carlos Tosca abusing him in 2002 and Carpenter blowing out his shoulder.*

*Do you know that lunatic Tosca wanted to go with a four man rotation while with the Blue Jays? If he'd done it long term the Cardinals might've ended up with Halladay as well. You've heard of the the Boulevard of Broken Dreams? Toronto would've been the Dome of Blown Out Shoulders.

    The Blue Jays released him that winter and he signed with a team in the Cardinals that had two important attributes to rehabilitating his career: 1) they had the patience to wait for him to rehab from his injury; and 2) they had the best manager/pitching coach tandem in baseball (and maybe in history) in Tony La Russa and Dave Duncan to streamline the pitcher's mechanics and approach. Now he's back to the dominant force he was in 2005 and 2006 and could be sprinting to the finish for a shocking combination of Comeback Player of the Year and the Cy Young Award when everyone thought he was finished. And maybe another World Series too.

• Joe Torre teams bend, but don't break:

    Going back to his days managing the Braves and their division title in 1982, Joe Torre's teams have shown a history (aside from his last couple of years with the Yankees) of getting off to hot starts, building a big divisional lead, slumping toward mid-season and seeing the lead evaporate, but holding on to make the playoffs. We're seeing the same thing now with the Dodgers.

    Although they undoubtedly see the Rockies and, to a lesser extent, the Giants in their rear-view mirror, Torre's teams never seem to pull an el foldo to the point that they blow their lead and their playoff spot. In 1996 for example, the Yankees lead over the Orioles was once 11 games and Orioles GM Pat Gillick and manager Davey Johnson were advocating a housecleaning of such insolent forces as Bobby Bonilla; owner Peter Angelos nixed the proposed moves and the Orioles suddenly got hot; they climbed to within 2 1/2 games of the Yankees by mid-September before the Yankees held on to win the division by four games and went on to win the World Series.

    Is it Torre's calm that keeps even the most jittery players from losing their minds when the pressure is highest? It's hard to say. Teams have blown leads partially because their competitors have simply succeeded in playing better when it counted; but they've also blown leads when their managers have panicked. It just might be that Torre doesn't panic and translates an outward calm to his players, allowing them to get their jobs done and hold onto their leads. It's happening again now with the Dodgers.

• The Mets are making a mistake if they think Daniel Murphy is their first baseman:

    Rob Neyer pointed this out yesterday on his blog and he's right. The relevant quote about Murphy:

I'm just going to say this even though I know it's not nice ... Daniel Murphy isn't good enough to play regularly. He doesn't field well enough to play second base, and he doesn't hit well enough to play one of the corner positions. He just doesn't.

This season, 24 major league first basemen have played enough to qualify for the batting lead. Even with those wonderful stats since the middle of August, Murphy ranks 23rd in on-base percentage and 22nd in slugging percentage.

    If the Mets are going low-cost at first base and give Chris (The Truth Is Out There) Carter a legitimate shot to play semi-regularly and he hits anywhere close to the way he has in the minors, could they live with Murphy getting 150 at bats playing the position on occasion as a utility player (as I suggested he should be a few days ago)? Probably.

    I'd see what the Marlins wanted for Dan Uggla and shift him to first base; and there are other options such as Adam LaRoche to explore. Murphy doesn't hit enough now to be counted on at first base. If they want to let him rotate around the infield and left field and get 350 at bats in that way and see if he develops enough power to eventually be a first baseman, then fine; but for 2010? No way.

• THE PADRES LOSSOMETER: 78

    While they should receive grudging compliments for having played well recently (they're not even going to come close to my predicted loss total of 106; I'm continuing the LOSSOMETER because I've done it all year and the season's almost over), this idea that the Padres are going to be "pretty good" next year is based on nothing. They've got some decent prospects in Mat Latos, Kyle Blanks and Everth Cabrera (who's going to be a star), they have a chance to be better next year (75 wins maybe) if Chris Young is healthy and they keep Heath Bell, but "pretty good"?

    To quote the NY lottery pitchman Little Bit O' Luck: "Slow down, buddy!"

• Viewer Mail 9.8.2009:

Jane Heller at Confessions of a She-Fan writes RE Carl Crawford:

Too bad you think the Rays will hold onto Carl Crawford next year. I was hoping the Yanks could sign him. We could use an outfielder that can catch the ball, not to mention hit the ball - and steal bases. Great player.

     He's got a $10 million option for next year, then he's a free agent. They'll exercise the option without a doubt. They can always trade him if they want although I dunno why they would unless they fall out of contention early next year and/or use him to get out from under Pat Burrell's contract by saying, "you want Crawford, you gotta take Burrell". Omar Minaya's been in love with Crawford forever and he's exactly what the Mets need. The Yankees don't need him. Greedy!!!!

Jeff at Red State Blue State writes:

 I wasn't aware the Empire had its own "stat zombie" issue. Comforting.

    It seems the only things that shut them up are throttling them through the Force and my backhanding them when they dare to come here and comment, but they still don't put the calculators down!!! It's admirable in a sense. 

• Vultures are circling overhead:

    The Rays and Braves have both toppled out of any realistic contention with inopportune losing streaks. The Rays, losers of four in a row; and the Braves, losers of five in a row, were only barely on life support in a playoff chase before these last few days; but now, after the Rays were swept by the Tigers and the Braves, inexcusably, lost three straight to the Reds, both might as well start looking forward to the off-season and hope against hope for some sort of miracle. One important point about such miracles is that the team that's doing the chasing has to win games of their own and receive help from elsewhere, be it divine intervention or otherwise.

    The Rays problems have been examined over the past several days, here and on other platforms. The trade of Scott Kazmir is being referenced as the club "giving up" while still in playoff contention. Yesterday, I explained numerous reasons why that's not the case and trading Kazmir was the smart thing to do. That doesn't alter the real reasons behind the Rays fall.

    The Rays main issues have been that their pitching failed them and many of their bats have either fallen back to what's been normal for them throughout their careers or are transforming into some strange beast of mixed origin.

    Dioner Navarro has had a rotten year. That can be seen as an anomaly in what has been a relatively consistent career at the plate in the majors and minors. Even though he's bounced to several teams, he's still only 25 and replacing him makes little sense while his value is so low. Pat Burrell's been a disaster; Ben Zobrist has slowed down from his earlier heroics; and B.J. Upton is pouting his way out of Tampa. Carlos Pena is evolving (or devolving) into Adam Dunn with better defense and fewer walks. He's got 39 homers, is batting in the .220s, still walks enough to get his on base percentage into the mid-.350 range, and is going to strike out 180 times.

    The Rays are going to have to make some serious decisions on whom to keep and dump this winter. There was talk they were going to look into dealing Carl Crawford, but with the payroll relief they're getting from dealing Kazmir, they'll be able to keep Crawford. Upton is going to be bounced around as a tradeable commodity, but unless they're taking someone else's headache or a Kenny Williams-type GM jumps in and thinks he can maximize Upton, it's going to be hard to get much for him after the year he's had on the field with his play and off the field with his whining.

    What about Jason Bartlett? His value is never going to be higher than it is now after this year (at age 29) that can only be described as freakish. He's going to make a fortune in arbitration and Ben Zobrist came through the minors as a shortstop. The easiest and possibly smartest thing to do would be to trade Bartlett, move Zobrist back to shortstop (or play Reid Brignac there if he's ready) and give Akinori Iwamura his job back to play second base.

    The Rays dealing of Kazmir showed foresight and guts. They've fallen out of the race for 2009, but with a few more smart and gutsy moves, they can jump right back into contention next year.

    Then there are the Braves.

    This whole season, they've been up, down, up up up, down down down down down, up.

    They've done an interesting job of improving on the fly this year getting Nate McLouth. Ryan Chruch is not a better talent than Jeff Francouer no matter what the stat zombies repeatedly say about their results and Church is arbitration eligible and due for a big raise. Garret Anderson won't be back; both Rafael Soriano and Mike Gonzalez are free agents, so the Braves are very likely to be in the market for a closer. They wasted a lot of money on another mediocre Japanese import in Kenshin Kawakami; and aren't going to exercise Tim Hudson's 2010 option for $12 million. In Hudson's case, I'd expect him to come back to the Braves at a far lower salary. Adam LaRoche likes playing in Atlanta, but there will be enough teams that are in the market for a first baseman (the Mets for example) that LaRoche would be foolish to re-up with the Braves before testing the free agent waters.

    Chipper Jones, who signed a severance contract for past work, has not had a particularly good year (for him) and is owed $26 million through 2012. He's only going to decline further; and his health this year was surprisingly good which would concern me that he's due for another ailment to keep him out for a significant length of time in 2010.

    Derek Lowe's been shaky since his hot start. Would the Braves----who have a surplus in starting pitching----have the courage to approach Lowe about a move back to the closer's spot to end his career? He was good at it before with the Red Sox and I'd be concerned about the way he's pitched lately as if the starter's workload caught up to him during the summer months. His command has been non-existent.

    The Braves have become like the former prom queen who shows a bit of the old beauty and poise later in life and gets everyone to fall back in love with her. There's a desperation for the Braves to return to their 90s and early 2000s glory for reasons I can't quite understand. It's as if Bobby Cox and John Schuerholz are owed something as their careers wind down; owed a second championship to cap off Hall of Fame careers, but every year the same thing happens. The Braves make some splashy moves, bring up some young players that look great and the eagerness to leap back onto their bandwagon is too great to resist.

    It's a false hope.

    If you're a contender, you cannot be losing three straight to the Reds at home. It can't happen. But it just did. 

    In the cases of both faltering teams, there are some drastic changes on the horizon and, as strange as this would've been to say in late 2005, I have much more confidence in the Rays being smart and pragmatic than I do the Braves.

• Is this a mismatch?

    I thought of two things when I saw this story.

    One, I thought of natural middleweight Roy Jones Jr. when he was in negotiations to fight former heavyweight champion of the world Buster Douglas in the midst of Douglas's comeback. Roy Jones Sr.----with whom the son was habitually estranged----stepped in and did not allow the fight to take place. The father's reasoning was that he didn't care how well put together a smaller car was, it was still a smaller car; and if it ran into a Mack truck, it was going to get squashed. "It's too much mass, man," Sr. said. The proposed fight was permanently shelved.

    Two, I thought of the fact that I (and this is true) received an Email about a year ago asking if I'd be interested in auditioning for the MTV show A Shot at Love with Tila Tequila. I didn't follow through on the "opportunity". They wouldn't have had me anyway. 

    Tila Tequila is 4'11" and maybe 90 pounds. I can tell you one thing, I'm 5'11" and 190 pounds or so and I don't hit women; and I certainly wouldn't have hit a woman whose a foot shorter and 100 pounds lighter than I am.

    Such constraints don't seem to apply to San Diego Chargers linebacker Shawne Merriman as he allegedly choked the diminutive reality star and wouldn't allow her to leave his house. Merriman was arrested, but the story being put out by his side is that he was trying to prevent Ms. Tequila from driving drunk.

    Who knows what happened? But it's not as if Merriman has a squeaky clean record of his own and if there were eyewitnesses at the home to verify Merriman's story, wasn't there someone other than a 6'4" 265 pound linebacker to restrain her from driving drunk if that's indeed the case?

• Viewer Mail 9.7.2009:

Isaac writes:

How do you usually evaluate how good a player is? I'd like to make it clear that I'm not asking about how you evaluate talent or potential, what I want to know is what you use to say how good a player is in the present.

I dont think potential can be determined by stats alone, but how good a player is now, in my opinion, can be evaluated by using almost exclusively stats (this doesnt include special circumstances of course, such as injuries players play trough that diminish their production, or bad handling of a player, like the yanks with joba). I dont say you're wrong, but I'd like to know how you reach those conclusions about a player's ability or quality. 

    I do look at numbers if I haven't seen enough of a player to come to what I would consider a fair analysis. With someone like Yuniesky Betancourt, the stat zombies have been so adamant at how bad he is that I'm not going to argue about it. (Passion counts for something.) But Betancourt, with all his flaws, did have 46 extra base hits in 2008 for the Mariners; he does have some use. The Royals were in a tough spot with not having anyone to play shortstop even passably and they, in truth, didn't give up much to get him, a couple of minor league pitchers.

    I can't sit here and explain exactly what it is about certain players that makes me think they'll develop or not. Years ago, I saw Raul Mondesi throw a ball from the outfield. With that rocket arm, I said, this guy's gonna be a star. He turned into the Rookie of the Year the next year.

    Other times it doesn't pan out. There are two relievers that come to mind, Ken Ryan and Brad Pennington. Ryan threw high gas that hitters simply could not catch up to. He had a few useful years, but never developed into the dominant force I thought he'd be. Pennington had some of the most wicked left-handed stuff I've ever seen; he would literally throw pitches that were unhittable; Babe Ruth himself wouldn't have come close to touching him----the problem was the rest of his pitches. Pennington got repeatedly rocked with every organization that brought him in. Everyone was captivated by the few times he was able to throw one of those 95 mph fastballs on the black at the knees. It didn't work out. Plain and simple.

    I knew----just knew----when I first saw Ian Kennedy and read all the things that were written about him that he not only wasn't going to live up to the hype, but he wasn't even going to make it as anything more than a back-of-the-rotation starter/long reliever, if that. I don't know if it was the way he spoke; the look on his face; or that his stuff just ain't all that good, but I knew.

     With Jeff Francoeur, the natural talent is simply too good to pass up. Ryan Church is an okay player; Francoeur has multiple MVP ability despite his impatience at the plate. Along with his attitude and "let's kick some ass" mentality and kamikaze defense, I'd do that deal again and again no matter what happens in the future or what the stats or the stat zombies say. Sometimes you have to trust your eyes and your instincts instead of what pops up on the stat sheet. The zombies don't understand that and presumably, never will.

• Your intermittent dose of things I wish I'd said:

From Darth Vader, Dark Lord of the Sith:

"Imperfect as you are, you are still more useful than the vast number of incompetents I deal with on a daily basis."

• A clearing of the air does wonders:

    Like an organizational enema, the Marlins explosion that turned into a near fistfight between Hanley Ramirez and Dan Uggla about Ramirez's perceived indifference to the team's fortunes as he asked out of a game against the Braves with hamstring woes has spurred the club to four straight wins. (Granted, two of those wins were against the Nationals, but they got swept by the Nats a few weeks ago and don't make the schedule; you still have to beat the teams in front of you.)

    How much the Uggla-Ramirez blowout had to do with the club steering from their tailspin is circumstantial and unquantifiable; but it's clear that Uggla's issues with Ramirez (which represented a few of the other Marlins who feel that Ramirez gets preferential treatment) had been festering for awhile. Who's to say that such a moment wasn't what saved the Marlins season and kept them on the outskirts of the division race and close to the Wild Card? 

    Team chemistry doesn't have anything to do with the players being buddy-buddy off the field. Sometimes that type of attitude hinders intramural competition and costs the team more than it helps. As long as players are able to communicate on the field and do their jobs regardless of personal feelings, then they have a chance to win.

    I've mentioned the longtime Dodgers infielder Ron Cey and Steve Garvey as examples of this. Cey and Garvey couldn't stand one another; they barely spoke away from the field, but once they were on the field, they were the cornerstones of the Dodgers infield (along with Davey Lopes and Bill Russell) that was held together from 1973-1982. The championship Athletics of the early 70s had so many fights that mathematically calculating all the possible combinations of altercations wouldn't have been far from the truth. The late-70s Yankees weren't all in love with one another, but they won.

    Who's to say that Uggla's anger at Ramirez didn't result in something positive? Just picture Uggla walking up to the plate still thinking and stewing, "Hanley does what he wants; he's getting paid the big money; I've busted my ass for this organization; I'm the one who's gonna get traded; the team treats Hanley like he's special; he begs out of the lineup; I'm gonna take my frustrations out on the first fastball I see..."----WHAM!!!!!!

    The energy that is generated by this type of passionate eruption can only create a positive on the field. Many see these disagreements or all-out fistfights as a total negative; a controversy that was unnecessary; but if the growth is excised when things are out in the open can only make the team better for it.  

• Speaking of Hanley Ramirez:

    This isn't the first time that Ramirez's attitude has been put into question, but I'm not quite sure of the genesis of these allegations. You hear ambiguous references to his "makeup" not matching up with his talent, but I can only go by what I see. Yes, sometimes he does seem to dog it playing the field; watches balls that he thinks are going out of the park and winds up with a single instead of a double; and vapor locks running the bases, but aside from that he plays 150+ games a year; hits .350; gets on base at a .400+ clip; hits the ball out of the park; scores and drives in runs; steals bases and plays shortstop well enough defensively. 

    In short, in an Albert Pujols-less world, Hanley Ramirez would be the most dangerous all-around player in baseball and if he's got a bit of an attitude, I'd put up with it for what he does on the field.

• The Roger Clemens lawsuit against Brian McNamee is dismissed:

    Brian McNamee has come off looking terrible in much of the Roger Clemens/PED mess and he's said little in his own defense to alter the public perception of him as a shifty opportunist. With Roger Clemens's desperation defamation suit dismissed----ESPN Story----perhaps it's time for McNamee to come clean about the entire litany of allegations that have been lodged against him.

    In Jeff Pearlman's biography of Clemens----The Rocket That Fell to Earth: Roger Clemens and the Rage for Baseball Immortality----McNamee's reputation isn't just cleaned up, he comes off looking like a prince. (Not the Prince; I'M the Prince; but a prince.)

    I think it's time for McNamee to look out for himself and stop trying to protect someone like Clemens who posed as his friend, but was really just expecting another flunky to take the bullets for him and whose indignity and sudden lust for the legal system is a function of self-preservation and blame to save his reputation that's too far gone for resurrection by legal means or otherwise.

• Ha-ha funny or ha-ha sad? You be the judge:

    Lenny Dykstra's fall continues to reach new depths on the way to skid row.

    In case you missed the latest, it seems that Lenny started stripping his foreclosed mansion for stuff to sell----Bloomberg.com Story. It's a bad sign when someone yanks a French stove (worth an estimated $40 grand) from the house to sell for living expenses. This will be a bad ending for Len Dykstra and that's not a laudable prediction from yours truly (like the Marlins and Giants) or laughable prediction (like the Indians). It's the truth.

    If anything's to be learned from this, it's that when an uneducated former baseball player whose theory of reading (culled from Moneyball, there was something of value in there after all!) was that it would ruin your eyesight to hit; slurs his words like a punch drunk boxer and has a litany of get-rich quick schemes that aren't simply too good to be true, but are ludicrous, you probably shouldn't get involved with him and you definitely shouldn't let him use your credit cards.

    Actually, even when a scrubbed up and well-dressed ex-convict like Kevin Trudeau comes to you with get-rich quick schemes of his own as he uses his sociopathic/chameleon-like ability to convince a large segment of the population that his days as a flimflam man are over and he's now a "leading consumer advocate" advancing an agenda of healthy living, you should ignore him too.

    I guess I'm saying to ignore the majority of get-rich quick schemes regardless of where they're coming from.

• The Rays trade of Scott Kazmir was not a straight salary dump:

    The negative view of the Rays is based in large part, I think, because the majority of their front office came from outside baseball. While they got off to a rotten and clueless start as they took over running the club, they've been competent (and very lucky) for the most part since then. They've done some drastically stupid things like trading Edwin Jackson for Matt Joyce (Joyce is a journeyman fellas; accept it), but the trade of Scott Kazmir being labeled as a simple salary dump is wrong.

    Did Kazmir's escalating salary have something to do with his trade to the Angels? Absolutely. But it wasn't the sole reason for the trade; in fact, it was no more than third in the list of reasons for the trade.

    Scott Kazmir is an arm injury waiting to happen and, even if he does stay healthy, he hasn't pitched very well this year. He's too small and weak and has too violent a motion to realistically expect him to be able to give any club a consistent 200 innings a year. The deal the Angels offered included three prospects that are, at the very least, going to be useful. At most, there could be a couple of All Stars in infielder Sean Rodriguez, pitcher Alex Torres and third baseman Matt Sweeney. That Kazmir was going to make a lot of money that had the potential to be sitting on the disabled list for an extended period of time made the decision a no-brainer.

    Lower on the list of reasons is that they have replacements for Kazmir in the minors and weren't going to make enough of a run in September to justify not making the trade; and if they did, by some miracle or Red Sox/Rangers collapse, make the playoffs, Kazmir would've been no more than the third starter in a playoff series, if that. They were right to trade him.

• Angels 2-Royals 1:

    Maybe when the Royals get to 100 losses (not if, when) they should give GM Dayton Moore a contract extension until 2020.

• THE PADRES LOSSOMETER: 77
  

    I'm only continuing with this in a perfunctory manner because I've done it all year, but the Padres aren't going to lose 100 games. Right now, 68-94 or thereabouts seems likely and that's not as terrible as things could've been. That doesn't absolve Bud Black or anyone else in the organization for the mess, but it could've been far, far worse.

• Viewer Mail 9.6.2009:

Jane Heller at Confessions of a She-Fan writes RE Joba Chamberlain:

I agree with your starting rotation for the Yanks in the ALDS: CC, Pettitte and then AJ. I'd only use Joba in an absolute emergency!

    How far the mighty have fallen. If things keep going as they are, they might use Ian Kennedy before Joba. 

• Your intermittent dose of things I wish I'd said:

    From Charles Bukowski:

"Don't measure yourself by me. That's the mistake most people make."

    Truer words were never spoken. Especially in my case.  

• THE JOBA RUINATION:

    One of the more ridiculous Little League rules implemented in recent years has been the "innings count" for pitchers designed to keep their young arms healthy. This didn't take into account that most Little League pitchers are lacking in control, so they tend to throw a lot of pitches because so few of them are strikes. The number of innings a kid would pitch in a week had little bearing on how much wear and tear was placed on his (or her) arm; if one kid was efficient and threw strikes, he'd exhaust his innings limit quickly; while another kid, whose control was limited, would rack up the pitches because he hadn't reached his "innings count".

    The Yankees are aware of this variable when they remove Joba Chamberlain from his airtight sarcophagus every fifth day and allow him to exert his fragile 6'2" 230 pound frame by throwing three innings, aren't they? 

    In comparison to the 35 pitches Chamberlain threw on Sunday against the White Sox, he threw 59 last night against the Blue Jays. In both games, he was yanked after three innings. Is the ambiguous "innings limit" the Yankees have placed on Chamberlain totally disconnected to the number of pitches he throws? Ordinarily, I'd say of course; but the way the Yankees have altered their "plans" with Chamberlain by the week, it's a legitimate question to ask if they're taking into account the numbers of pitches he throws with this new system under which they're operating. 

    The front office----Brian Cashman especially----seems unnaturally obsessed with the predicated number of innings that are said to be optimal for Chamberlain's development into the ace they're all hoping he'll be.

    Ignore the fact that the odds of Chamberlain becoming an annual 15-18 game winner who can provide 220 innings a year are very remote; they've jerked this kid and his program around so completely that it's no shock that he's so out-of-whack that the Yankees have no way of knowing what Chamberlain is going to do in what could be a make-or-break game four start in the ALDS. 

    No matter what happens with Chamberlain, positively or negatively, the Yankees have formulated this with their Joba Rules. They'll have to live with the consequences.

• Speaking of the Yankees ALDS prospects:

    If this is the way they're going to use Chamberlain for the rest of the season, the Yankees are going to have to be flexible with their starting rotation for the first round of the playoffs no matter who they play (most likely the Tigers).

    Obviously, given his cachet and paycheck, C.C. Sabathia will start the opener. After that, there are numerous roads the Yankees will be able to take. Trusting Andy Pettitte in a big game has always been a wise move, but he's pitched far better on the road this year than he has at home. A.J. Burnett has been atrocious lately and doesn't deserve to start one of the first two playoff games on merit; that being said, I'd trust Burnett in an elimination game four or five far more than I'd trust Chamberlain. 

    Depending on how the first game goes, they could start Burnett if they win and Pettitte if they lose. They could leave Burnett for a game four and start Chamberlain in game three if they don't feel they can trust Chamberlain (and they shouldn't) in an elimination game. And they can't trust him in an elimination game. No way.

    If I were making the call, I'd start Sabathia in game one and Pettitte in game two, then go from there with flexibility in mind. But the Yankees have had their own bizarre schedule and agenda with Chamberlain all year long and it'd be foolish to think they're going to suddenly smarten up for the playoffs. 

• A note about Roy Halladay:

    Halladay's gotten batted around since the trading deadline. He stayed put, going down with the ship in Toronto, and the Blue Jays have collapsed so utterly that it's bordering on embarrassing. Was it my imagination or did he look royally pissed in completing that 1-hit shutout last night?

• The different levels of "uncomfortable":

    David (Lil' Davey) Wright has ceased wearing that gigantic new helmet citing "comfort" as the reason for the change----NY Daily News Story. 

    No one specified what was more uncomfortable. Was it that he looked like Ned the third grader hoping for two hits and a trip to McDonald's after the game? Was it that he must've endured endless abuse from teammates, opponents and fans every time he stepped up to the plate? Or was it that the thing was too cumbersome in its current rudimentary design? 

    I'd say all of the above.

• Viewer Mail 9.5.2009:

Jane Heller at Confessions of a She-Fan writes RE would-be Senator Curt Schilling:

Schilling has backtracked on running, I think, saying the chances were "slim to none." My advice would be "none!"

    But he said he'd been contacted "by people whose opinion I give credence to".

    Who that could be is anyone's guess, but there's every chance that they were part of an imaginary entourage of hangers-on telling Curt to "do things" like the Joker does.

Jeff at Red State Blue State writes RE Schilling:

Your description of Schilling is accurate. The man is a boob. I could never hear his voice again and die a happy man, at peace. Just like the "status quo" politician he attacks, Schilling is full of cliche and annoyingly stock statements that make him exactly the robotic ditto-head Beck-lovin', Coulter-readin', fear-mongering asinine troglodyte responsible for tearing the country apart on social issues that should've been taken care of 100 years ago. Oh yeah, and HE TALKS GOOD TOO: "I just think that there is so much broke here..." Yes, Curt, but the main thing that is "broke here" is your ability to shut the hell up and lead a nice, quiet life.

    Being a boob and a sociopath doesn't preclude one from getting elected to political office. (See Bush, George W.; and Cheney, Dick).

John Seal writes:

I think we're on the same page politically--well, at least the same book--but I was disappointed to see you lumping The Nation in with MSNBC, Fox, and The Weekly Standard. However, I haven't read The Nation in a good dozen years or so...has it really gone so far downhill as to earn comparison to Bill Kristol's comic book?

    Truth is, I was just trying to be even-handed. I quit reading political magazines. I'd gotten The Weekly Standard as a gift a few years ago and some of the stuff is quite well-written and makes sense as long as they don't start going on about Jesus.

    The partisanship and backbiting back-and-forth gets so tiresome that it's hard to take either side seriously in the factional war of attrition. As annoying as the Fox people get with their stridency, right wing talking points and over-the-top attacks, the MSNBC/lefties and contributors from The Nation who appear are just as bad with their condescension and "we know what's good for you" attitude. 

    If you haven't already, read Matt Taibbi's book The Great Derangement and you may never want to bother voting again.

    Unless it's to stop Sarah Palin...or Curt Schilling.

• The college football punch:

    When I saw the above clip of the Oregon's running back LaGarrette Blount punching Boise State lineman Byron Hout, I wasn't as stunned by the punch or that Blount went after the crowd on the way off the field, but that there was even a consideration that Blount would be allowed to play at all for the rest of the season. The broadcasters were speculating on the next game or "ensuing games" in terms of a suspension or banishment.

    Ensuing games?

    I know zilch about college football, but I do know you're not allowed to punch people in the face.

    In what should be a surprise to no one, Blount's been banned for the rest of the season.

• One that Billy Beane (and a bunch of others) missed:

    Ryan Ludwick hit two homers tonight in the Cardinals 14-7 win to give him 20 for the season. It's fair to say that Ludwick is a player that the A's could've used when Beane traded him to the Rangers along with Gerald Laird and a couple of minor leaguers for Carlos Pena and Mike Venafro. 

    Ludwick's 2008 was an anomaly as he hit 37 homers and drove in 113 runs----he's never going to approach those numbers again. He's still a useful guy to have around. Giving Beane a hard time about trading Ludwick in 2002 when it took the player another five years to blossom isn't very fair. The Rangers and Indians dumped Ludwick as well. Like other players who took time to develop such as Casey Blake and Jason Bay, acquiring and developing the Ludwicks of the world is more a function of luck and giving them a chance to play than anything else.

    Then again, Beane's a "genius", so he should've been able to spot a late-bloomer like Ludwick and held onto him. That gives me the opportunity to post the following video again because it entertains me so endlessly.

• Curt Schilling would put the "blither" in blithering:

    Would you vote for a person running for elective office in your town if you knew that person staunchly believed that professional wrestling was real?

    Curt Schilling does not, to my knowledge, believe that professional wrestling is real; but judging from his pompous blogs and blind, unwavering support of George W. Bush, he does believe everything he sees on Fox News and reads in The Weekly Standard.*

*MSNBC and The Nation aren't any better. Believe me.

    Trusting in professional wrestling's veracity and the "fair and balanced" nature of Fox News are indistinguishable from one another.  

    And this is the person that would be running for senate from Massachusetts if Schilling does decide to run for the late Ted Kennedy's open seat. A radical right wing Republican----and like Bill O'Reilly, masquerading as an Independent----running for Ted Kennedy's senate seat in the gay marrying; socialized medicinal; epitome of the East Coast, left wing condescension in America thinking he could get elected because he won a few baseball games and "heroically" pitched wearing a sock soaked with something resembling blood.

    Yeah, that'll work. 

    Ignore that the arrogance required to make such a leap from ill-informed, uneducated and self-important baseball player to ill-informed, uneducated and self-important politician is something of a lateral move for Schilling; this wouldn't be all that different a career trajectory for a guy who:

 Openly humiliated teammates for the sake of his own camera time (the towel over the head act in the 1993 World Series whenever Mitch "Wild Thing" Williams entered a game).

Anointed himself as team spokesman in every venue he inhabited alienating his veteran teammates within moments of his arrival (in both Arizona and Boston).

Abandoned his "law and order" platform when it convenienced him by smashing a very expensive piece of QuesTec equipment because it ceased to allow for umpires to "interpret" the strike zone in their own way. 

Unilaterally decided that he'd take over as Red Sox closer when he returned from injury----then had the audacity to be bad at it (as he did in 2005).

Writes blogs that make him appear as if he thinks he's somehow parlayed being used by presidential candidates for his celebrity as an attempt to garner a few extra votes from those who worship at the altar of Schilling into a political position of his own; with some of said blogs ending with the would-be presidential, "God bless you, and God bless (dramatic pause) the United States of America"; to be followed, naturally, with the hypnotic, hollow, friendly and lobotomized grin commonly used by the Pat Robertstons of the world to lull an unsuspecting public into unconsciousness and blind obedience.

And had plenty to say about performance enhancing drugs before he went before the congressional committee and clammed up meekly when it came time to put his indignity at the whole affair on record. 

    This is the person who wants to walk off the ballfield and into the senate chamber with no qualifications aside from the fact that he was a major league baseball player and is a borderline Hall of Famer. If you look at the Schilling quotes from the ESPN story in which he says running for senate "would be fun" (wheeeeeee!!!!), you'll see a tone similar to that of Sarah Palin and Fred Thompson, who had nothing much of substance to say, but said it with an actor's or a beauty queen's self-assurance and pitch-perfect delivery regardless of actual knowledge and content:

"[Running] would be fun. The whole spotlight media crap, not so much," the former major league pitcher, who helped the Boston Red Sox win the World Series in 2004 and 2007, told Boston radio station WEEI on Thursday. "But [a run] would be a lot of fun because pretty much anybody that you're fighting against in office right now doesn't really have much of a leg to stand on right now.

"There's nobody you can go up against that you couldn't probably drag out a laundry list of stuff and say, 'Listen, this person's already proven that they're status quo, that they're business as usual, and we need anything but in every way shape and form moving forward."

"My family's been exposed to the public life -- my kids for their entire lives, my wife for the last 20 years," the 216-game winner said. "Part of walking away from the game was walking away from that. That would be right back in the mix."

"There's just a lot of cons," he said before adding, "The ability to change the world -- big pro. ... I just think that there is so much broke here that the fixing piece, I don't think you have to look very hard to pick up a piece of debris and start to reform it. ... You can make an argument that everybody wants fresh blood and somebody that doesn't know how to play the game, but what people say and what actually happens a lot of times are totally different things."

    Ted Kennedy was in the senate for 50 years. He knew the ins, outs, ups and downs of being in the government and trying to get things done. Ted Kennedy was never able to muster enough support to get meaningful health care passed; nor to stop this idiotic Iraq war. And Curt Schilling is going to remove his spikes and his glove and walk into the senate and fix the world in his image----an image that fluctuates based on the needs and desires of one person, Curt Schilling. 

    As for the "whole spotlight media crap" comment? Please. That's why he'd be running. Not to change the world; not to put forth an agenda; but to get the name Curt Schilling back into the headlines, something he's shown a Madonna-like ability in doing. 

    On the plus side of a Schilling run, the likelihood of him embarrassing himself beyond anything former Gov. Palin managed is enticing for those of us who are endlessly searching for stuff to write about. He'd be a gold mine of material as he got shredded by the media at large, who'd find out if the bloody sock was real or not and if it wasn't, he'd really be screwed not just in his self-aggrandizing political aspirations, but in baseball as well.

    Schilling is a difficult guy to pigeonhole because even with the lust for attention, he's done some genuinely nice things with his money and time in charity work; and if one of his teammates, present or past, went to him for help financially or otherwise, I can guarantee you that he'd help them without a second thought. That said, a senate run for Curt Schilling is a logistical absurdity for himself and his would-be constituents.

    For his own good, he should find another way to keep his name in the public discourse because a senatorial run is a bad idea in every facet but for the sake of comedy and I doubt he's doing this to be ridiculed, but that's exactly what's going to happen.

• ESPN's Imagination Central rolls on:

    If anyone else came up with some of this garbage, they'd be called a crank and mocked repeatedly; but because the ESPN "Rumor Central" is on ESPN.com, it's accorded credibility when they're doing what even the most idiotic blogger can do by quoting unnamed sources and tossing crud against the wall and taking credit for being "right" when, by some miracle, their "rumor" turns out to be right.

    What they do is a clever (though somewhat amoral) bit of marketing to get people to read the postings. They have a splashy headline (two examples from today: A Newer Joba Rules Option; and Mets Rebuild Close) that have been floated as a possibility or statement from someone who has nothing to do with the implementation of these theories.

    The "newer Joba rules" are nothing more than an opposing executive saying the team should use Chamberlain as a reliever in a tight spot every five days rather than throw him out there and yank him after 35 pitches. The "Met rebuild" is a few outside executives looking at the situation of the club and saying stuff like "they have no choice but to start over". 

    These are not rumors. They're statements from the others that have no basis in fact. Yet they're promoted as "insider" information. It's clever; it's sleazy; it's ignorant of content/ability; in short, it's ESPN.

• Why is there such stunned disbelief at the Rays fallback?

    There was no way, repeat----no way!!!----for everything that went right for the Rays in 2008 to repeat itself in 2009. Even as they've had a solid, though inconsistent season, they were not going to be able to repeat their stunning division title in the monstrous AL East with the Yankees and Red Sox unless they received identical performances from their starting pitchers from 2008. That hasn't happened and despite a powerful offense, they've fallen too far behind a playoff spot to make it up barring a miracle/collapse.

    The 2009 offense is better than it was in 2008 with the rise of Ben Zobrist and the stunning season Jason Bartlett's had. What's hindered the Rays this year has been one thing and one thing only: pitching.

    James Shields has been borderline rotten over the second half; Matt Garza's rampant emotionality is reaching the point where the Rays need to send him to a sports psychologist; Scott Kazmir was terrible for most of the season before they traded him; Andy Sonnanstine isn't any good; and future Cy Young Award contender David Price is enduring the growing pains of being a rookie.

    While it was understandable that they traded Edwin Jackson before he started making big money, the return on that trade, outfielder Matt Joyce, has been a disaster while Jackson's developed into a Dave Stewart-like force for the Tigers. The long-awaited development of former top draft pick Jeff Niemann has been a nice surprise. The bullpen----specifically Grant Balfour----has failed them. 

    It was preposterous to think that the Midas touch that the Rays exhibited in 2008 (Balfour, Gabe Gross, Eric Hinske) was going to repeat itself in 2009 competing with the always-formidable Red Sox and the expensively refurbished Yankees. With their young core, the Rays are well-stocked to contend for years to come, especially with the heist they perpetrated on the Angels in trading Kazmir, but this year was predictable because luck had a lot to do with their run to the World Series in 2008 and that luck has deserted them in 2009.

• And Daniel Murphy as Tony Phillips:

    Over the last month of the season, the Mets should have a look at Daniel Murphy as a roving utility player, giving him some time at second and third base. The periodic resting of David (Lil' Davey) Wright gives them the perfect excuse to try Murphy at third for five games or so; and giving Luis Castillo a day off here and there is a reason to look at Murphy at second; while Murphy was bad in the outfield this year, he wasn't Todd Hundley-bad. He can play out there for a few games since he did pretty well late in 2008.

    Murphy doesn't hit with enough power to be a regular first baseman and there will be some viable alternatives for the Mets after the season with the acquisition of Chris Carter and the availability of Lyle Overbay, Dan Uggla, Adam LaRoche and maybe Prince Fielder. Defensively, he's shown quick hands, a strong arm and fearlessness. Plus he's a guy who'll be exposed and exploited with more than 300 at bats. September is the time for experimentation for the also-rans and that's where the Mets are right now.    

• Viewer Mail 9.4.2009:

Jane Heller at Confessions of a She-Fan writes RE Jim Thome:

"Blacksmith forearms" re: Thome. Great line!

    Oh, I aim to please. Especially the ladies.

Isaac writes RE Rafael Soriano:

I really don't understand very well why you talk that way about rafael soriano. I havent seen him pitch more than once or twice this season, but he has 21 saves in 24 chances. I think you talk like they have a Kevin Gregg-like disaster over there. Why do you say it's so bad?

    Kevin Gregg is one of the worst closers in baseball and we knew that before the season. (At least I knew that; Jim Hendry and Lou Piniella didn't for some reason.) Soriano's not that bad. On the surface, his numbers are quite good. Lots of strikeouts; converts most of his save opportunities, but he's allowed five homers and the Marlins in particular hammer him. He's another in the long line of Braves closers (aside from John Smoltz) who will not get the job done in a big game. He has that look. The look of a guy who wilts in a big game. I can spot them by the look on their face. And Soriano's got it.

    Compare Mariano Rivera entering a game to Soriano entering a game and you'll see his body language and the body language of the hitters. For Rivera, it's "I'm gonna tell you what's coming and you're still not gonna hit it." Jonathan Papelbon has that too. With Soriano, there's an underlying fear that you can sense. And the hitters know they have a shot when he comes into a game.

    I mentioned Bobby Jenks yesterday for a reason. While he's had a bad year, he's gotten the big outs in the playoffs and World Series; you know he can do it because he's done it. Put Soriano in that position and he implodes. Put him in an important game against the Phillies, Marlins, Dodgers or Cardinals and let him throw that high fastball to Manny Ramirez, Albert Pujols or Ryan Howard. It'll be deposited into the parking lot. Watch. It's because he tightens up, tries too hard, and the ball flattens out. Everything's connected. That's why you can't trust him in a big game. 

• Uggla-Ramirez confrontation should relieve simmering tension:

    Before their 8-7 win over the Braves, the Marlins had a contentious team meeting following a shouting match between their double play combination, Dan Uggla and Hanley Ramirez----ESPN Story.

    This could've been slightly more than a simple disagreement about how injured a player has to be before asking out of an important game; it could be chafing of a hard-nosed guy like Uggla that the Marlins totem pole begins with Ramirez, is followed by Josh Johnson and after that there's a pile of tradeable parts. (And it's not as if Ramirez and Johnson are completely off the table in trade talk; everyone's up for grabs with the Marlins.)

    What might have been an irritant to Uggla is that there's an Ivory Soap pure chance (99 44/100%) that he's going to get traded this off-season while Ramirez is one of the few players in the organization who was lavished with a long-term contract. Uggla is arbitration-eligible and, with his power numbers, will probably double his $5.35 million salary in 2010. Many teams will be lining up to take Uggla off the Marlins hands to play him at second base or move him to first, third, left or DH. With Chris Coghlan (who's going to be a star) a natural second baseman and Cameron Maybin ready to take over in center field next year, Cody Ross can be shifted to left; they'll shore up the defense and get some quality in return for Uggla.*

*This is how you run an organization fellas.

    I can't believe that anyone thinks that Ramirez begged out of the game in a unilateral decision that he didn't want to play. Ramirez has played in at least 153 games a year since 2006 and is on track for 150 again this year, so he's not taking days off, nor is he malingering. That's not to say he isn't whining about what pain he's in; perhaps that's worn on some in the clubhouse as well. 

    Overall, this was an air-clearing session to get the bad blood out into the open and it can only be seen as a positive. It helps that the Marlins won the game immediately following the explosion.

• Marlins 8-Braves 7:

    It's an interesting dichotomy in perception with these two teams. Prior to the game, the Marlins were said to be "fading" (because they were); and the Braves "surging"; but after the game, one game separates them.

    Objectively, it's going to be hard for either the Braves or Marlins to catch the Rockies/Giants for the Wild Card lead. The Rockies and Giants schedules are relatively weak in comparison and the Marlins and Braves will spend a substantial amount of time beating up on each other and playing the Phillies. The past few years have seen their share of late season collapses and if either the Phillies or Dodgers stumble, it could really turn things into a wreck for the last week of the season.

    On another note, just one day after I said the Braves have to consider sticking Mike Gonzalez in as the closer to replace Rafael Soriano, Gonzalez gives up a walk-off homer to Wes Helms. I don't know what you do at this point if you're the Braves. One thing that's a black mark not only on Bobby Cox's resume, but on John Schuerholz's as well is that they've never paid as close attention to their closer as they should've. It cost them in the 90s and it's costing them now. How many times does one organization have to get burned by the same fire? One set by their arsonists in the bullpen, of course.

    Something to think about is a September trade. Simply because a player won't be eligible for the post-season is no reason not to make a deal. If one of the bottom-feeding clubs is willing to move, why not explore a Bobby Jenks? Dunno if he's gotten through waivers, but it's worth a look; plus the Braves and White Sox have dealt with mutual benefit before and Kenny Williams is always ready to move.

• Senator Schilling?

    Good grief.

    If there's one thing the country does not need in the senate is another uneducated zealot who lives his life believing that the Republican bullet points have some basis in reality. And some radical right-winger in Massachusetts? But Curt Schilling has "expressed interest" in Ted Kennedy's senate seat.

    One thing that would be worth the price of admission and the risk that he might win is seeing Schilling in a debate with someone who knows what they're talking about and could tear him to shreds with something unknown in most campaigns----facts. If people thought Sarah Palin was a blithering idiot, just wait for candidate Schilling to hit the stage. It'll be a YouTube bonanza.

• It'll take more than a roach-like ability to survive for Ricciardi to keep his job:

    Think about this. The Blue Jays were 13 games over .500 on May 18th. In the 3 1/2 months since then, they've been 27 games under .500. This is essentially the same Blue Jays team they've had in place for the entire season except for Scott Rolen. They didn't even do a teardown properly as they put Roy Halladay on the market and didn't get a deal done. Yet you only hear a passing reference here and there to GM J.P. Ricciardi's job security. 

    Meanwhile, 350 miles away in New York, Mets GM Omar Minaya is under fire and has a different person suggesting Billy Beane to replace him every few days.*

*Speaking of which, I haven't seen any ill-informed and starstruck Beane advocates popping up since Sunday; should I be concerned? 

    But Minaya has an excuse that Ricciardi doesn't----the entire Mets team is on the disabled list!!!! Minaya's crime is that he's unable to express himself eloquently when under pressure or explaining a firing/organizational embarrassment. Ricciardi's good with words when he doesn't lose his temper, but what about the work he's done? Doesn't that count? Or the fact that the Blue Jays players seem to have resigned themselves to their fate and have bagged the season?

    I don't see how the Blue Jays organization is going to allow Ricciardi to be the one to sift through trade offers for Roy Halladay this winter when it's likely that Halladay's "request" to be traded will turn into a demand and the club won't have much choice but to deal him. Are they really going to let Ricciardi make that call?   

• Uggla-Ramirez confrontation should relieve simmering tension:

    Before their 8-7 win over the Braves, the Marlins had a contentious team meeting following a shouting match between their double play combination, Dan Uggla and Hanley Ramirez----ESPN Story.

    This could've been slightly more than a simple disagreement about how injured a player has to be before asking out of an important game; it could be chafing of a hard-nosed guy like Uggla that the Marlins totem pole begins with Ramirez, is followed by Josh Johnson and after that there's a pile of tradeable parts. (And it's not as if Ramirez and Johnson are completely off the table in trade talk; everyone's up for grabs with the Marlins.)

    What might have been an irritant to Uggla is that there's an Ivory Soap pure chance (99 44/100%) that he's going to get traded this off-season while Ramirez is one of the few players in the organization who was lavished with a long-term contract. Uggla is arbitration-eligible and, with his power numbers, will probably double his $5.35 million salary in 2010. Many teams will be lining up to take Uggla off the Marlins hands to play him at second base or move him to first, third, left or DH. With Chris Coghlan (who's going to be a star) a natural second baseman and Cameron Maybin ready to take over in center field next year, Cody Ross can be shifted to left; they'll shore up the defense and get some quality in return for Uggla.*

*This is how you run an organization fellas.

    I can't believe that anyone thinks that Ramirez begged out of the game in a unilateral decision that he didn't want to play. Ramirez has played in at least 153 games a year since 2006 and is on track for 150 again this year, so he's not taking days off, nor is he malingering. That's not to say he isn't whining about what pain he's in; perhaps that's worn on some in the clubhouse as well. 

    Overall, this was an air-clearing session to get the bad blood out into the open and it can only be seen as a positive. It helps that the Marlins won the game immediately following the explosion.

• Marlins 8-Braves 7:

    It's an interesting dichotomy in perception with these two teams. Prior to the game, the Marlins were said to be "fading" (because they were); and the Braves "surging"; but after the game, one game separates them.

    Objectively, it's going to be hard for either the Braves or Marlins to catch the Rockies/Giants for the Wild Card lead. The Rockies and Giants schedules are relatively weak in comparison and the Marlins and Braves will spend a substantial amount of time beating up on each other and playing the Phillies. The past few years have seen their share of late season collapses and if either the Phillies or Dodgers stumble, it could really turn things into a wreck for the last week of the season.

    On another note, just one day after I said the Braves have to consider sticking Mike Gonzalez in as the closer to replace Rafael Soriano, Gonzalez gives up a walk-off homer to Wes Helms. I don't know what you do at this point if you're the Braves. One thing that's a black mark not only on Bobby Cox's resume, but on John Schuerholz's as well is that they've never paid as close attention to their closer as they should've. It cost them in the 90s and it's costing them now. How many times does one organization have to get burned by the same fire? One set by their arsonists in the bullpen, of course.

    Something to think about is a September trade. Simply because a player won't be eligible for the post-season is no reason not to make a deal. If one of the bottom-feeding clubs is willing to move, why not explore a Bobby Jenks? Dunno if he's gotten through waivers, but it's worth a look; plus the Braves and White Sox have dealt with mutual benefit before and Kenny Williams is always ready to move.

• Senator Schilling?

    Good grief.

    If there's one thing the country does not need in the senate is another uneducated zealot who lives his life believing that the Republican bullet points have some basis in reality. And some radical right-winger in Massachusetts? But Curt Schilling has "expressed interest" in Ted Kennedy's senate seat.

    One thing that would be worth the price of admission and the risk that he might win is seeing Schilling in a debate with someone who knows what they're talking about and could tear him to shreds with something unknown in most campaigns----facts. If people thought Sarah Palin was a blithering idiot, just wait for candidate Schilling to hit the stage. It'll be a YouTube bonanza.

• It'll take more than a roach-like ability to survive for Ricciardi to keep his job:

    Think about this. The Blue Jays were 13 games over .500 on May 18th. In the 3 1/2 months since then, they've been 27 games under .500. This is essentially the same Blue Jays team they've had in place for the entire season except for Scott Rolen. They didn't even do a teardown properly as they put Roy Halladay on the market and didn't get a deal done. Yet you only hear a passing reference here and there to GM J.P. Ricciardi's job security. 

    Meanwhile, 350 miles away in New York, Mets GM Omar Minaya is under fire and has a different person suggesting Billy Beane to replace him every few days.*

*Speaking of which, I haven't seen any ill-informed and starstruck Beane advocates popping up since Sunday; should I be concerned? 

    But Minaya has an excuse that Ricciardi doesn't----the entire Mets team is on the disabled list!!!! Minaya's crime is that he's unable to express himself eloquently when under pressure or explaining a firing/organizational embarrassment. Ricciardi's good with words when he doesn't lose his temper, but what about the work he's done? Doesn't that count? Or the fact that the Blue Jays players seem to have resigned themselves to their fate and have bagged the season?

    I don't see how the Blue Jays organization is going to allow Ricciardi to be the one to sift through trade offers for Roy Halladay this winter when it's likely that Halladay's "request" to be traded will turn into a demand and the club won't have much choice but to deal him. Are they really going to let Ricciardi make that call?   

• Did Davey's parents take him to McDonald's after the game?

    I don't mean to goof on it because protecting the head attached to the rest of Mets third baseman David Wright is far more important than aesthetics, but I'm starting to understand why Jeff Francoeur basically said, "I ain't wearin' that thing" when he had a look at the new helmets designed by Rawlings for better protection against errant fastballs----NY Times Story.

    Check out the following pic of David (Lil' Davey) Wright from his first game back after his beaning at the hands of the Giants' Matt Cain last month:

    Most humans wearing a helmet of this kind are more concerned about the toy in their Happy Meal following the game than anything else. He looks like Ned the third grader. I'd think that most players are going to echo Francoeur and say, "Y'know what? I'll risk the concussion until they improve the prototype." 

    And you can't blame Wright or the Mets. I'm sure he was told that he's wearing the helmet or he's sitting out the rest of the year. Many other players would've said, "Okay, I'll sit out the rest of the year."

    Hopefully Ronald McDonald said hi to Davey while he munched on his fries.

• Guilty by omission:

    Here's a clip from Rob Neyer's Sweet Spot blog on ESPN.com questioning why the Dodgers need Jim Thome:

The bottom line is that Jim Thome might have just become the greatest dedicated pinch-hitter in the history of the universe. I read somewhere that Colletti thinks of Thome as the Dodgers' version of the 2008 version of Matt Stairs ... but Matt Stairs collected exactly one hit last October, and Matt Stairs isn't going to draw a great deal of Hall of Fame support. I'm not sure that what Colletti's doing has been done before.

    Here's the problem: while the statement "Matt Stairs collected exactly one hit last October" is absolutely 100% accurate, it's another example of the stat zombie leaving out something of an important detail for convenience to the argument. That detail is as follows: the one hit Stairs collected last October was a moonshot home run off a 100-mph fastball from Jonathan Broxton at Dodger Stadium in the eighth inning of game four to cap a four run inning and give the Phillies a 7-5 lead. They held on and took a 3-1 series lead, closing it out in game five and winning the pennant.

    That kinda puts it into context of what Stairs----who never met a fastball he wouldn't swing at or couldn't hit----did for the Phillies last season with that "one hit". Add in the fact that there's a slight difference between losing that game and being tied in the series 2-2, and leading 3-1.

    If the Dodgers use Thome as little more than a scary intimidator with giant hands, blacksmith forearms, patience and power off the bench for September; then he's available throughout the NL playoffs and the Dodgers emerge, Thome's a pretty good DH option in the World Series, right?

    Good grief.

• Braves 4-Marlins 3:

    It's an easy mark to say that the Marlins are beginning to fade after a fantastic first five months of the season, but even as they've lost five of six (three to the heinous Mets and Padres and two to their direct competitors, the Braves) I wouldn't start burying them yet. They pulled a similar lull early in August, going into Washington, repeatedly blowing leads and getting swept by the woeful Nationals...then turned around, rocked the Phillies in a three-game sweep in Philadelphia and won eight of nine in total.

    As for the Braves, they're going to have to do something about that closer situation if they want to hang in the playoff race over the last month. One of Bobby Cox's drastic weaknesses----especially during the club's National League dynasty from 1991-2005----was his lack of perception in judging his closers. You need only to look at the list of names during those years, Kyle Farnsworth, Jeff Reardon, Alejandro Pena, Greg McMichael, Mark Wohlers (the only truly reliable closer he's had was John Smoltz) and it's clear that he's hard-headed in deciding who's going to get those final three outs.

    Rafael Soriano looks the type to wilt when the pressure is highest. He gave up another home run last night to Dan Uggla and the Braves have a better choice in Mike Gonzalez, who's currently swinging and swaying in the eighth inning as the set-up man.

    Will Cox make the switch? History's proven the answer is no and that might cost the Braves dearly later this month.

• Why you have to admire Kenny Williams:

    Weeks after moving with characteristic and stunning aggressiveness in trading for players with black marks on their resumes (Jake Peavy, injury prone and expensive; Alex Rios, underachieving and expensive), he stepped back and looked at his struggling team, reassessed and realized that they're probably not going to be able to hang in contention for the rest of 2009 and dumped Jose Contreras (actually getting something of use for him in pitcher Brandon Hynick) and Jim Thome. 

    The perception that Williams is throwing in the towel with a month left in the season and his club on the outskirts of contention is widespread and right on the money; but here's a newsflash: HE DOESN'T CARE!!!!

    The White Sox had a season this nightmarish two years ago and Williams made some questionable moves (Carlos Quentin, Alexei Ramirez, Orlando Cabrera) that helped the 72-win, fourth place team from 2007 return to the playoffs in 2008. Any team with Peavy (if he's healthy), Gavin Floyd, Mark Buehrle and John Danks in their rotation is going to be competitive, so 2010 could just as easily be a repeat of 2008 after a few tweaks. Don't expect just a tweak though; expect a rattling of the entire foundation from top-to-bottom because that's what Williams does with no thought to praise or criticism. My kinda guy.

• Viewer Mail 9.2.2009:

Jane Heller at Confessions of a She-Fan was confused about my tearing into Mark Feinsand's justification of the Joba Rules/JOBA RUINATION yesterday:

Confused about your comparison of Joba and King Felix. Both are 23 and both have had shoulder/arm problems. Yes?

    I would never have thought to compare Felix Hernandez and Chamberlain. Feinsand was searching for players to bolster his argument because the facts of developing young pitchers are so transitory that there's no baseline standard, so he compared King Felix and Joba because of their ages. This is why there's this rampant and never-ending debate; no one knows one way or the other of how to keep these guys healthy while using them reasonably so they pull things out of their asses.

    I've been thinking about what the Yankees would do if they fell behind in a first round series 2 games to 1 and were faced with the prospect of Joba saving them from elimination. The biggest thing that the Yankees are going to have to worry about isn't something they can control. It's not Chamberlain's workload, his command or pitch count----it's the schedule.

    If there's enough time between games 1 and 4 for C.C. Sabathia to be rested enough to pitch, they'd have no choice but to pitch him on short rest to save the season; if the games are clustered together wrong, the Yankees won't have a choice but to shut their eyes and use Joba. Then everyone had better duck before, during and after the game if they lose.

Jeff at Red State Blue State writes RE Jose Contreras to the Rockies:

With Contreras in Denver we have the potential to see a homerun ball go up and never come down. Ever. White Sox 1, Rockies 0

    What's even more amazing is, as I've said twice before, the White Sox actually got something for him. Why did Dan O'Dowd: A) want Contreras; and B) give up Hynick, whose numbers make him look pretty good?

    Contreras is going to get shelled in Colorado. Maybe the idea came to O'Dowd during a Rockies prayer session, in which case he should've questioned his faith.

• Oliver Perez and Johan Santana have their surgeries:

• More literary stuff from the Prince:

    I've continued reading that Philip Roth book I mentioned yesterday and, just as I suspected, the dialogue and story are gradually becoming more ludicrous. Now I find myself missing the late Norman Mailer. It takes balls to be so completely full of shit as Mailer was and to believe the press clippings about one's brilliance.

    I admire balls in whatever context no matter how ridiculous.

• Dodgers get Garland and Thome:

    I said weeks ago that Jon Garland was a perfect fit for the Dodgers. So sure was I that Garland was exactly what the Dodgers needed, I was stunned that the former Diamondbacks righty managed to get through waivers without being claimed by the Dodgers or by the Rockies or Giants to prevent him from going to the Dodgers.

    Garland has a $2.5 million buyout and a $10 million option for 2010; it's pretty much certain that Garland will be a Dodger next year unless he falls flat on his face this month or gets hurt. The Diamondbacks received a player to be named later in the deal. The thing about Garland that can be seen as a positive is that you know exactly what you're going to get from him. Looking at his career numbers, he's durable; he throws strikes; gives up a lot of hits and home runs; needs a good defense behind him; has done well in the post-season; and can hit a little bit. It's doubtful that the Dodgers gave up much to get him and as back-of-the-rotation security for the rest of this year and next year, you could do much, much worse.

    The busy Dodgers also acquired Jim Thome from the White Sox for minor league infielder Justin Fuller. This was met with head scratching at what the Dodgers plan to do with Thome and wonderment whether he's going to supplant James Loney at first base. Thome has played the field four times since 2006; and in 2005, when he was hurt and missed a chunk of the season, he played in 52 games for the Phillies.

    Joe Torre is not benching Loney in favor of an immovable object with a stone glove like Jim Thome. The Dodgers brought Thome in to be a power/patience bat off the bench and, in the event of a trip to the World Series, to be the DH in October in the American League park with an eye on the home run heaven of Yankee Stadium.

    Fuller is a 25-year-old who's still in high A in the Dodgers system, so he's little more than a body that the White Sox received to get rid of Thome. This is a great move by the Dodgers to bolster their bench and clubhouse and look toward a possible World Series when most NL teams don't have a powerful and legitimate DH to stick into the lineup. Now the Dodgers do.

• White Sox trade Jose Contreras to the Rockies:

    What the Rockies want with Contreras is anyone's guess. He's a notorious headcase who can't function if everything on and off the field is perfect and he's been rotten for most of the past 3+ years. The White Sox appear to have gotten something of use for Contreras from the Rockies in right hander Brandon Hynick. This is going to come back and bite Rockies GM Dan O'Dowd.

• THE RUINATION OF JOBA:

    You can pretty much toss out most of what club beat writers say in terms of analysis, but Mark Feinsand of the NY Daily News cherrypicks and justifies the Yankees use of Joba Chamberlain with comparisons to such pitchers as Felix Hernandez and Tim Lincecum of the current crop of young pitchers and Andy Pettitte from the past to "prove" that it wasn't that much different fifteen years ago in terms of the template of developing young pitchers and keeping them healthy.

    It's crap.

    Hernandez is still young enough (23) and has such a vast chunk of his career ahead of him that you can't use him as an example of why using Chamberlain in this way is "right". Hernandez has had his share of health scares with an elbow problem a couple of years ago.

    A Lincecum comparison with anyone is ludicrous because there isn't one other pitcher in baseball who came into the pros under the mandate not to mess with him, his mechanics or workout regimen in any way. Lincecum is such a different breed of cat that he should be taken as a prime case of why every little minuscule detail that's being used to justify the babying of Chamberlain might be wrong. What other 25-year-old pitcher in baseball has the bona fides to completely ignore the pitching coach? Giants pitching coach Dave Righetti literally stays clear of Lincecum when it comes to the diminutive pitcher's mechanics. Lincecum's size, motion and training techniques are so completely against what's perceived as normal that he can't be entered into any discussion of this kind as proof one way or the other.

    Pettitte? While it might be accurate on paper that his innings somewhat matched up with what the Yankees are trying to do with Chamberlain, then-Yankees GM Gene Michael and manager Buck Showalter weren't on any prescribed count for Pettitte and nor was Joe Torre.

    While these pitchers bolster Feinsand's argument, I could just as easily point out the likes of John Smoltz, Greg Maddux and Tom Glavine as pitchers who logged tremendous numbers of innings at a young age and were remarkably durable winners year after year. It's a false set of tenets upon which to defend the Yankees.

    The Yankees are walking right into a trap with the way they're babying Chamberlain not just for the longterm future, but for next month in the playoffs. I mentioned this yesterday, but it's worth saying again: what are they going to do if they're in an ALDS series with the Tigers and lose 2 of the first 3 games and have to come back to Yankee Stadium relying on Chamberlain to rescue them in a make-or-break game four?

    Manager Joe Girardi looks like the panicky type to me anyway; is he going to have Alfredo Aceves warming up next to Chamberlain just in case? And Chamberlain's work since late July in performance and volume is going to make him so strong and so out of touch with his timing and command that he's going to get shelled. Then what? Will it be an acceptable explanation to the Yankee veterans, their fans and the Steinbrenners that this promising season may have gone down the tubes but Chamberlain's future is secured----even if it's not?

• Viewer Mail 9.1.2009:

Jane Heller at Confessions of a She-Fan writes RE The Joba Rules/THE RUINATION OF JOBA:

I'd love to hear what Jeter and Posada think of the Joba Rules too. It would be fun to be a fly on the wall during their trips to Starbucks.

    They go to Starbucks together? It must be a zoo. 

    The whole Joba Rules/JOBA RUINATION has been part of a larger conspiracy. One of the reasons Joe Torre was forced out was because Brian Cashman didn't want Torre to resist his demands on how to use Chamberlain/Kennedy/Hughes. That would've been an interesting fight because Torre had the cachet to do it and get away with it too.

• Why is there such a reluctance for a baseball employee to function under his current contract?
  

    Inexplicably, Dayton Moore is receiving a contract extension to remain as Royals GM through 2014!!!

    Never mind the preposterous decision to keep Moore after the way his decisions created this soon-to-be-100 loss terror (I went into why it was a stupid idea to extend him two days ago); but since Moore's contract ran through 2010, why was it necessary to give him an extension now? For what?

    There seems to be a reluctance for any person in baseball to function under a contract that is only guaranteed through the next year. Why? Would it hurt Moore to be working under the deal he agreed to when he joined the organization? Because he is the GM, shouldn't that automatically require him doing the best job he can possibly do for the organization in the short and long term? It's one thing to keep him and let him finish the contract; it's another to extend that contract for another four years.

    You hear the same silly arguments like the club doesn't want to have a "lame duck" GM.

    So?

    What's the difference? Is there any harm in letting the contract run its course and then discussing an extension? And it's not like Moore would be in demand as a GM for another club after the mess he's made in Kansas City. Where's he going to go even if the Royals magically turned the club around and won 90 games next year? What good is a contract if it's never an actual agreement to begin with if as soon as it's set to expire, it's torn up and extended no matter how poorly the employee has done his job?

• A mid-book review with the expectation of things getting worse:

    Who came up with this idea that Philip Roth is a "genius"?

    I've been reading his latest, Indignation and it's the same pompous, whiny, old man bullshit with dialogue that couldn't be less realistic if it was written by the same marketers who brought you Dawson's Creek, Gossip Girl, Teenage Vampire thing or whatever other crap directed toward the demographic of teenage girl and gay guy that's being sold now ad nauseam.

    It's as if someone, somewhere along the line decided that the appellation of "genius" applied to the likes of Roth and a few others that I'm not going to start listing, he won the important book awards, and he can write whatever garbage comes to mind bitching and moaning about a societal backslide into incivility and it's anointed as gospel.

    (Note: there's been no societal backslide into incivility. This is what it is, only in a different form than what those who grew up in the 50s remember.)

    Two positives: the book is short, so it won't be such a trek to finish it; and I didn't purchase it, but got it out of the li-berry. I save my book purchases for Bukowski. He was such a cranky misanthrope that I relate to him far better.

    Speaking of which, I've been trying my hand at some poetry. It's not very good.