• J.P. Ricciardi as an analyst?

    Yeah, J.P. Ricciardi as an analyst.

    After his rocky seven year tenure as the GM of the Toronto Blue Jays, the response to ESPN's hiring of Ricciardi varied from laughter to bewilderment. Because of the endless controversies Ricciardi created on his own for no reason whatsoever as a GM, the implication is that his loose cannon tendencies will be a negative on the Baseball Tonight telecast, but it's his penchant for saying whatever's on his mind regardless of consequences that will make him a good analyst as long as he doesn't take criticism or upper management entreaties to heart and censor himself.

    Ricciardi's downfall as a GM wasn't that he made overtly bad moves as Blue Jays GM. Obviously, his time there won't be seen as successful and I've been the first one to unload on him when he's deserved it; but on the whole he wasn't that bad; and his record would've looked better had his team not been trapped in the AL East with the Yankees and Red Sox. Being a middling team in the American League can get you a division title if you're in the West or Central; in the East, it gets you blamed and fired.

    That said, he needed to be dismissed for the Blue Jays to move forward. The main issues with Ricciardi were never his personnel decisions; it was his repeated battles with players, coaches and media members that cemented his downfall. His personality is simply not suited to being the face of an organization. There are so many examples of his explosive temper that it's stunning he lasted as long as he did.

    A successful GM has to be able to say something without saying anything; to answer the questions without answering the questions; and to let criticism pass without having to respond each...and....every....time.

    Ricciardi could never control himself.

    It was as if any and all slights were a perceived encroachment on his manhood that had to be answered immediately for fear of Ricciardi being seen as weak. He was a self-justification machine, always quick to attack and blame others when he should have looked into the mirror or swallowed it for the greater good. 

    The frequent battles with players (Adam Dunn, A.J. Burnett); and the media (he claimed an "agenda" was trying to get him fired when he lied about B.J. Ryan's elbow injury) were bad enough; but his difficulty reached a critical mass when he took Roy Halladay's quiet request to be traded and blew it up so that he: A) was unable to deal the pitcher; B) angered the quiet gunslinger to the point that he was going to demand to be moved after the season one way or the other and on his terms; and C) got himself fired.

    All of this is known.

    What's missed about Ricciardi is that his personality traits that got him into trouble as GM----his penchant for speaking his mind like an angry caller to a sports talk show----will make him a great addition to the Baseball Tonight broadcast if he's allowed to be himself and they don't try to rein him in with their usual brand of monotonous and repetitive banality.

    There's no freedom on these "analysis" shows. It's not a give-and-take between the participants. It's scripted; plotted; safe. Even those that you'd think would be a wild and crazy and say something---John Kruk for example----without remorse or fear are whittled down to a shell of what they were as players by the parameters set by the format and that they don't want to alienate the players, managers or executives.

    It's the same thing at the MLB Network; there's no honesty; no genuine passionate debate. It's fake; and you can see it. The personalities are just that, personalities whose private behaviors are sorely lacking from their public attempts at swagger. I know because I've seen the dichotomy in certain participants from public to private with an almost embarrassing submission to a knockdown----justified and discreet though it was. 

    The main culprit in Ricciardi's failure as Blue Jays GM was what can make him a great in-studio analyst----his mouth. Whenever he was a guest on any talk show as Blue Jays GM, I wanted to listen because I knew he wasn't going to spout corporate catchphrases while saying nothing; he was going to answer the questions honestly, like it or not.

    Yes, he was paranoid; yes he made horrendous gaffes as GM; but at least he was interesting. If he's allowed to speak his mind at ESPN, he can be a great broadcaster with an insider's view of players and management. Will they let him loose? My guess is no, but Ricciardi isn't the type to respond well to constraint.

    Let's hope they let him do his thing; the thing he was hired for----his unfiltered rants that got him fired as a GM. It's why he shouldn't be the head honcho in an organization but might also make him someone who you'd like to hear speak; someone who could be a big winner as a broadcaster. If they let him.

• This isn't confidence; it's derangement:
  

    Bill Madden wrote the following about Pirates club president Frank Coonelly in his column today:

Pirates president Frank Coonelly set off a firestorm in Pittsburgh last week with his declaration: "Don't let people tell you the Pirates don't have a great future. Today is our future and 2010 is the beginning of the next dynasty of the Pirates."

    Stop laughing.

    Okay.

    That's enough laughing.

    It's not that funny.

    Okay. It is that funny. 

    Not funny HA-HA; funny sad.

    Is this man out of his mind? Does he look at what the Pirates are----in large part because of him----and still decide to say stuff like this? Since he's taken over the Pirates have gotten worse, not better; and he's not even trying to fix the organization.

    Coonelly's main objective for the Pirates hasn't been to build a stable organization with delineated principles on how things will be run. No, his agenda has been to implement his "innovations" from working in the commissioner's office as the vice president and general counsel for labor relations. The slotting system to pay draft picks? That was Coonelly and he's going to stick to it no matter what. 

    He's a lawyer; he's not a baseball guy and it shows. You can say whatever you want about former Pirates GM Dave Littlefield and CEO Kevin McClatchy, but at least they tried. They were overmatched; but not delusional. They made gigantic mistakes in personnel, but it wasn't through a barely concealed intent to do absolutely nothing. Coonelly's statement is disturbingly out-of-touch bluster more fitting from the head of a collapsing dictatorial empire than the stable and sane executive charged with overseeing a rudderless, hapless organization like the Pirates. 

    Dynasty?

    I suppose you can call it a dynasty if you really want to...if the type of dynasty you'd like to build if it includes losing 90+ games in each of the last five years and not having a winning season since 1992----a dynasty for ineptitude and placing a stranglehold on last place. 

    The organization is a train wreck and it's not due to finances; it's due to the conductor and that's Frank Coonelly. Nice work.

    Dynasty.

    If he believes this, there's no gentle way to put it: the man's a lunatic.

• Viewer Mail 2.28.2010:

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

Are you Bobby Valentine's agent/publicist? If so, you're doing a great job.

    I'm more of his Don King-style promoter. 

    Honestly, I think Valentine is the perfect fit for the Rays----a talented team in need of strategy, discipline and control. He'd create a buzz in Tampa and baseball in general. I'm not interested in the vanilla type of manager who no one even realizes is there like Bob Geren; or a guy who screws up endlessly like Joe Maddon does because he's just not paying attention to what he's doing. If you combine Maddon's strategic gaffes with the way the Rays quit last year and I have no clue why he's still there aside from getting some leeway for the 2008 run.

    There are things I can tolerate in a manager. If he's not all that strong strategically, but the players play for him and don't quit (Ron Washington with the Rangers for example), he gets points and gets to stay. If he's over the edge, but does the right things (Ozzie Guillen), okay. But if you combine strategic screw-ups with a lack of discipline and that the team quit? No chance. 

• There's a potential for endless and tiresome sequels here:

    This isn't a new thing coming up with storylines for the upcoming season. Many other would-be experts do it. The difference is mine are, y'know, interesting.

The importance of the Adrian Gonzalez decision:

    There's no way to know whether Jed Hoyer will be able to handle the job as an organizational boss as he rebuilds the Padres. There have been many instances where a glossy resume has meant absolutely nothing when a GM dives into his job (see Moore, Dayton; and DePodesta, Paul). It's rare though that an organization that needs to be rebuilt has an affordable, hometown star that they're guaranteed to trade sooner rather than later.

    Such is the case with the Padres and Adrian Gonzalez.

    Hoyer has done very little this off-season aside from trading Kevin Kouzmanoff in a salary dump; and signing Yorvit Torrealba and Jon Garland. While the signings are somewhat positive to teach the young players the importance of throwing strikes and how to comport themselves as big leaguers, the key to Hoyer's entire tenure will be what he gets for Gonzalez.

    Winter talks with the Red Sox supposedly went nowhere and they're going to come calling again. Hoyer, having worked for the Red Sox since 2002, knows the organization from top-to-bottom and presumably knows what he wants for Gonzalez. Once the season is in full-swing, other teams will come after Gonzalez including the Marlins, Mets, Angels, White Sox, Rays and Dodgers. Gonzalez is owed slightly over $10 million and is a free agent after 2011. They could get at least three blue chip prospects plus two or three usable parts.

    Gonzalez wants to get paid and as one of the top ten (maybe top five) hitters in baseball and a Gold Glove first baseman who's in his prime (he's going to be 28 in May), he's going to get his money from someone. The Padres and Hoyer cannot screw this deal up.

    On some level, it's a positive. At least we'll know based on the amount of talent Hoyer gets back where he stands as he makes his way on his own. He'd just better get it right.

The Rays:

    If the Rays get off to a bad start, they're going to have to: A) come to a rapid decision with Carl Crawford; and B) decide whether or not they'd be better off with Bobby Valentine running the club on the field. 

   They'd be absolutely stupid not to trade Crawford if things don't jump off well at the season's opening. Crawford is a free agent at the end of the year; like Gonzalez, he wants his money and has no intention (nor a reason) to give the Rays a hometown discount; and he'll have as many suitors as the Gonzalez will. The Rays made a bold move in trading Scott Kazmir and they may have to make a similar decision with Crawford.

    Regarding manager Joe Maddon, I'm biased because I don't like the way he manages (the absent-minded professor bit has been wearing thin for years); and there's not a more perfect spot in baseball for Valentine than Tampa. Would the youngish Rays front office be able to deal with Valentine? Valentine was ready to undertake the Indians and Nationals rebuilding projects and the Rays could be scotch-taped together for a quick run into contention. Plus he'd create a needed buzz.

    Ordinarily, I'd say forget it, but after the way they dealt Kazmir, I believe the Rays would have the guts to make both moves.

Brandon Morrow:

    The change-of-scenery will do wonders for Morrow's mental stability. In Toronto he won't have to hear endlessly about how the Mariners drafted him ahead of Tim Lincecum; nor will he be jerked around between the bullpen and the starting rotation. Morrow has great stuff and potential to be a big winner as a starter. (He should be a starter.)

    The Blue Jays have to work him back slowly; rebuild his mechanics and confidence. With the way they're going to be non-contenders, if Morrow is pitching well, they should stick him in the rotation and leave him there.

The staus quo Marlins:

    Maybe it's me, but I always thought that the way the Marlins dispatched established veterans for top prospects every winter created an energy and excitement that's absent with the status quo. Because the Players Association and baseball itself intervened in the way the Marlins do business, rather than trade Dan Uggla and possibly Josh Johnson, they kept Uggla and signed Johnson to an extension.

    They're still incorporating youngsters into their lineup with Gaby Sanchez, Cameron Maybin and possibly even Matt Dominguez and Mike Stanton; but I'm wondering if they're going to lose something as they bring back the base of the team.

• Cardinals sign Felipe Lopez:

    Had Felipe Lopez not fired Scott Boras, he'd still be traipsing around baseball with Boras (assuming Boras even knows who Lopez is) with the "book of accomplishments and future production" that Boras uses to try and squeeze every penny from the interested clubs.

    The Cardinals were in a tough spot. according to this ESPN Story the deal if for 1-year and $2 million, which for Lopez is more than fair; probably on the low side if anything. Because they were looking at going with minor leaguer David Freese, they needed to upgrade in case Freese fell on his face. Before signing Lopez, they would've been forced to play Julio Lugo there in case of a Freese meltdown.

    If I had to guess, I'd say Lopez is the opening day third baseman and it makes the Cardinals better to know what they're going to get from the position.

• Viewer Mail 2.27.2009:

Gabriel (Capo) writes RE Manny Ramirez:

Ah, I missed Manny. I love him.

    I think we all love Manny. Seriously, where would we be if he read from the "baseball player book of quotations" and said absolutely nothing? At least he's interesting----as long as he's not causing trouble for the team you root for as a member or an opponent.

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

Jeter's building a huge house in Tampa. He's not going anywhere and that's that! Cashman isn't negotiating with Mo either (or Girardi), so it's not as if this is all unique to Derek.

    We know he's not going anywhere. Jeter knows he's not going anywhere. The Yankees know he's not going anywhere.

    With the negotiation practices, I do believe that there are exceptions in every case. As indispensable as Rivera is, he's also 40-years-old; and Jeter is as special a case as there could possibly be. To be an automaton with him is out of line on the part of the Yankees. He should be treated differently because he is different. 

• Gaze into my crystal ball----Part I:

    I'm writing these as they pop into my cabeza, AKA the ripe and hollow melon that sits atop my shoulders; alternatively referred to as my head.

    Similarly to someone popping in and out when things need to be handled (such as Twitter-style attacks on the Mets), they'll come without warning, without sorrow, without pity; emerging like a creature from the swamp seeking a victim----or a companion. Here are some storylines to bear in mind for 2010.

Jair Jurrjens's shoulder:

    If he's hurt, the Braves are screwed.

    S-C-R-E-W-E-D. 

    They traded Javier Vazquez and his guaranteed 200+ innings; they're relying on Kenshin Kawakami at the back of the rotation; Derek Lowe, who was atrocious over the second half of last year; Tommy Hanson, who still has to go around the league a bit before we can get a true gauge on him; and Tim Hudson, returning to full duty after Tommy John surgery. 

    They need a big year from Jurrjens. 

    The main concern I have is the lack of a concrete diagnosis on what's wrong with his shoulder. The examinations, MRIs and whatever else have said that there's no structural damage; it's inflammation. On the surface, that's good news; but while it's positive to not have some catastrophic injury, the ambiguity of not knowing exactly what's wrong and whether or not he'll be able to compete at full strength is sometimes worse than having a fixed time frame of how long he'll be out.

    Will this hinder him preparing for the season? Will there be limits on Jurrjens once the season starts? What are the Braves going to do if he's hurt? 

    Vazquez and Jurrjens combined for 434 innings last year. Quality innings. They were going to have enough trouble replacing Vazquez; now with Jurrjens hurting and the team's offense suspect, they've got a problem if he's out. A big one.

The human shield:

    For someone so immersed in "objective analysis", Billy Beane has been notoriously capricious with his managers. Look at it logically: if Bob Geren weren't Beane's "best friend", would he still be managing the team? After going 76-86; 75-86; and 75-87, how is Geren still there? 

    It wouldn't be as bad if Beane hadn't been so willing to dispatch managers without reason or remorse based on nothing more than his whims. Why was Art Howe manipulated to the Mets after three straight playoff appearances? Why was Ken Macha fired after winning: 96, 91, 88, and 93 games and finally advancing the Athletics to the ALCS after getting bounced in the first round in their previous four tries?

    For someone who claims to look at the playoffs as a "crapshoot" (which is garbage to begin with), Beane was quick to dole out blame to his managers and get rid of them. This is fine. It's his right to have the manager he wants running the club on the field; but the hypocrisy is absurd. Of course, he can sit there and argue that the talent level on the Geren-led A's was such that no one could've managed them to a better record than Geren, but when has that mattered if Beane wanted to make a move?

    Things are about to change though.

    Beane's under fire; the A's are being judged in some circles as a sleeper contender; in others as a pending disaster. The Teflon cloak that Moneyball provided is gone. If they get off to a bad start, watch how fast Beane drags his friend in front of himself to take the bullets and sacrifices him in a last-ditch effort to save himself; and it'll happen quick.

Manny:

    Here's the latest from Manny Ramirez from Dylan Hernandez in the LA Times:

With a bat in his hand and a smirk on his face, Manny Ramirez walked across the Dodgers' clubhouse on Tuesday to interrupt a conversation.

"Listen," he said as he made a half-hearted attempt to suppress a giggle. "I want you to tell everyone that I felt so good practicing yesterday that I'm going to play five more years."

Three in the majors and two in Japan, he said, still laughing.

    One would assume that Manny's kidding, but who knows? He might truly have the intention of playing in Japan. Or he might not. He might want a new contract; or he might be messing around. He might be stirring things up because he's bored or....oh, I don't need to be traipsing around in the head of Manny Ramirez. The stuff in my own head is bad enough.

The Red Sox shift toward defense:

    There's panic bubbling under the surface in Red Sox Nation whether anyone's willing to admit it openly or not. This newfound emphasis on defense could bring down the holier than thou and "Just as Evil" Empire in Boston.

    The Red Sox----even under Theo Epstein----have always been about pitching and offense. Now, it's about pitching and defense and the experimentation with more stat zombie tenets that look great on paper, but may or may not work in practice. They needed a bat that they didn't get and they're selling this defense-first strategy and Jason Bay's medical prognosis as justification for the questionable maneuvers. We'll know quickly after the season starts how it's going to go.

    It's easy to say that they'll always be able to go get a bat at mid-season, but they've failed before at mid-season blockbusters. The strategy of "we'll worry about it later" is just as risky as the signings of Adrian Beltre, Mike Cameron and Marco Scutaro rather than Matt Holliday or keeping Bay. They're in self-defense mode already; we'll see what it looks like in May if they're not scoring; if David Ortiz isn't hitting; if it's not working.

    They're going to freak if things go wrong.

• Viewer Mail 2.26.2010:

Jeff (Street Boss) at Red State Blue State writes RE Derek Jeter possibly leaving the Yankees:

Agreed. Just imagining Jeter in another uniform gives me the willies. Ew.

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

As Tyler Kepner wrote in today's Times, Jeter needs the Yankees as much as they need him. Anything's possible, but I agree that he's not going anywhere.

    The one thing I'm wondering is if Brian Cashman is going to try his cold detachment and finances routine with Jeter. There's no chance----none----that the Steinbrenners will let Jeter leave; but Cashman has this fetish for being the ruthless corporate executive that will do whatever's necessary for the club. What better way to present that image (and turn himself into a vilain on a scale with Bernie Madoff) than to take a hard-line stance with Jeter.

    The thing is, Cashman doesn't have the personality to be a cool villain like Hannibal Lecter; he'd be a little weasely guy trying be a badass and look silly.

    Jeter does need the Yankees, but the Yankees need him more; and as skilled, charming and beloved as Jeter is, he also plays hardball; it won't be hard for him to manipulate any sequence of events to his advantage and get what he wants. He won't be outrageous to the point where the Yankees will be made to look foolish, but he's savvy enough to get an extra year and more money than he's going to be worth on the field.

    Bottom line, like Joe Mauer with the Twins, Jeter's going nowhere. Ever.

The Brooklyn Trolley Blogger writes RE Jeter:

C'mon...we all know better to say never. But, No, - he's not going anywhere. I agree with all of that. I only ask we take one thing he said and if we can read between the lines for an answer closer to the truth? Jeter said,
"I hope I never have to play anywhere else..." Was that a 'Jeterian' slip? May we infer he'd consider it? We disect everything else anybody says. I say this a fraction of his mind saying he'd consider it. He'll get hit #3000 for sure as a Yank. Will the Yanks committ & pay him long enough if he decides to chase 4000? I don't think we'll see Jeter in another uniform ever. I don't think the Yanks will hang on for 4000 though.

    This is a case where it's safe to say "never". 

    Jeter is very, very cautious with his words and rarely----if ever----slips. That was a planned message to everyone, genuine or not, that he's not going to give a hometown discount to the Yankees. He knows he can't ruin his Yankee-legacy by playing elsewhere. The image/aesthetic is almost as important as his play on the field; a switch to another uniform would look hideous in every conceivable aspect and Jeter, as conscious as he is to perception, knows this.

    He'll take advantage of everything he can while maintaining his dignity, but won't risk looking bad over money. If anyone knows how to walk that tightrope, it's Derek Jeter.

    The most nonsensical idea being floated this spring by the media, the fans and the participants is the mere possibility that Derek Jeter will ever leave the Yankees; that the Yankees would ever let him leave; that this historic Yankees icon would put a different major league uniform on his person.

    It's ridiculous. 

    You'll sooner see Sarah Palin building a rocket ship and taking a solo flight to Mars before you'll see Derek Jeter do anything other than re-sign with the Yankees.

    How is anyone taking the notion seriously? The Yankees are echoing all the corporate junk that GM Brian Cashman so desperately wanted to instill when he took full control of the baseball operations. To paraphrase, they're saying that Jeter's situation will be resolved at the end of 2010 as per club policy; the decision based on finances and reality; what the club needs; how much money he wants; blah, blah, blah.

    Jeter himself has been mostly mum on the negotiations partially because he doesn't want to sully his carefully honed and refined image by engaging in a public battle and game of hardball with the club; partially because the fight is being----and will continue to be----fought for him without him uttering a peep.

    With any other player, Cashman would make the call. Even with Mariano Rivera, if the decision is made that it's time to move on and as wrong as it would be, the club would be able to survive in the regular season with Joba Chamberlain closing. Playoff success wouldn't be as assured without Rivera----the difference between the Yankees and their main competitors in the 90s, the Braves, was Rivera, period----they'd be okay. With Jeter, it's different and it's not because he's such a great clutch player and leader; not because he's the glue of the team; the captain; the professional who does everything he has to do to win; but because he just is.

    There aren't many players who can be defined simply by who they are, but Derek Jeter is one.

    Does anyone, anywhere need to hear the bulletpoints on his resume before knowing who and what he is by saying those two words: Derek Jeter? The name is the player and the player is the name. And by now, Jeter is the Yankees; and the Yankees are Derek Jeter.

    For everything the Yankees have been since Jeter's arrival in 1996, the two entities are intertwined; one could not exist without the other. There would've been no renaissance of a Yankee dynasty without Jeter; no Joe Torre legend; no five championships.

    Without the Yankees, Jeter would still be a great player if he'd spent his career as a Dodger; as a Royal; as a Pirate; as a Met, but it wouldn't be the same. If he'd played anywhere else, the name Derek Jeter wouldn't automatically elicit admiration and respect by fans, media, players, coaches and executives simply by saying it. The knowledge of his total package of performance, professionalism and behavior to craft the persona that is aboveboard in a team and individual context and has made him who he is and what the Yankees have been with him as their face.

    The hardline negotiating practices of Cashman are all well and good, but to me it shows a lack of respect to what Jeter has done for the franchise to treat him as if he's just another employee.

    He's not.

    Does anyone truly believe that if it comes down to zero hour and Jeter is implying that he might leave if he doesn't get what he wants----and if Cashman makes the determination that he has to let Jeter leave----that the Steinbrenners will allow it? That Hank and Hal will sit by idly while Jeter signs with the Dodgers? The Cardinals? The Mets? Really? 

    The articles that are popping up now with the idea that the contract is going to be a battle between the sides based on the viability of a player entering his late-30s and the amount of money he wants; what they feel he deserves; and what's in the budget are the stuff of bad fiction. It's garbage. There will be no budget for keeping Derek Jeter. As classy as Jeter is portrayed, he also plays hardball off the field when necessary. If that means he's going to use his status to squeeze an extra year and another $25 million on top of the Yankees offer, he'll do it, and they'll give it to him. 

    Neither side has a choice. 

    Derek Jeter will be a Yankee forever. He'll play into his 40s; surpass every number in the Yankees record book; and eventually be managing the team. Jeter himself would never, ever ruin his aesthetic by joining another organization and the Yankees won't let him wear another cap; or have another club's name on his Hall of Fame plaque.

    The two need one another, and to think that the club is going to let Brian Cashman make that call is giving a little too much credit to the GM. This is not a baseball decision; it's an organizational decision that will be made by the owners based on what they need on and off the field----and they'll make it; and he'll stay.

    Enough with the stories. 

    Derek Jeter will NEVER leave the Yankees. No matter what. 

    And that's the way it should be.

    Now and forever.

• Already it's tiresome:

    There's a reason teams don't announce that their managers or GMs are going to be retiring at the end of a particular season even if it's a widely known and unspoken fact----to prevent the manager, players and the club in general from having to deal with stuff like the following ESPN.com headline:

Cox delivers his last camp speech

    Okay.

    What's next?

    Bobby Cox uses the urinal on a February 28th for the last time as Braves manager.

    Bobby Cox spits tobacco juice during a thundershower in Florida for the last time as Braves manager.

    Bobby Cox looks befuddled at something Yunel Escobar does at 3:30 PM on a Wednesday for the last time as Braves manager.

    This is the problem when a manager is known to be leaving. It's never going to end and while Cox is a fine manager, clubhouse boss and handler of players, this could eventually become a distraction if the Braves hit a slump. The last thing the players need is another query as to why they're struggling, but it's unavoidable: "Is Bobby Cox's status affecting the club?" It's the same thing as when a manager is under fire and has his head on the chopping block, but in some ways worse because it's known that he's on the way out, period.

    With certain managers, it might be a disciplinary issue; that won't be the case with Bobby Cox as long as Chipper Jones, Brian McCann and Derek Lowe, etc. are around the police the clubhouse; but it's unnecessary. Since Cox is still going to remain with the Braves in some capacity as an adviser, what was to stop the team from giving him a contract extension that said he'd be managing in 2011, but quietly had the language of his deal in the event he chose not to manage anymore? 

    Joe Torre hinted at 2010 being his last season managing the Dodgers, and he's backtracked on that idea. Does Torre know that he definitely wants to manage after 2010? He probably feels like he does in February, but who knows what handling Manny Ramirez is going to do to him by August? The question with Torre is if he's enjoying the job; whether or not he's going to feel as if he has the energy at age 70 to do it as best he can after this year; and how the Dodgers play this year. If they win the World Series, I'd be shocked if he didn't walk out on top.

    With Cox, it's almost as if he's being pushed out by GM Frank Wren; that he doesn't really want to hang it up but almost feels like he had to make a decision and the tensions between the two have made the situation so untenable that he's ready to call it a career after 2010 to end the speculation and put a finality on the relationship. I can't imagine Cox needed this aggravation of answering the questions over-and-over about how being a lame duck will affect how he does his job.

    After managing for so long and being such a baseball lifer, Cox is not going to know what to do with himself in 2011 after spending a few days of what would be his spring relaxing running the club; he'll realize he doesn't have to be anywhere for team-related business and be bored stiff.

    The Braves have a solid club, but the strange decisions made by Wren have reduced what could've been a favorite in the National League into the status of "one of the clubs to watch" in 2010. Add in the Jair Jurrjens shoulder issue; the lack of offense; and the lingering farewell tour for Cox, and things could spiral if they get off to a bad start.

    Cox and the Braves didn't have to answer these questions and read the partially well-meaning/partially "we don't have anything else to write about" stories emanating from Braves camp regarding a circumstance that shouldn't have been such in the first place. The simple phrase: "Bobby Cox will manage the Braves as long as he wants" would've avoided all of this; it may not have been 100% truthful, but it would've been for the greater good.

• Viewer Mail 2.24.2010:

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

What did you expect Damon to say? They all say that stuff when they come to the Yankees. "Oh, I've always wanted to put on the pinstripes." "This is where I've always wanted to play." "I love New York." Blah blah. Aren't we used to it by now? Was he supposed to say, "Oh, crap. I'm stuck in Detroit?"

    It would've been funny if he'd pulled an Eli Manning-type maneuver from when he was drafted by the Chargers, walked onto the stage like an eight-year-old giving an oral report; looked at the hat and jersey like they were radioactive; grimaced like he was about to have a public colonoscopy and refused to put the jersey and hat onto his body as he reluctantly posed for the pictures. 

    Obviously, Damon wasn't going to say, "This sucks!!! Friggin' Boras!!!!" But he could've chosen his words a little better. What would've been wrong with him saying something like, "The Tigers are a historic franchise"; "Jim Leyland's a great manager and I look forward to playing for him"; "They came up with the best offer"; "It's a team with a lot of young talent and they really made me feel wanted"----all would've been true; but for him to stand there and say, "This is where I always wanted to be," isn't saying the right things at a press conference; it's a lie.

    I know Damon doesn't tend to think too much about, well, anything, but his statements were embarrassing. He's a veteran; he should know how to handle these press conferences by now without making himself look foolish.

Jeff (Street Boss) at Red State Blue State writes RE Damon/Boras and Kevin Trudeau:

I think the Damon/Boras aberration could've have toned down the fake enthusiasm, or at least the lying part.

Trudeau... like ya say, I gotta admit, the man is very good at what he does. He just happens to lie, cheat and steal.

    There wouldn't have been anything wrong with Damon being enthusiastic; putting the past behind him; happy to be with a club that's respectable; that wanted him; and, most importantly, paid him without trying to get him for pennies on the dollar for his value; but it was so far over-the-top that you have to question the man's grip on reality. Is he that addled?

    With Trudeau, I can't get enough of the infomercials. It's theater when he stares into the camera and says something like "President Obama should give me a medal!"; or when he's got his Playboy Playmates "hosting" a "talk show" for him to discuss his "consumer advocacy". There have been times where I've sat there watching and said, "yeah, yeah, that's a good idea...." which is the mark of a truly brilliant salesman, con-man or both.

Beeeebzy at Pretty In Pinstripes writes RE Damon/Boras:

I especially enjoyed hearing Damon say (I'm paraphrasing here): "If the Yankees played the Tigers [instead of the Twins in the ALDS] the outcome would be different".

Anyway, I think that Damon and Boras aren't lovers anymore. Scott Boras didn't attend Johnny's press conference.

Now that the honeymoon's over, is there trouble in paradise? Could it be that Johnny Damon grew the testicles necessary to fire Scott Boras, or at least get angry with him?

I doubt it, but I'm bored and I currently have nothing better to do than to speculate about the reasons behind Boras' absence yesterday.

    Johnny Damon will never, ever fire Boras: A) because he probably doesn't realize that his agent hindered him this winter at getting a mutli-year deal and staying with the Yankees; and B) because he doesn't appear to be a confrontational type; it's easier to stay with what he's got than venture into the unknown even if that might be best for his career. I'll bet smart people like Alex Rodriguez likely advised him to take control and he didn't listen. 

    It is interesting that Boras wasn't there. Perhaps he was busy confronting Felipe Lopez as he suggested he planned to do when Lopez fired him; maybe he was working on his death ray; encasing interns in carbonite; or simply wiling away the afternoon pulling wings off flies. Agenting is a tough business and a man needs to relax----especially when he screws one of his clients so royally, or should I say Tigerly.

• A spin so dizzying, it starts to make sense:

    I'm a fan of audacity.

    No so much a fan, but a grudging admirer of those that can speak nonsense with a sincerity that makes it almost believable. For years, I've watched the infomercials of flim-flam kingpin Kevin Trudeau. Relentlessly amused, bewildered and occasionally disgusted at his sheer lack of interest in anything aside from selling his junk and making money, I've grown to respect him in a "well, you hafta give the guy credit" way because he's such an unrepentant and cunning scumbag with no concern about consequences as he bounces from one scheme to another.

    With the self-assured nature of a pure salesman and the ability to blame the invisible "evil", he's had no qualms about playing to the fears of society while making preposterous claims of being able to "grow new brains with coral calcium" or to cure cancer with his "Natural Cures" book that the hideously evil and undefined "they" don't want you to know about. Able to perform legal gymnastics to vault from one collapsing get-rich-quick scheme to the other and land on his feet takes talent and a lack of humanity. 

    There's always some other plot once one shady (at best) business is shut down for good. He sold memory tapes; golf instruction videos; vitamins designed to cure anything and everything; wrinkle cures; self-defense manuals; and Atkins Diet guides. Shut down from continuing with the vitamin ads----ads that were straight out of fantasyland and designed to prey on the desperate, ill, infirm and stupid----he took advantage of the right to free speech by publishing books designed to promote natural cures; to lose weight; to get out of debt; to receive free money from the government; and he reinvented himself as a self-proclaimed "consumer advocate" and bestselling author. 

    The books are inane, poorly written and farcical. The reviews on Amazon.com are clear evidence of what people thought of his claims (you can spot the difference between the ones he planted and the real deal); of how his consumer advocacy was little more than the advocacy designed to put money into the coffers of Kevin Trudeau; but what difference did it make? There was always another scam available; another lurking beast to blame for all the ills of the public; and Trudeau is constantly there as predator interested in nothing more than getting his hands on your money----one way or the other.

    As much as you want to condemn it; despise it; regulate against it, you still have to tip your hat. You still have to say, "Wow, I couldn't do that". Still.

    Cynical pragmatist that I am, I still hold out that small shred of hope for society; that there's a positive end somewhere; that eventually, an evolution will render unnecessary pretense and disingenuousness for self-justification and public consumption.

    Call me a hopeless (hapless) romantic if you want, but under all this stuff in me (after you get past the knives and the slapjacks) I still think we're salvageable. On some level. This is why I shake my head in befuddlement when I see the text of press conferences such as Johnny Damon's welcome to the Tigers. An additional shred of hope disappears.

    Here are the relevant quotes:

"This is where I wanted to be..."

"The Tigers were my first choice. I love it here and think I am a good fit...

"The Tigers are a scary team, and the fact that this team has gotten even younger makes it a lot more fun."

"It is where my family wanted to be. Contrary to what has been reported, I wanted a place where I could win right away. I have always been truthful and Detroit was always my first choice, and my wife and I are going to love it there."

"This is so much different than the last time..."

"This is the first time I feel at home."

    What?!?

    All I can do is shrug and wonder when how long after the press conference agent Scott Boras folded Damon up and placed him into the carrying case in which one totes their ventriloquist dummies to the next gig.

    I'm not going to bother dissecting the quotes. It's not worth it. But think about this: if he only ever wanted to be in Detroit, then why did it take so long for him to agree to a contract when the news broke of the offer two weeks ago? Why stay on the market? Was he waiting for the next "place he wanted to be"? And why negotiate with the Yankees; with the Braves; with the Rays; with the White Sox? Was he playing hard-to-get with the Tigers? Was he hoping someone would panic? Or was he mouthing the words scripted from carefully orchestrated and choreographed play that is a Scott Boras-player signing?

    It's almost sad when a grown man is reduced to doing what he's told, when he's told and why he's told; but Johnny Damon has no one to blame but Johnny Damon. He's the one who listens to his agent; he's the one who is either too lazy or is completely unable to think for himself that he parrots whatever lines are fed into what passes for his brain; and this is why when a player shuns Boras to do what's best for himself----Alex Rodriguez; Felipe Lopez----or a club says, "I'm not dealing with this guy anymore" as the Angels have, you salute them just as readily as you credit the tap-dancing and nonsense that emanates from the player and his agent in press conferences like yesterday's.

    It works both ways.

    Like with Kevin Trudeau, in order to succeed in selling garbage, there has to be someone willing to buy it; and I can guarantee you the lunacy of the Johnny Damon press conference is an example of the puffery so dumbfounding that you'd have to believe it was true even if all logic indicates that it's not.

    Any normal thinking person wouldn't believe someone would have that kind of temerity; but Damon did. Just look at the quotes and see.

• Viewer Mail 2.23.2010:

Jeff (Street Boss) at Red State Blue State writes RE the Dodgers and Khalil Greene:

I have no sympathy for the Dodgers and their Manny situation. Any team that utilizes his services knows what type of drama they're getting into ahead of time.

As for the social anxiety disorder, this seems to be a new age dilemma, though I doubt it really is. Greene, Votto, Willis, Greinke... these guys have all come forward because now it is okay, it is acceptable to come forward and call it what it is. In the 40s and 50s and 60s one would be shunned and ridiculed to admit as much, which proves the social zeitgeist continues to morph. I wonder what other dynamic shifts are in store for us this decade...

    Manny gets away with it because he hits, period. There are concessions a team has to make for the greater good and with Manny, you have to accept the negative part of Manny being Manny if you want to get the positives; the only thing any club can do when dealing with him is hope that the positives outweigh the negatives long enough to get what they need from him before it explodes. In retrospect, the Red Sox did get two championships that they probably wouldn't have won without Manny; so I think it's a fair trade-off. I'd certainly take it. 

    With the "social anxiety" stuff, I do have empathy, but that can't affect business as usual. The Royals dealt with Greinke because of his physical gifts and money invested and it paid off; Votto's not going anywhere because he can hit. Greene is not in a similar position and the Rangers have to look at the big picture and not worry about a player who wasn't going to help them that much----if at all----anyway.

Ric Nunez writes RE Koby Clemens:

That kid sure can put some great numbers. Will this guy play well in the majors? Time will tell.

    I was stunned to see he put up those stats. Stunned. It's a safe bet he's going to make it to the big leagues not because of his name, but because he can clearly hit and play a position that is notoriously hard to fill----catcher. His pedigree won't have anything to do with it.

The BrooklynTrolleyBlogger writes RE Koby Clemens and Manny:

Pete Rose Jr. comes to mind. He had an 800 pound gorilla on his back and kinda caved. He put together a nice little independent career for himself, for what it's worth.
And you're dead on about Manny. I have my reasons for knowing but he's very cerebral about hitting and preparation.
I'm not even touching that social anxiety disorder. Pfff.

    Pete Rose Jr wasn't that great a prospect as I recall, but considering the amount of pressure that must've been on the son of a famous star like Rose, even making it as far as he did was an accomplishment.

    With Manny, people think he's an imbecile because he wants people to think he's an imbecile; and he's a hitting savant who's far smarter than he's given credit for.

Joe at Statistician Magician writes RE Koby Clemens:

Well, I am not very adept at minor league numbers. But Clemens is 22 and still in A-ball. Also, the parks and leagues in the minors vary for how easy it is to hit. I have no idea how that affects Clemens, but it needs to be looked at.

    All you have to do is look at how his teammates and opponents have hit in comparison to Koby Clemens and you can get a gauge on how much better he was regardless of the parks and leagues----2009 California League. As buried as you are in stats, I shouldn't have to explain this to you unless you're deliberately trying to take things out of context as is the modus operandi of the common, everyday stat zombie.

J. Michael Blanks writes RE Koby Clemens: 

Prince, Koby was a star pitcher in HS who happened to hit well and play 3B, he chose to not pitch. He had a good rookie season, but then fell off. He rebounded last year and I believe he did get a call up to AA Corpus Christie. Koby's, and the Astros problem is that he must have some hole in his game defensively. He keeps getting moved around (3B, DH, OF & C). If He had major league talent defensively at either 3B or catcher, you would think the Astros would be inclined to have pushed that development. As it is, if he can make the jump to AAA this year, he may hold some value later as a trading chip to an American League team. BTW, you always write good stuff, and I have read your take on things since you were part of that "other" site.

    Thanks for the compliment and for reading. 

    With Clemens and his position, I've never seen him, but if he can catch adequately, I'd think he'd be able to carve a big league career for himself even if his name was Koby Jones. He was in Double A for five games. His caught stealing percentage behind the plate has been around 25%, which is good enough if he hits.

    Worst case, there's nothing wrong with being a roving utility player who gets 250-300 at bats a year. There are more workmanlike players in the majors than is generally discussed. It's only when said players are forced into being more than what they are that they're exposed; some players are only supposed to be part-timers. If Clemens is able to create a niche for himself even if he's not the mega-star his dad was, more power to him; and there's nothing wrong with using his last name to his advantage; it also helps that he's not a pitcher so he's clearly climbing the minor league ladder on his own merits rather than because of his famous father. As I said yesterday, there are many, many players who hang around the majors with no discernible use like Eric Bruntlett; Clemens can likely contribute somehow, which would render his name meaningless.

    Regarding the "other" site (MLBlogs), it's a shambles over there from what I understand----strangely congruent to the way MLB itself is run. Every early blogger who participated; cared about what they were doing; and contributed from the beginning has been driven off by the disinterest and shambolic handling of the entity. There's a vindictive, self-serving and unprofessional aura that is unmistakable. 

    All you have to do is take a look at the characters involved in the tragicomedy and you understand why it's in such disarray. From MLBlogs to the MLB Network, it's bursting with ineptitude, disinterest and characters whose public faces and attempts at swagger and class are diametrically opposed to private behaviors. Given what I know, the revelation of such would make them look (let's be gentle) not....good. 

    Considering that fact and to hammer the point home, here's a quote regarding a fictional agent of chaos (not a genuine agent of chaos such as myself), the Joker:

No one's gonna tell you anything. They're wise to your act. You got rules. The Joker, he's got no rules. No one's gonna cross him for you.

    Methinks I know too much...

Beeeebzy at Pretty In Pinstripes writes RE Khalil Greene:

Khalil Greene: Social Anxiety Disorder, Schmocial Schmanxiety Schmisorder. The man can't play baseball. Simple as that. At his best he was mediocre, at his worst he was abysmal.

If you can't handle the heat, stay out of the kitchen. To play any professional sport you need to be fit mentally as well as physically. If you're regularly unfit, then you shouldn't be a professional athlete. Especially if, when you're fit, your skills aren't even good enough. Hang up your cleats, put your bat and glove away, and start a blog, bitching and whining, like Schilling did when his skills declined.

Teams shouldn't have to nurse these players suffering from mental illnesses with no timeframe for recovery. Especially when the player himself doesn't seem to be making the effort to get better or learn how to play with his issues. With a physical injury, there's normally a timeframe you can work with. With mental illnesses, there's a chance they'll never go away. If the player can't overcome it and perform, and won't even try to, then you should cut the cord.

A team is not a player's biological family. They're not stuck with a player and his baggage. Ruthless as it may be, a player's own personal wellbeing isn't the organization's true concern. Winning and making a profit are the organization's concern.

It's not personal, dear. It's strictly business.

Also, you would mention Cody Ransom.

    If anything, a player needs mental toughness more than he needs physical talent. How many players have had the gifts that other, lesser players haven't but have failed miserably? The first rounds of every year's draft are stacked with players who haven't made it for reasons aside from physical.

    Even a Yankee fan can grudgingly appreciate how Dustin Pedroia spat in the faces of everyone who said he was too small; wasn't fast enough; wasn't strong enough; wasn't good enough and spun that into a Rookie of the Year, an MVP and a championship ring. Without the David Ortiz-sized chip on his shoulder, he wouldn't be as good a player. 

    The list of such players----whose mental determination superseded the lack of talent----is endless. Jamie Moyer was told to quit numerous times; could anyone look at David Eckstein while he was in the minors and say, "this kid's gonna fashion a 10 year big league career, win a World Series MVP and be the glue to two world champions"? No way. 

    I can hope for Greene to find the help he needs, but in the final analysis, this is not the Rangers problem. 

    With Cody Ransom, he does have use----he's the Phillies replacement for Eric Bruntlett and he'll do....what....Bruntlett, um....did.

    Whatever that.....was.

• Does this look like a prospect?

    While doing my research into the Astros minor league system and scanning the numbers for their High A team in Lancaster, California, I stumbled across a player who put up the following stats; stats that are borderline ridiculous at any level:

Batting Average-.341

On Base Percentage-.415

Hits-150; Runs-76

Doubles-45

Triples-6

Home Runs-22

RBI-123

Walks-54

    These numbers were compiled in 121 games and 513 plate appearances.

    Without knowing the name of this 22-year-old catcher---yes, catcher----and part-time third baseman, you'd automatically think that he was not only going to end up in the big leagues at some point, but he has a chance to be an All Star.

    You might even be more shocked when you see the name of this player.

    Koby Clemens.

    That's right. Rocket's son.

    Who knew?

    It's natural to look at the son of one of the greatest pitchers in history when he's drafted and automatically think there's nepotism at work especially when the hometown of said pitcher and former and current employer of Roger Clemens is the team that does the drafting. It wouldn't be the first time that a player wound up in a club's system or even in the big leagues due to a favor (see Glavine, Mike-New York Mets, 2003; and Sullivan, Marc-Boston Red Sox ); but sometimes these players can actually play, as is evidently the case with Koby Clemens.

    In fairness to the examples of Glavine and Sullivan, they may genuinely have had some ability to warrant being a professional player. Could they be any worse than a chunk of amateurs who are drafted and signed specifically to be minor league filler because they look good; or because they can run; or because they have the loosely defined appellation of "tools" that validate why they were selected to provide an excuse if (when) they fail?

    Occasionally those "filler" players come up with a pitch or a wrinkle or simply mature and make it to the big leagues and succeed (Doug Jones; Bruce Sutter; and Tim Wakefield were examples of this); but most of the time, You can gauge which players are ticketed for the big leagues and big league success and which aren't. Occasionally all it takes is an opportunity as happened with Casey Blake.

    Of course, there are even players who make it to the majors for no discernible reason and have even managed to carve out moderately long careers for themselves without being able to do much of anything at all and for reasons that no one can explain or define such as Eric Bruntlett and the immortal Cody Ransom. Do they have a greater claim to a big league job than another player who wouldn't be any worse, but has to walk around with the stigma of being a relative of a powerful baseball figure?

    The allegation of "oh, he's here because of his last name" is cheap and easy and many times, accurate; but there are times when it's not. There are times when said performer is good enough to make it on his own. If anything, the pitchers who face Koby Clemens will be even more determined to get him out since there are extra eyes watching everything Koby does because of who he is. What better way to get noticed than to strike out Roger Clemens's son five times in a game or to make him look foolish?

    It's not easy being the son of an icon; especially an icon who's been under such heavy fire and scrutiny in recent years. Some progeny wilt under the pressure; but in looking at the way Koby Clemens bashed the league in 2009, he's apparently a genuine prospect; not because of his name, but because of his ability and according to the numbers, Koby Clemens's ability is pretty substantial.

• Sympathy and business:

    Contrary to popular belief, I have absolute sympathy for someone who is dealing with whatever personal issues are causing them to be unable to perform, but there comes a time when business has to take precedence over sympathy and it's reaching that point with Rangers infielder Khalil Greene.

    Greene, signed to a 1-year major league contract with the Rangers worth $750,000, won't report to Rangers camp and there's no timetable for joining the club, if he joins them at all----ESPN Story. Greene had a social anxiety problems with the Cardinals last season and it's clearly affecting him on the field.

    This is a case of the Rangers having to do what needs to be done for the good of the organization as a whole; and that means cutting ties with Khalil Greene. They can't be wasting a spot on the 40-man roster for a player who is mentally unable to perform and, with brutal honesty, can't physically perform all that well anymore either. The issues might be related, but Greene was never all that productive a player to begin with. 

    If Greene were a different player, the Rangers would be well-served to keep him around and hope he got everything together. The Reds were in a similar situation with Joey Votto, but Votto is an All Star caliber player; the Tigers dealt with "social anxiety" last season for Dontrelle Willis; but Willis has a better resume that Khalil Greene and was being paid a ton of money.

    It's different with Greene.

    If I were the Rangers, I'd offer him all the help I could while terminating the contract because that's what's best for the club. They can't waste a roster spot on him; nor can they sit around and wait, hoping to get something from him, especially when he may not have all that much to offer on the field to start with.

• It must be spring...

    The birds are singing; the sun is shining; pitchers and catchers have reported...and Manny Ramirez is saying stupid things that are more complex than people realize.

    The latest from Manny is that 2010 is going to be his last year in a Dodgers uniform----ESPN Story. Here's a couple of Manny snippets:

"I won't be here next year, so I just want to enjoy myself,'' Ramirez said. "I don't know [if I'll play next year]. I just know I'm not going to be here. When the season is over, I will see where I'm at.''

"The game is still fun, but I think I have to wait until the season ends and see where my family is at before I make a choice,'' Ramirez said. "I will just wait and see how my body reacts."

"From the waist down, I feel 15,'' he said. "From the neck up, I feel 43. I feel good.''

    This is "Manny being Manny" but not in the way that most define "Manny being Manny". 

    Manny Ramirez is seen in many circles as a space cadet who says things that don't make any sense at all; that he's a hitting savant who doesn't think; doesn't plot; doesn't have something else in mind when he behaves outrageously or speaks bizarrely. 

    That's not the case.

    Manny is more savvy and clever than people give him credit for. He does and says weird things. Sometimes it's innocent; other times it's not. This first statement isn't simply Manny walking into camp and saying stuff about his swan song; about how unsure he is about continuing to play after 2010; about how he's enjoyed being a Dodger and will move on if necessary.

    This was the first shot of Manny implying he wants a contract extension. And if he doesn't get it, he's going to start the negative parts of Manny being Manny; the parts that the Red Sox saw over-and-over again that led them to repeatedly try and get rid of one of the best hitters of this generation; that saw them finally say enough and trade him even though they were in the middle of a playoff run and ran the risk of blowing that for the sake of getting Manny off the team. 

    Trust me when I say this wasn't a rambling bit of incoherence from Manny Ramirez. It was a message that if he's playing well at mid-season (or in May), he's going to want a new contract. He's not going to get it from the Dodgers; but reality has never been a hindrance to Manny when he's got something entrenched in his head, sensible or not. It's starting now. And it's not the first thing we'll hear from Manny.

    Manny being Manny can be good; Manny being Manny can be bad. This may be a combination of both because a money-hungry Manny puts up massive numbers; but a financially motivated and bitter Manny can cause serious issues with the club. I have a feeling the opening statement from Manny is an indicator of both.

• Damon go where Boras say....fire baaaaaaaaad!!

    Johnny Damon finally agreed to join the Tigers on a 1-year, $8 million contract. One has to wonder if Damon still believes that he was best-served by his agent; whether or not he has the capability or wherewithal to look into the mirror and say to himself, "I screwed up; I should've told Scott where I wanted to be and taken the Yankees deal".

    It's also a question as to how deeply Boras is going to wade into the muck----something to which he clearly has no aversion given his past and present behaviors----to try and convince the nauseated public and the player that it's actually a good thing that Damon rejected the Yankees offer of 2-years and around $14 million and wound up in Detroit for a year. The Tigers are not going to contend this year, so Damon won't be playing meaningful games in August and September. One thing he can cling to is chance for a big year and improved economic climate to make up for the money he left on the table this winter.

    There's talk that he got a no-trade clause in the deal. Presumably, this was an attempt on the part of Boras to "win" something in the negotiations. Maybe it was either/or; either a 2-year deal without a no-trade; or a 1-year deal with a no-trade. The fact is that Damon's going to be begging for a trade at mid-season. He might even wind up back with the Yankees.

    In the end, Boras did find his "one stupid owner" to, well, do something relatively stupid. Tigers owner Mike Ilich should've stuck to a 1-year, $5 million deal for Damon and said, "take it or leave it". He had nowhere else to go. The White Sox weren't going to get crazy with the money; the Rays and Braves don't have the money; and Damon wouldn't have had much choice but to go to Detroit.

    Johnny Damon has been ridiculed relentlessly during this whole process, but it's not as if he was ever in control (or wanted to be in control) of his career. Always content to let things take care of themselves. In ballplayer parlance, that's "leave me alone; talk to my agent; I don't wanna think."

    Damon left the Red Sox when he didn't want to leave the Red Sox; he left the Yankees when he didn't want to leave the Yankees. Now he's a Tiger and coming up with the crap that "Detroit is where he wanted to be". 

    Yah. Right.

    In a lukewarm defense of Damon, though, Boras got him the extra money from the Yankees in 2005 that wasn't forthcoming from the Red Sox; and he somehow found a way to let the player save some semblance of face in 2010 by not winding up with something that, in the macho world of the professional athlete, would've been seen as scrounging for remaining scraps somewhere in the neighborhood of $2-4 million. Damon hasn't done anything different during this foray into free agency than he did before----he trusted his agent and didn't want to make any decisions on his own----the other times it worked out; this time, it didn't. 

    There's also been questioning of what the reaction of the Yankees faithful will be when Damon returns to Yankee Stadium in a Tigers uniform. The idea that he's going to get booed is ridiculous. That's not to say he won't, but why would he?

    Did he say anything negative about the Yankees aside from the bitter comment about hoping they don't ask Derek Jeter to take a 20% paycut?

    Did he up and leave when he was given a fair offer?

    Did he play poorly?

    We're not talking Carl Pavano here. Damon was a loyal Yankee; he played well; he behaved professionally; and his agent misread the market in, to be fair to Boras, an understandable fashion considering the history of the Yankees. How many times have they said one thing about the vault being closed and then mystically came up with the extra cash when zero-hour arrived?

    Neither Boras nor Damon (if he thought about it at all) realized that Yankees GM Brian Cashman is truly in charge now and the days of preceived overpaying are over. It cost Damon because he's now a Tiger; but there's no reason to boo him; and just as there was no reason to credit him for any savvy when he got his money from the Yankees in 2005, there's no reason to blame him now. He did as he always has done; he listened to his agent. And this time, it was a mistake.

• A good day for the Mets:

    Let's spin the wheel and stare into the abyss.

    Looking at an alternate history, if you will.

    It's December. The Mets are desperate to make a move, any move. The Jason Bay negotiations are on hold; the fan base is still livid from the lack of movement and the 2009 catastrophe; season ticket sales are lagging; and a popular free agent coming off an injury is insisting he's healthy and ready to have a big year in 2010.

    The Mets, panicky, worried about Bay returning to the Red Sox; about not getting any other help to bolster a needy lineup and assuage a battered fan base, sign Carlos Delgado to a contract for 2010 ignoring that he's going to be 38 at mid-season and is trying to return from hip labrum surgery; that his total immobility at first base was evident in winter ball. They decided to shut their eyes and do something; to make a deal for a recognizable name; and a player who performed well for them.

    It's now February.

    Pitchers and catchers have reported.

    The Mets are putting a positive spin on their winter after getting Bay and having to endure the Carlos Beltran-surgery calamity. 

    And the news comes out that Delgado needed additional surgery on his hip labrum and also microfracture surgery on the hip socket. According to his agent, Delgado's going to be out for four months and "will be the Carlos Delgado of old in four months rather than an old Carlos Delgado".

    Um. Okay.

    What, pray tell, in this alternate universe, would be said about the Mets now if this had happened while Delgado was under contract for 2010? Even if it was for a low base salary of $1.5-2 million, would the Mets be given a similar pass for this occurrence as the emerging "genius" in Seattle Jack Zduriencik is getting for Cliff Lee requiring surgery on his foot?

    You tell me.

    Truth would have nothing to do with the reaction; and the Mets aren't going to get credit for refusing to buckle under the pressure of needing to do something; but they were smart. Beyond smart. More evidence that despite the laughter they sometimes invite (Prevention and Recovery?), things are about to turn around in Flushing. Believe it.

    As for Delgado himself, this is a new trend with players and their agents that also occurred last season as Ben Sheets was insisting he was healthy, wanted a load of guaranteed money----and when said money wasn't forthcoming, he decided to have surgery as if he was doing the world a favor. Would any of the money have been returned to the club from Delgado and Sheets had they received said guaranteed contracts and been unable to play? For all the criticism levied against teams for shady negotiations, the players indulge in it as well. While it may not be overtly duplicitous, it's sleazy and it makes the player and his agent look terrible.

    In addition that bit of brains (yeah, that's right; brains...from the Mets) they also filled their catching divot with the signing of veteran Rod Barajas to a 1-year contract.

    The negatives about Barajas are going to be repeated over-and-over again. He doesn't get on base; he's slow; blah, blah, blah. But he hits the ball out of the park; he can throw well; the pitchers like working with him; and he's a veteran who knows his way around. The Mets got him at a lower rate (around $1 million base) and for fewer years (one) than Bengie Molina was demanding and, truth be told, they'll get similar work from him. 

    The Mets pitchers, especially Johan Santana and Francisco Rodriguez, are happier today than they were yesterday.

• Viewer Mail 2.21.2010:

Joe at Statistician Magician writes RE Jose Reyes batting third:

If your opinion is that "the best overall hitter should hit third," then David Wright should be batting third. He is their best hitter.

    Do you read what I write, Joe? Or do you sift through and nitpick (in a stat zombie fashion) to bolster your own argument?

    Here's what I wrote yesterday:

The club's best overall hitter should always hit third. That doesn't necessarily mean the hitter who hits the most homers; has he highest average or on base percentage; but the hitter who can do the most "stuff". For the Mets, right now without Beltran, that's Jose Reyes.

    Wright strikes out too much to bat third and they need his power (assuming it returns) in the cleanup spot to drive in Reyes and whoever is in front of Reyes. With Bay and Jeff Francoeur behind Wright, he'll get the protection he needs and be driven in when he walks; with Reyes on base in front of him, he'll see some fastballs because of the stolen base threat. There's a difference between being the statistically "best" overall hitter and being able to do the most "stuff" to determine who's the "best". 

    In my world----the only world that makes any sense despite the rampant chaos----the "best" hitter the Mets have is Beltran because he's a switch hitter and does the most "stuff"; after that, it's Reyes. He's the best fit to bat third.

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

(Damon's) a great guy in the clubhouse even if he does talk with a speech impediment (could never manage to pronounce Teixeira properly). No matter what the situation, he always spoke to reporters when others slunk away. No Damon bashing from me. 

    I feel somewhat badly (as much as I can feel badly about anything) in making fun of Damon and I'm a Mets fan!!! Damon having been a Yankee or not is irrelevant to me on a personal level.

    Obviously, he's not that bright or is too lazy to think for himself (the more likely scenario). There's no reason for any Yankee fan (or Red Sox fan for that matter) to bash Johnny Damon. That won't stop them, but it's not right. He plays hard; he plays hurt; he's a stand-up guy; and he does his job. What's there to bash?   

• Jose Reyes batting third is a great idea:

    Mets manager Jerry Manuel played with the idea of batting Jose Reyes third last spring, but resistance to the idea from the player and the fact that the Mets lineup didn't need the change at the start of the season put the kibosh on the plan. Now, with Carlos Beltran out and the lineup more in flux, the idea is being revived.

    It's a great idea.

    The club's best overall hitter should always hit third. That doesn't necessarily mean the hitter who hits the most homers; has he highest average or on base percentage; but the hitter who can do the most "stuff". For the Mets, right now without Beltran, that's Jose Reyes.

     While Reyes doesn't have more than 15 homer power (if that at spacious Citi Field), he's still got gap strength and will rack up the extra base hits. Because of his early season injury, we never got the chance to see what was going to happen when Reyes ripped a shot into the right field corner at Citi and watch him run around the bases as the ball bounced around like it was in a pinball machine.

    Reyes can do it all at the plate and in the field. If there are runners on base in front of him, he can drive them in; if he gets on base by himself, he can steal bases; and he can hit the ball out of the park. Instead of having him as the leadoff hitter with the big bats behind him, he can be one of the big bats in the middle of the lineup and has the potential to drive in 100 runs. 

    As camp broke last season, the Mets situationwas vastly different than it is now. With Daniel Murphy the leading candidate to replace Carlos Delgado at first base; Beltran out until May at the earliest; and not much expected from catcher and second base offensively, the Mets have to maximize what they have. Batting Reyes third does that.

    This is similar to that of the 1985 Cardinals when they inserted Tommy Herr----not exactly a power hitter; nor the best hitter in the Cardinals lineup----into the third slot as an accident of circumstance more than a conscious plan on the part of manager Whitey Herzog. Herr wound up driving in 110 runs because Vince Coleman and Willie McGee were always on base in front of him wreaking havoc; he also scored 97 runs because Jack Clark was batting fourth to drive him in.

    Citi Field is similar to the old Busch Stadium in the vast expanse of the outfield. That Cardinals team rode three starting pitchers, a deep bullpen and a load of guys who could run to leading the league in runs scored and went to the World Series. If you look at the way the Mets are configured, they have more power than that Cardinals team and a few options if they choose to bat Reyes third.

    They can bat Luis Castillo leadoff because he gets on base; Angel Pagan second; Reyes third; and David Wright fourth. 

    They can bat Pagan leadoff and try something creative like sticking Jeff Francoeur second despite his low on base percentage and double play possibility in the hopes that he'll see some fastballs; this would free them to bat Castillo eighth where his on base skills and lack of pop would be mitigated because if he's on base, the pitcher can bunt him over as the lineup turns.

    Reyes's value is diminished as a leadoff hitter because he's rarely in a position to use his extra base pop to drive in runs and that the hitters behind him aren't as threatening as they were in 2006-2008. Since he can do so many things and the Mets have Wright and Jason Bay to hit behind him, he'll score as many or more runs as he did when the Mets lineup was packed with power 2-3 years ago. When Beltran gets back, they can either slide Beltran into the 2 or 4 hole and move everyone around.

    It's the smart move. In fact, it might win Jose Reyes the MVP.

• Jingling the keys:

    Last week, I wrote of the various "keys" to the season for each team. For the Cardinals, I wrote that Matt Holliday was the most important factor because of the importance of protecting Albert Pujols in their lineup and the relative weakness surrounding him at third base and possibly center field. The more I looked at the Cardinals though, I realized that Holliday isn't the key to the Cardinals season. The key to the Cardinals success or failure is Chris Carpenter.

    Carpenter's health is paramount. We saw the dichotomy of Carpenter last year. After being injured with arm problems for all but five games in 2007-2008, he got hurt again in early 2009 missing almost the first two months of the season with an oblique strain. At age 34 and with that list of maladies to every part of his body, who could've expected him to return and be as brilliant as he was in his Cy Young Award winning heyday with the Cardinals?

    But he was.

    Carpenter went 17-4 with a sterling 2.24 ERA and was dominant from the time he got back in late May through the end of the season and finished second in the NL Cy Young Award voting. No player has the "what if?" label attached to him like Carpenter.

    His history has been simple: brilliant when able to pitch; will he be able to pitch?

    Who knows?

    If the Cardinals have a healthy Carpenter, their rotation is fine. If they don't, they have Adam Wainwright, Brad Penny and three question marks and will be putting the pot of gold on Tony La Russa, Dave Duncan and a bad division.

    They need Carpenter to produce more than Holliday; if he doesn't, they fall right back into the pack of the weak NL Central. Carpenter is the key to the whole season and if anyone says they know what to expect from him one way or the other, I can tell you now----they don't. Not even the Cardinals or Carpenter know. They just have to hope.    

• Mark McGwire and Tiger Woods:

    With Tiger Woods's probably carefully scripted and tightly controlled press conference scheduled to begin less than an hour from when I write these words, I got to thinking about the traveling media circus that has been stalking Mark McGwire; waiting for Tiger Woods; looking for something to write about in the otherwise slow month of February. One thing I can't figure out from the media hordes and the fans who religiously and obsessively wait for any snippet of information on these matters is what they want. What will satisfy them so they move on?

    Will it be enough if Woods/McGwire/Steve Phillips/whoever collapses into the fetal position, breaks down in sobs and is dragged away to a hospital for observation? If they lash out at others blaming someone aside from the person in the mirror for whatever they've done that was perceived as wrong? They did it; it happened; so what? 

    Regarding Woods, as I write these words at 10:15 AM, EST, does anyone really believe that he's going to give them what they really want and a detailed account of what he was doing with these women? No one's going to care about the prepared statement and apology that's more likely due to having gotten caught than any actual contrition; he'll come off as somewhat embarrassed and as arrogant as usual. Aside from the tabloid reaction of, "do you believe this?", who cares?

    Truth be told, is this anyone's business aside from him being Tiger Woods? The moralists are looking at Woods and his behavior with an attitude of "for shame", but how is it affecting their lives one way or the other if he was stepping out (and stepping out; and stepping out; and stepping out, out, out) with sexual romps that would've made Bob Crane blush.

    Was Woods walking around telling people that they should live their lives like solid family men? Going to church every Sunday while living an entirely different life away from the course? Was he coming up with lines similar to the movie Bob Roberts with "Be good in school and don't do crack. It's a ghetto drug,"?

    No.

    He's a golfer. He's a great golfer. He's a cash cow. People put up with his self-entitlement because he's a great golfer and brought in money----and for no other reasons. If a parent is pointing to someone like Tiger Woods as a role model even before this scandal came public, they've got far more issues than anything I could possibly list here.

    As for the much ridiculed interviews that supposedly show hypocrisy in which he said his wife was his "support system" and his family was the "most important thing in his life", has anyone ever thought that it might be true? That his wife is likely one of the few people in the world who won't put up with his "I'm Tiger Woods" crap? That she's the one who looks at him like he's from outer space when he starts in with his Godlike, self-important nonsense because he's good at hitting a golf ball?

    No one cares about Tiger Woods and his sex therapy; no one cares about his press conference; and no one will care if he goes back on the course and gets back to his greatness. They're looking for a story because it's got everything in a nice neat package: hypocrisy; a fall from grace; a wild and still untold story of how this all came out; admission into treatment and the pending statement.

    With McGwire, anyone who didn't realize he was doing steroids ten years ago and beyond is too stupid to be able to understand what he's going to say going forward anyway.

    He's sorry for what he did? Well, he wasn't sorry when he was hitting all those homers; receiving the money for said homers; and the accolades for being a quiet slugger who led on and off the field and triumphed through injury adversity and hard work. 

    Is McGwire truly sorry? I think he's more embarrassed than sorry. He's admitted his steroid use; he's tap-dancing with words and still looking for excuses such as "I was coming back from injuries", and it's uninteresting. What is it that people want? Do they want more? Do they want him to freak out? Do they want him to say something other than what he's already said?

    He's a hitting coach. He won't be meeting with the media and his contribution is negligible to a big league player except for perception. Is he going to say something to Albert Pujols to make him better? Please.

    Yet he's the subject of fascination. People want more now because there's very little to write about in baseball aside from Johnny Damon and Scott Boras and Rod Barajas. 

    Rod Barajas.

    Rod Barajas!

    Rod....

    Barajas!!!!

    There won't be a smoking gun. Move on.

• Dodgers sign Eric Gagne to a minor league contract:

    Snickers abound regarding Eric Gagne's attempted comeback and I'm not sure why. Is he ever going to regain his high-90s fastball, changeup and unhittability that he showed in 2002-2004? Of course not.

    He was part of a Dodgers club in 2004 that was well on their way to a World Seires before Paul DePodesta swung his stat-induced wrecking ball. Gagne wants to come back. Why not give him a chance? It's not going to cost anything and he might be of some use. Much like the Royals attempt to move Kyle Farnsworth into the starting rotation, one of two things will happen----it'll work, or it won't work. Give it a shot.

    Every year we see clubs that spend a ton of money on their bullpen with established, successful names and have it blow up in their faces. It's becoming clearer and clearer that the way to build a bullpen is to have a reliable closer; a decent set-up man and have a load of bulk surrounding them, preferably by failed starting pitchers and released arms that still have something to offer, maybe.

    Does Gagne have anything left? Who knows? But why not have a look? Just to see?

    People are too busy laughing to try and answer the question, but they wouldn't have an answer anyway. Because there isn't one.

• Prevention and Recovery?

    SNY's Kevin Burkhardt tweeted the following yesterday while at Mets camp:

One Met person here has a jacket with a patch that says "prevention and recovery". I wish I was kidding. #2010Metslogan

And:

@lenno212 you know I was only kidding before about it being their slogan. I didn't know it actually IS!   

   On one hand, the Mets bring the laughter on themselves with this stuff. On the other, is it inaccurate? Isn't "prevention and recovery" a proper follow up from a disaster? Even if the disaster is a matter of fault combined with a matter of circumstance? 

    After 2009, it kinda fits!

• Viewer Mail 2.19.2010:

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

Supposedly Damon's wife prefers Detroit. Better shopping, which I find hard to believe. Chicago has great stores!

    Is this guy capable of doing anything by himself? Thinking anything by himself? I understand that many ballplayers aren't enamored of keeping track of every small aspect of their lives and finances and whatever and need the help, but he doesn't appear to have the functionality of deciding on his own what he wants to do. It's bordering on ridiculous.

Jeff (Street Boss) at Red State Blue State writes RE Phil Coke:

I'm so with you on the Phil Coke thing. I saw that too and thought, who the hell gives a shit what Phil Coke thinks/wants/does? Please. That ain't news.

Personally, I would love to see Damon as my neighbor here on the Southside. As a White Sox apologist, I already look forward to seeing the 2010 squad in person. Damon would just make it a bit sweeter.

    Unless they're offering double the money, if he goes to the Tigers, we'll know who's running things in Damon's spacious head.

    Ah, Phil Coke.

    Has anyone noticed that the Yankees have purged the clubhouse of two evident busybodies in Jerry Hairston Jr and Coke? Who's going to be the town cryer? That question should be nearly as important as whether Phil Hughes and Joba Chamberlain are in the starting rotation/bullpen.

The Brooklyn Trolley Blogger writes:

I think you hit it when you said Dombrowski wouldn't want Damon at that price. He's too smart to throw money like that at Damon.
Chicago is a very nice fit, as you say and with which I agree. Ozzie has his lead-off hitter now with J.Pierre, who will surprise, and Damon would fit nicely behind him.
Peavy and the Go-Go Sox are lookin pretty good.

    Dave Dombrowski's been an up-and-down GM for me. He's made some good moves and he's made some remarkably stupid moves (Jair Jurrjens for Edgar Renteria pops into my mind immediately), and had success with the Expos, Marlins and Tigers. The Tigers can certainly use Damon, but I don't see why they'd offer him two years.

    He's a perfect fit for the White Sox. Damon's decision, as evidenced by the three bits of Viewer Mail I printed today, will open a window into what he's thinking and who's running things for Johnny Damon. 

• Can he sign somewhere so we can stop talking about him?

    One some level, it's positive that Johnny Damon is still prancing free in the woods like a feral boy raised and nurtured by wolves. <Insert Scott Boras Joke Here.> But when getting past Boras's negotiating skills regarding Damon----skills that look strangely similar to those of George Costanza----the two remaining choices for Damon make the decision easy if the money is similar.

    Who knows whether the reports of a Tigers offer of $14 million for two years are accurate? It could be that owner Mike Ilich authorized it, but GM Dave Dombrowski doesn't want to go that high for Damon when there's no reason to do so; one would think Damon would've signed already if he truly wanted to go to the Tigers; he's certainly not going to get more money elsewhere. The White Sox are in on Damon as well.

    After getting past the embarrassment of a botched negotiation, felt more by the agent than the player, which venue would be a better fit for Damon? Would it be the young and retooling Tigers? Or the title contending----believe it!!!----White Sox?

    Both need Damon, but for different reasons. 

    The Tigers are carrying two black spots in their lineup to start with in Adam Everett and Gerald Laird; they have the fading Magglio Ordonez; a rookie second baseman in Scott Sizemore; a rookie center fielder in Austin Jackson; and are currently listing Ryan Raburn as their left fielder. They need a bat like Damon desperately. But truthfully, how much would he help them on the field?

    The Tigers are stuck in the purgatory of not being so terrible that they might as well clear the decks; being logistically unable to clear the decks because of hideous contracts; and not being good enough to really be aggressive and try to win. Their manager, Jim Leyland, is 65-years-old and doesn't need the stress of a poor offense and rookies galore to make his agita worse. Damon would at least make their offense more viable.

    But is he a need for the Tigers?

    No.

    They're not going to contend either way, so they don't need Johnny Damon. As for Damon, does he want to go to a situation like Detroit where he's going to be playing meaningless games in September (or August; or July) and function as an elder statesman teaching the youngsters how to play and behave? I'm sure Damon wouldn't mind leading in such a way, but why when he's got another option in the White Sox?

    The White Sox pitching is deep and among baseball's best top-to-bottom; their offense is good enough for them to contend, but they're banking on a return to health of Carlos Quentin; a solid second season from Gordon Beckham; and are functioning with a rotating DH that includes the no-hit Mark Kotsay and rookie Tyler Flowers (who's going to be very good). Damon would be a perfect fit as the DH. Perfect. He'd hit; his defense wouldn't be an issue; and the team has a legit shot at a World Series. If Damon thinks for himself and ignores his agent for once, it's a no-brainer <Insert Damon Joke Here.>

    While Damon has those options and the money from the Tigers will probably be greater, his best choice is the White Sox. 

    Now that I've written this, watch the announcement come immediately that Damon has agreed to terms with the Tigers. On the one hand, I hate being wrong; on the other, at least we wouldn't have to hear about it anymore if that event did come to pass.

• Just one more note regarding Damon in a roundabout way:

    The following was on MLBTradeRumors.com:

Phil Coke tells MLB.com's Jason Beck that he wants the Tigers to sign Johnny Damon.

    The link to the Beck posting is above.

    But here's my question: Uh. Yeah? So?

    All of a sudden Phil Coke is the go-to-guy for opinions on personnel and what makes a championship team? Are things that slow on the newsfront? Is there nothing else? 

    Phil Coke?

    Seriously?

    Can we get spring training started in earnest already so the digging for things to write about doesn't have to include "Organizational Plotting With Phil Coke"?

• Viewer Mail 2.18.2010:

The BrooklynTrolleyBlogger writes RE the Phillies:

(Phils) - They'll go as far as Cole Hamels and Rollins takes them. I believe that. But then again they shouldn't get too taxed by the rest of the division.

When I think of players who didn't know when to hang them up I think Mickey Mantle. He held on just long enough to ruin his lifetime .300 avg.

    You're right about the importance of Hamels and Jimmy Rollins. Their bullpen is key as well. You're wrong about the NL East. The Marlins are always tough and with their young pitching and bats are very dangerous in the division; the Braves pitching is good; and the Mets returning to health sends them right back into contention. The Phillies dragged themselves back down to the pack with their idiocy; Rollins is looking increasingly shot; and Hamels had better get off to a good start or the lingering questions of his whiny statements during the World Series of wanting the season to end will grow louder and louder.

    It's easy to tell a player when he should hang it up, but if he still wants to try and play, it's no one's right to dissuade him if that's what he really wants to do. Of course, from a distance and in a cold-blooded, nothing personal, strictly business fashion, it's an analyst/agent of chaos's job to tell a Mark Mulder or even a Mickey Mantle that it's enough. That said, players have every right to try even if they're going to be embarrassing themselves or evolving into something that's little more than a hanger-on. 

• What happened to this guy?

    With rumors going back-and-forth that he was retiring, then "clarified" to say that he'd halted his throwing program and was weighing his options----Sporting News Story----Mark Mulder's career is at a crossroads. Unsure of whether or not to try and continue at a diminished capacity from the 20-win, Cy Young Award contender or hang it up, it can't be an easy decision for someone who was as good as Mulder once was to either accept his limitations and move forward trying to pitch as something wholly other; or take his career for what it was and retire before diminishing it by clinging to memories that are no longer possible.

    Does he want to alter everything to "kinda sorta" be effective again? 

    Does he want to push forward doing the things he used to do and hope everything falls into place?

    Does he want to run the risk of going back out and embarrassing himself because he physically can't perform anymore?

    For a proud athlete who has Mulder's resume, there comes a point where he has to look into the mirror and ask whether or not it's worth it to possibly make it back as someone's fifth starter/long reliever/Triple A insurance or if he should move forward with his life. What makes it worse is that Mulder is at an age (32) where he'd still have at least 3-4 more good years of productivity at his early career levels, and then probably another 2-3 years of being useful had his body not broken down as it did.

    Of the three young Athletics starters of the early part of the decade (Mulder, Tim Hudson and Barry Zito), Mulder was the pitcher who looked as if he was built to last. Bigger and stronger than Hudson; a cleaner, smoother and more repeatable motion than Zito, Mulder made it look easy. He was efficient; he threw strikes; and his motion was a thing of beauty----effortless, clean and simple.

    In his first five full seasons, Mulder won: 21, 19, 15, 17 and 15 games while pitching over 200 innings in four of those seasons. He wasn't abused; he didn't overstress himself on the mound; there was no reason to think that he'd break down. But by the third full season in 2003, there were warnings as he began having trouble with his hip, a death blow to a pitcher. 

    By 2004. the signs were too glaring to miss even as he was still able to rack up wins and build up a gaudy record of 15-3 by August 3rd. Mulder was getting pounded far too much for a pitcher of his formerly lofty status. His fastball was short; his mechanics were off and it was clear that he was in decline. His Gamelogs from 2004 show that alarming drop like spilled ink forming a red flag.

    He wasn't the same. Mulder had always been hittable----it wasn't as if he was Pedro Martinez, circa 1999 where if he was on his game, you might as well just go up to the plate without a bat---but he was never hittable to the extent he was showing by late 2004. Sometimes that issue is simply mechanical; sometimes not.

    Famously, Orel Hershiser got rocked by the Giants in late August of 1988 when a mechanical flaw was spotted in which he was stepping too far toward first base as he landed, causing his arm to lag behind his body and flatten his pitches. Once that was corrected, he pitched as well as anyone ever has or ever will, with six straight shutouts to end the regular season and a classic performance in the playoffs and World Series, singlehandedly destroying both the Mets and the Athletics. 

    Fixing Mulder's mechanics wasn't going to alleviate the physical fall. 

    Billy Beane, clearing salary and retooling, traded Mulder to the Cardinals after the 2004 season in a deal that brought Dan Haren to Oakland. Mulder pitched well for a title-contending Cardinals team in 2005, winning 16 games, but he wasn't the pitcher he'd been early in his career. Had he been playing for a bad team, the issues would've been more obvious.

    Instead, the Tony La Russa/Dave Duncan magic of maximizing their players and putting them in the best possible circumstances to succeed covered for Mulder as he went 16-8 with numerous brilliant games; but there were still the games in which a pitcher of Mulder's caliber got bashed. It was as if his physical issues were chronic and his results depended upon whether he felt good or not and was able to do what he wanted to do on the field.

    An athlete knowing what he wants to do but being physically unable to do it generally doesn't happen until very late in their careers; but Mulder was faltering. By 2006, possibly due to the over-taxation on his arm by the lower body and back problems, Mulder's shoulder gave out. For a pitcher as smooth and free as Mulder was to injure his shoulder was a clear indication that it was the rest of his body that was the problem.

    He pitched horribly from then on and the final insult was in 2008 when he started a game against the Phillies and his shoulder was such a mess that he was throwing sidearm and managed 5 strikes in 16 pitches. What La Russa was thinking in leaving him out there even that long was beyond me; even the Phillies (not exactly the kindliest bunch) appeared to be peering at the Cardinals bench with a sympathetic countenance that said, "get this guy off the field, he's hurt!!!"

    Now, faced with another comeback and doubts, he's vacillating on what to do. He still wants to play, but can't do what he once did not because of age; not because of desire; but because he's physically unable. The line between moving forward at a diminished capacity, but still having value to someone and not wanting to sully what was an impressive career is hard to distinguish.

    There's nothing wrong with becoming something else and being able to help, but if the cost is too great, perhaps it's time to accept that and move forward in a different phase of life, as hard as that is. The hitters have told Mulder that it may be time to give up; and what's more, his body is screaming it. Hanging on now will prolong the inevitable. It's sad, but it's the truth.

• This could be BIG trouble for the Braves:

    Jair Jurrjens hasn't gotten enough attention considering how good he is. Had he had better run support last season and a superior bullpen, he would've won 20 games easily. If he's healthy, he's a Cy Young Award contender. But considering this news, the Braves could have a big problem.

    Jurrjens is having an MRI on his aching shoulder. Despite the Braves uttering all the calming phrases----"precautionary"; "no structural damage"----there have to be waves of terror flowing through the entire Braves organization.

    After trading Javier Vazquez and relying on Kenshin Kawakami as their fifth starter, they must have Jurrjens healthy if they want to make up for their lack of offense with superlative starting pitching.

    Maybe I'm paranoid after seeing what happened to the Mets in 2009 with the "day-to-day" status and inconclusive medical diagnosis, but the mere fact that the Braves are sending Jurrjens to be checked would lead me to panic, specifically with the small margin for error the Braves will have in being a team barely above .500 and winning 92 games. 

    Bottom line, if they lose Jurrjens for an extended period of time, they're screwed.

• Mmmmmm.....Kooool-Aid:

    Line up Philadelphians, and drink your Philippe Aumont Kool-Aid.

    Are they going to continue to justify this forever?

    We couldn't afford Cliff Lee....blah, blah, blah.

    We wanted to replenish the system....blah, blah, blah.

    We love the young players we received....blah, blah, blah.

    In reading this NY Times column, I still get the feeling that the Phillies front office is desperately trying to convince themselves that they did the right thing in dealing Cliff Lee for prospects and replacing him with Roy Halladay----and they're having trouble believing it.

    Never mind the front office though; think about this. Do you really believe that the Phillies manager Charlie Manuel (age 66); and the core of the team (Ryan Howard-30; Chase Utley-31; Jimmy Rollins-31; Roy Halladay-33) care a whit about some Double-A closer, Phillippe Aumont, and how the front office loves him and his stuff?

    A Double-A closer?

    The veteran players and the manager wanted to keep Lee. Bank on it.

    Let's be enthusiastic and say Aumont's in the majors by late 2010 and is very good in the Phillies bullpen; will it still have been worth it? The only way that this deal will make sense in retrospect is if the Phillies manage to win the pennant again in 2010; or if Aumont turns into Mariano Rivera. Aside from that, do you think the Phillies veteran players wanted this 21-year-old kid as a "future star" instead of throwing Cliff Lee and Roy Halladay to the mound two of every five days?

    With the Phillies insisting that they did the right thing for the organization, the fan base is skittish about losing Lee; and the media is jumping on the bandwagon----my bandwagon----in savaging the short-sighted stupidity of the move. There's a lot of pressure on Aumont; and a lot of pressure on GM Ruben Amaro, Jr.

    We'll see how long the manager and players are in lockstep on the decision if they stumble this season. My guess is it won't be long.  

Yesterday, I examined the American League; now it's time for the senior circuit. The following player performances will determine team fate. Let's take a look.

• Philadelphia Phillies----Cole Hamels:

    Which Hamels will show up this spring?

    Will it be the gutty and fearless lefty who won both the NLCS and World Series MVPs in 2008 post-season? Or will it be the mentally fried and whiny baby who angered his teammates by saying he couldn't wait for the season to be over----mid-World Series----when there was a very real possibility that he'd be handed the ball in game 7? He didn't pitch very well during the 2009 season either. If Hamels doesn't pitch well, the Phillies are in a lot of trouble.

• Florida Marlins----Andrew Miller:

    Miller has reminded some of a young Randy Johnson. I wouldn't go quite that far, but the comparison isn't unreasonable. Miller isn't the strikeout artist Johnson was; he's not as intimidating; but his motion is similar and he has the stuff to be a top starter in baseball. He's about to turn 25 and if he's able to stake his claim in the big leagues behind Josh Johnson and Ricky Nolasco in the Marlins rotation, they'll have a chance to dominate.

    Randy Johnson didn't find his way in the big leagues until he was in his mid-20s either. It takes time for a lefty with that kind of gangly motion to bridle his stuff. If and when Miller puts it together, watch out.

• Atlanta Braves----Chipper Jones:

    With their failed efforts to boost their offense to support a strong pitching staff (Troy Glaus? Melky Cabrera?) the Braves need Chipper Jones to be somewhere close to what he was in 2008 when he had a .364 batting average, and ridiculous .470 on base percentage as one of the biggest threats in baseball.

    Jones showed his age in 2009 in losing a step----that 99% of the other big league players never had----as he fell to .264; his on base to .388. Jones is injury-prone and at age 38, the Braves are asking a lot for him to still carry the team. You can never count out a player who's known greatness----he can recapture that at any moment----but if Jones is what he was last year or (disaster warning) gets hurt, the Braves are going to have trouble scoring enough runs to be as good as they could've been.

• New York Mets----John Maine:

    You'll hear names like Jose Reyes, David Wright or Jason Bay as the keys to the Mets; others will point to Johan Santana or even Mike Pelfrey and Oliver Perez; but the real key to the Mets season is John Maine. 

    It's reasonable to expect a return-to-normalcy production from the Mets bats; Santana will rebound to be one of the best pitchers in baseball; the bullpen will be okay; Pelfrey will improve simply by the presence of Reyes behind him defensively; and Perez could hardly be worse than he was last year. 

    No.

    Maine is the key. 

    With dominant stuff, a deceptive motion and fearlessness on the mound, Maine has to stay healthy and give the Mets 190 innings and 15 wins. If he does that behind Santana, the Mets are contenders; if not, they're an also-ran.

• Washington Nationals----Stephen Strasburg:

    The Nationals have spent a lot of money on bargain basement junk/replaceable parts to make it look like they're trying to drastically improve from last season's 100-loss monstrosity; but the key to their season and off-season renovation is the righty with the 102-mph fastball, Strasburg. 

    The Nats are intent on giving Strasburg every chance to make the club out of spring training; the pressure on the club and the pitcher will be intense to start him in the big leagues. Personally, I would not under any circumstances start him in the big leagues. He'd start at Double A and I'd say that he's not coming to the big leagues until September, period; and only then if he shows he's completely ready. (I'd reserve the right to change my mind and only share that information with a few key people.)

    That said, the Nationals might find themselves hanging within the vicinity of the Wild Card race if everything goes right for them and be a 1998 Chicago Cubs-type of club (interestingly managed by the same man, Jim Riggleman) that gets lit on fire by the emergence of the young fastballer. I wouldn't risk it, but with the moves the Nats have made this winter, they're having delusions of grandeur and I don't put it past them.

• St. Louis Cardinals----Matt Holliday:

    Holliday was great after coming over in the mid-season trade with the Athletics and he'll provide much-needed protection to Albert Pujols that was non-existent for much of 2009. Holliday has to have an MVP-quality year for the Cardinals to be title contenders. If he slumps under the pressure as he did in Oakland, the Cardinals will still be good, but they'll have to rely on the wizardly managing of Tony La Russa more than they thought they would after spending all that money to keep Holliday.

• Chicago Cubs----Carlos Zambrano:

    Which Zambrano is going to show up? The unhittable righty who gobbles innings and battles his way through? Or the lazy and tempestuous flake who looks like he'd rather inhale the lunchtime buffet at Pizza Hut and take a nice, long nap?

    At times, manager Lou Piniella looks as if he'd like to strangle Zambrano----with good reason. If Zambrano fulfills his potential (and he's about to turn 29; it's enough already with the "potential" crap) the Cubs are contenders. If not, they're going to stumble to mediocrity.

• Milwaukee Brewers----Yovani Gallardo:

    Gallardo has 18-22 win, Cy Young Award stuff. At age 24, he has to step up and become the full-time horse for the Brewers. This is a club that has to get off to a fast start or manager Ken Macha is going to get fired. (He might get fired anyway and, truth be told, they'll be better off with Willie Randolph managing the team.) Gallardo is the key as the front man of a mediocre starting rotation.

• Cincinnati Reds----Jay Bruce:

    Bruce slumped in 2009 after a hot start in 2008 and if the Reds are to continue to trend upward as they did late last season (take with a grain of salt, please), they need Bruce to hit. If he doesn't hit, they have one of the worst outfields in baseball and their offense is sorely lacking in firepower.

• Houston Astros----Roy Oswalt:

    The best thing for the Astros to do would be to hope Oswalt is healthy and pitching well, and hold him up for ransom at mid-season to the highest bidder. He's guaranteed $33 million through 2011 and the Astros farm system is weak. They've discussed Oswalt in the past (he wants out), but have pulled back each time a deal was pending. He'd facilitate a rapid rebuild if the Astros got the bounty he'd be worth on the market.

• Pittsburgh Pirates----Andrew McCutchen:

    McCutchen is going to be a MEGA-star. There's nothing he won't be able to do and has the potential to be one of the best players in baseball----better than Carl Crawford. It's hard to see the Pirates screwing him up as long as they write his name in the lineup and leave him alone, but these are the Pirates we're talking about and there's a history there that's hard to deny; a history of being dunderheads.

• Los Angeles Dodgers----Clayton Kershaw:

    Kershaw's either going to bust out and become a dominating, Tim Lincecum-style ace at the top of the Dodgers rotation or he's going to struggle with his control and command. He has the stuff to blow people away and he'll probably still be on an innings-limit, but the Dodgers rotation is short and if they're going to make the playoffs again, they must have Kershaw step and be the ace of the staff, even at age 23. He could strike out close to 300 batters one day.

• Colorado Rockies----Jeff Francis:

    If anyone thinks that Jorge De La Rosa is going to win 16 games again, I have a Luis Castillo for you----take him (please!). The Rockies got lucky with De La Rosa stepping into the injured shoes of former ace Jeff Francis last year; but now Francis is back and the Rockies need him to be at least as good as he was in 2006-2007 when he won 30 games and was their ace. 

• San Francisco Giants----Pablo Sandoval:

    The Giants made some ancillary, "sum of the parts" pickups in Mark DeRosa and Aubrey Huff; and they brought back Bengie Molina; but they need Sandoval to continue his development into a power-hitting, clutch, on-base threat. Their pitching is good from top-to-bottom; scoring is their issue and Sandoval has to produce.

• San Diego Padres----Adrian Gonzalez:

    The fastest way for the Padres to rebuild as quickly as possible is to deal their remaining asset in Gonzalez. There will be teams lining up to get their hands on Gonzalez at mid-season and we'll see how quickly the Red Sox tune changes as their vaunted shift from power to pitching and defense fails miserably and leaves them on the cusp of missing the playoffs. New GM Jed Hoyer's tenure will be largely determined by what he does with Gonzalez.

• Arizona Diamondbacks----Brandon Webb:

    I got to thinking about the narrow view taken by both stat zombies and the dogmatic old-school types who don't take numbers into account at all. The zombies don't listen because they're so immersed in the inhuman aspects of numbers crunching that they can't comprehend that they're dealing with human beings; the crusty old-school types who don't ever want to see a statistic because they're too lazy to try and understand them or don't have the mental capacity to get them to start with.

    Both camps move the goalposts when it's convenient for them to bolster their arguments.

    If one chooses to focus on small ancillary aspects of a larger issue when justifying their beliefs and don't listen to anything that doesn't come with a numerical value attached to it, what can you say to them? If they refuse to accept anyone else's viewpoint and choose to run away or make hit-and-run comments without confrontation, it's a waste of energy to pay them any mind. This goes for both divergent camps.

    The fault in the pure computer projections comes from the complete absence of accounting for variables like injuries, managerial stupidity or the career year from a player who'd never before and will never again reach such heights. If you examine the 2010 predicted standings from entities such as PECOTA, after you take note that----judging from the alterations that keep happening on a daily basis (there's a great pre-season pennant race going on)----you'll also note that it's little more than an assessment of a team's roster and their prior production all added together to come to bottom-line calculations for runs scored and runs allowed. Then they get a prediction. 

    This is not analysis.

    Even those systems that use history, comparable players and calculate variables don't take into account any subjective analysis which does have value. Such subjective analysis could only be deduced by someone who's played the game and understands how hard it is; has taken the time to watch a game; can examine a player and have the ability to judge that the way he moves, hits, throws or something that gives reason to think he's going to be more than the sum of his statistical parts.

    It's a telling statement when the exalted Billy Beane (whose kingdom is crumbling around him) says such nonsense as (I'm paraphrasing) that he'd "be a better GM if he never watched a game". Given the number of stupid things he's done in recent years, he may be right because he couldn't have done much worse if he'd holed himself up in a basement surrounded by machines (and I'm not talking about Paul DePodesta); and Beane was a player!! You'd think he'd know better.

    So what is it that tips a season one way or the other?

    Is it the off-season building of a club into an on-paper powerhouse?

    Is it finding players whom other clubs don't appreciate or add the fractional skill that makes the difference between 83 wins and also-ran status or 90 wins and a Wild Card berth?

    Is it the acquisition of players from whom you know exactly what you're getting to come as close as possible to fulfilling calculations?

    Or is it that one small tweak that makes the difference? A difference that no one saw coming and neither scouting nor statistical formulas could've expected?

    Is it blind luck?

    It happens all the time. One player alters the course of a season for a team. The Cubs of 1998 were lit up by the fireballing emergence of Kerry Wood and made it all the way to the playoffs when not much was expected from them before the season started. They'd lost 94 games the previous year. Wood created a buzz; the team's confidence on the whole rose as they started to think they had something special happening and they made the playoffs.

    Another example was the 1985 Cardinals. Having slumped in 1983-1984 after winning the World Series in 1982, they were a team in transition without a closer and still clinging to the foundation from that championship club...until Vince Coleman was recalled for what was supposed to be a brief big league stay in the absence of regular left fielder Lonnie Smith. Coleman stole every base in sight; sent the opposition into disarray every time he got on base; and a Cardinals team that was questionable as to whether they were going to have the run scoring ability to keep up with the Mets, suddenly had Willie McGee as an MVP; and Tommy Herr----Tommy Herr----driving in 110 runs. All of this was because of Coleman and how he arrived and lit a fire every time he set foot on the field.

    These things happen sometimes and they can't be quantified by statistics except in retrospect; and that retrospect isn't done to analyze, explain or understand, it's done to self-justify an argument that was pockmarked to begin with.

    With all that in mind, let's take a look at the key players to the 2010 season for the American League. (I'll work on the NL tomorrow.)

    The phrase "key player" is relative. For some teams, the goal is World Series or bust; for others, they need these players to either develop or provide leadership and contribute to what they're trying to build. 

• New York Yankees----A.J. Burnett:

    Of course a team like the Yankees would be able to withstand an injury/poor year from Burnett, but the Yankees are a "World Seres or bust" club and if they lose Burnett, that would move everyone behind ace C.C. Sabathia up a notch on the depth chart; and that would mean more expectations for Javier Vazquez, and we've seen what happens to Vazquez in pressure situations or when the spotlight is shining on him directly, and it ain't good.

    After a career filled with injuries to just about every part of his arm, Burnett has had two straight fully healthy seasons. If he's hurt, the Yankees are going to have major concerns heading into the playoffs. He has to stay healthy.

• Boston Red Sox----David Ortiz:

    A productive Ortiz will make the difference between the "pitching and defense" Red Sox from having to (again) abandon a stat zombie-oriented plan of focusing on market inefficiencies or move forward with what they're currently doing.

    If Ortiz is hitting and producing from the DH spot, the Red Sox offense will be strong enough for their pitching and defense plan to work. If not, they're going to have to make a big trade for a bat (Adrian Gonzalez?) at mid-season to save themselves. It's interesting how the plan of pitching and defense will come down to the aging and declining DH, but that's where the Red Sox have stationed themselves.

• Tampa Bay Rays----James Shields:

    The Rays are going to score; their bullpen is serviceable; but they must have the "Big Game" James Shields from 2008 and not the up-and-down pitcher he was in 2009. Shields's ERA jumped by a half run and he got rocked far too many times for a pitcher of his ability. With the absence of Scott Kazmir, Shields is the veteran in the Rays rotation from whom the rest of the staff is going to feed. He has to pitch well for the Rays to contend.

•  Toronto Blue Jays----Brandon Morrow:

    The Blue Jays are retooling; they've made some very good moves this winter in doing the best they could cleaning up from the wreckage left behind by former GM J.P. Ricciardi; and while the Roy Halladay trade was the most high profile deal, the acquisition of Brandon Morrow could lead the Blue Jays back into contention if they straighten out the damaged (mentally more than anything) former first round pick; and they got him for Brandon League and a low-level minor leaguer which wasn't much at all. 

• Baltimore Orioles----Kevin Millwood:

    The veteran Millwood will be the anchor to the Orioles young starting rotation and if he teaches them how to pitch and handle adversity just as Millwood learned from his time with the Braves and Tom Glavine/Greg Maddux/John Smoltz, the Orioles could advance faster than anyone imagined. There's a load of young pitching talent that needs to be nurtured and taught how to win. Millwood can show them the way.

• Minnesota Twins----Joe Mauer:

    For all their flashy acquisitions on the cheap, the Twins are Mauer's team. He's the best hitter in baseball this side of Albert Pujols; and he's a Gold Glove catcher. Without him, the entire lineup comes apart and with their average starting pitching, they need Mauer at the plate and behind it to guide them through.

•   Detroit Tigers----Austin Jackson:

    The trade of Curtis Granderson will only make sense if the designated replacement, Austin Jackson, fulfills his potential. Jackson will receive every chance to play this year and the Tigers need him to perform. That's a lot of pressure on a 23-year-old. 

•  Chicago White Sox----Jake Peavy:

    With Peavy, you can never be sure if he's going to be the dominating NL Cy Young Award winner he was in 2007; or if he's going to see his arm go flying to the backstop as he fires one of his all-out, mechanically horrific fastballs. He hasn't been fully healthy since that 2007 season, but he looked fantastic in three September starts for the White Sox. If he's back in form, the White Sox are legitimate contenders; if not...

• Cleveland Indians----Grady Sizemore:

    With the Indians in their current financial and practical position, they may have to think seriously about trading Sizemore. A couple of years ago, it would've been unthinkable to deal a five-tool talent and off-field solid citizen; but what better way to rebuild as quickly as possible than to deal the best asset? GM Mark Shapiro has shown the guts to make such moves pre-emptively before; it's not something to dismiss out-of-hand.

• Kansas City Royals----Luke Hochevar:

    There's no denying Hochevar's ability, but the big righty has only shown flashes of the stuff that made him the number one pick in the draft. His command is all over the place and he doesn't appear to trust his stuff. Body-wise and in mannerisms, he reminds me of Roy Halladay----not in results though. Reality didn't kick in for Halladay until he was 25 and he reinvented his pitching style; Hochevar has to do the same thing. He's 26 now. If he can develop, he and Zack Greinke are a tough 1-2 punch. If....

• Los Angeles Angels----Brandon Wood:

    2010 could be Wood's last chance to make it in the big leagues as a regular player, with the Angels at least. He's put up massive power numbers in the minors, but struggled horribly in the majors. He's 25 and the third base job is his to lose. He has to hit.

• Texas Rangers----Rich Harden:

    Replacing the leader and innings-eater Millwood with Harden is a large gamble. The Rangers have so much young pitching that they needed a veteran to function as a solid 1A with Scott Feldman. If he's healthy, Harden is unhittable; but he's never healthy and it's always a different part of his body that's hurt. A healthy season from Harden and the Rangers are contenders.

• Seattle Mariners----Milton Bradley:

    One never knows----literally----whether Bradley is going to hit .300 and put up great across-the-board numbers or walk into the stands with a bat and attack someone. The Mariners are offensively challenged and need Bradley to produce at the plate. More importantly, they need him to behave and not do anything psychotic to a teammate; an umpire; a coach; a manager; a media member; or a fan. He's also injury-prone.

• Oakland Athletics----Ben Sheets:

• And the point of this is what?

    For some inexplicable reason, Angels first baseman Kendry Morales fired his prior representation, the Hendricks Brothers, and hired Scott Boras...while he's still under contract for $700,000 for 2010; isn't arbitration-eligible until next year; and won't be a free agent until 2013----ESPN Story.

    What does he need Boras to do exactly? Get him out of Anaheim? Because that's all this hiring is going to do. 

    As has been stated numerous times, the Angels have no interest in playing Boras's game because they, as a club, don't have to play Boras's game. Certain clubs who haven't had the success of the Angels or are in desperate straits to retain or acquire players do have to deal with Boras----the Angels are not one of them. With most teams, the anger against a player agent lasts only as long as they can feasibly maintain said anger while putting a winning product on the field; with the Angels, it's different.

    The club threw their hands up in the air at the duplicitous nature in which the Mark Teixeira negotiations went after they felt they'd met the demands to keep him, and saw the $160 million offer shopped around again so Boras could gain that extra $20 million from either the Yankees or Red Sox; and from the looks of things, they're maintaining the stance that they don't want to deal with Boras. This is the way they work with agents and players. They make a fair, competitive offer, expect an answer and move along if it's rejected.

    What does Morales expect Boras to do when there's literally nothing to do? Any experienced agent can argue an arbitration case and they're always a flip of the coin as to who's going to win. The Angels are not going to deal with Boras in a long-term extension for Morales, so it's more likely that they'll keep the player as long as he's under the arbitration constraint, and let him walk after 2013. This hiring made no sense.

    On another note, an interesting comment made by Boras shines a light into the increasing megalomania of the superagent. After being fired by Felipe Lopez, here's a clip from the above-linked story regarding Lopez:

Boras said he was given reasons by teams why they didn't offer Lopez a starting job, but he declined to mention them. Boras said Lopez was unhappy with the reasons and it was then when he decided to fire him as an agent.

"Once I get the information, I'm going to confront the player," Boras said.

Boras said he wished Lopez well.

    Felipe Lopez would've gotten an offer of a starting job for a multitude of teams. At the very least, he would've received an offer of the job of a roving utility player who'd see action on a daily basis at various positions around the diamond a la Tony Phillips. The reason no one wanted to sign Lopez was because Boras's demands were probably so extravagant that it wasn't worth the aggravation or the money to try and sign him. 

    In addition to that, take a look at the comment from Boras: "Once I get the information, I'm going to confront the player." (Italics added.)

   Confront the player?

   Aside from a disgruntled employee wandering back into his former place of employment toting a gun and shooting at will, what does that exactly mean? He's going to "confront" the player? And do what? Is Scott Boras the all-seeing, all-powerful mob boss who demands an explanation when a player decides to make a business decision because he needs a job and such a job wasn't forthcoming with his prior representation? Because it appeared as if Boras was more concerned with saving face in the Johnny Damon negotiations than getting a deal for the lower echelon player like Lopez who should've gotten a contract by now?

    Felipe Lopez was the employer.

    Scott Boras was the employee.

    Lopez made a change because he wants a job, as is his right.

    I'd dearly love to see this confrontation, if Boras indeed does confront Lopez, because it's liable to be entertaining based on the out-of-control arrogance of Scott Boras who, contrary to his own bloated self-image, is not the puppetmaster for all of his clients as Lopez's gutsy decision to make a change proves.

• Tim Lincecum avoids arbitration:

    Even with back-to-back Cy Young Awards, there was no guarantee that Tim Lincecum was going to win his arbitration hearing with the Giants. The disparity between the Giants offer of $8 million and Lincecum's request for $13 million was so vast; Lincecum's desired leap from $650,000 to $13 million so massive, that I think he would've lost.

    Lincecum signed a 2-year, $23 million deal which avoids arbitration for the next two years and gives the club time to prepare a long-term contract for the diminutive righty. There's been buzz that Lincecum cost himself money by taking this deal; of course any player who signs a long-term contract runs the risk of costing himself money; but he also guarantees himself a set salary no matter what happens.

    If Albert Pujols wanted to, he could go year-to-year with a contract and, gambling on his health, make a lot more money than he would if he agreed to a long term deal. It would be admirable and gutsy for a player to do that, but why? Players want security, and Lincecum's deal puts any animosity that would've cropped up between the two parties in a contentious arbitration hearing on the backburner and makes a long-term deal possible without hurt feelings.

• The argument against Frank Thomas for the Hall of Fame is what?
  

    Frank Thomas hit 521 homers; drove in 1667 runs; scored 1494 runs; batted .301; had a career on base percentage of .419; a slugging percentage of .555; won two MVPs; finished second in the voting once; third twice; and fourth once; for a power hitter he rarely struck out; and he played clean in the era of PEDs.

    The argument against Thomas for the Hall of Fame on the first ballot is what?

    That he was a primary DH?

    So?

    I've made this argument for the case of Edgar Martinez (which is far less certain that that of Thomas), but I'll make it again. Would it have been better for Thomas, with an eye on the future, to demand to play the field when it was better for the team to have him as the DH? Would it bolster his candidacy if he was standing at first base like a statue, run the risk of injury and hurt the team with his defense? Isn't it more of a team-oriented decision to accept his limitations and stay a DH for the good of the team rather than the good of a far-off future and enshrinement in the Hall of Fame?

    Thomas was one of the most dangerous hitters in baseball for almost his entire career; his numbers are ridiculous. There is absolutely, positively no viable argument to be made against his induction. Not even the old-timers and buffoonish writers can keep a straight face with the insipid "I know a Hall of Famer when I see one" nonsense because if they look at Frank Thomas and don't see a Hall of Famer, then they're blind, drunk, stupid or all three.

• Viewer Mail 2.14.2010:

Jeff (Street Boss) at Red State Blue State writes RE Felipe Lopez:

Lopez's new agency is the same group that manages Albert Pujols. As you mentioned, the Cardinals are rumored to have interest in him. They could use another experienced infielder to cover third and/or second if needed. But I'm not sure they'd offer more than $5 million as they're said to only have $6-7 million to work with.

    It's so late in the game that he's going to have to take a short-term/short-money deal. The few teams with the money and the remaining hole aren't going to give Felipe Lopez anything more. The best he can hope for is a 1-year, $5 million or so base and some incentives based on performance and playing time. I have no issue at all with changing representation, but he should've done it in November before other players like Mark DeRosa signed. Now, no matter who his agent is, he's going to have to take whatever he can get.

Jane Heller at Confessions of a She-Fan writes RE the English language:

I had to re-read Neyer's headline too. It made my eyes cross.

    In case anyone missed it, the headline Jane refers to is the following: Phil Hughes Works On Changes Needs Chance.

    What would you say Jane? Clunky? Awkward? Bizarre? Or just plain bad? Making the reader's eyes cross is a bad thing 99.999999% of the time. I manage it on occasion, but only because what I've written is so orgasmic that they lose control, but that's me.

• Does Boras know who Lopez is?

    I'm curious if Scott Boras could pick Felipe Lopez out of a police lineup.

    Aside from the public embarrassment of being fired, does this really make that much of a difference to Boras? Will it make a difference to Felipe Lopez?

    On some level, Lopez knew that he wasn't the main focus on the part of Boras and as spring training approached without a job, he took action and decided to move on with an agent less reviled and polarizing. It was an acceptance of reality for Lopez.

    The talk surrounding Lopez has been that he's a perfect fit for the Cardinals, but I believe that his firing of Boras opens the door for him to join the Angels. The Angels are known to have almost no interest in dealing with Boras unless it's absolutely necessary after the way they felt jerked around in the negotiations for Mark Teixeira; and they're in need of a veteran like Lopez who can play third base in the event that Brandon Wood falls flat on his face again. 

    In reality, Lopez wasn't in the strongest negotiating position despite appearing to be one of those players who's learned how to hit in his late 20s----stats----in the Brian Downing fashion. He had an excellent year last season with the Diamondbacks and Brewers batting .310 with a .383 on base, 9 homers and 38 doubles. He's versatile enough to play second, third and short and in other economic times, would probably get a 3-year deal somewhere as a roving utility player.

    Not now, though.

    It doesn't help that he was a low priority on Boras's radar as the agent was looking to salvage the Johnny Damon contract after getting Matt Holliday signed.*

*Note: In fairness to Boras, he has underlings who handle a bulk of the grunt work in the dealings for his players; and with the high-money, high-profile player like Holliday who was going to get 10-times what Lopez would even in the best of times, of course Holliday had precedence. It's the same circumstances as a clubhouse hierarchy. The big money gets the attention and Boras's operation has to deal with the whales first.

    Now Lopez will get a deal somewhere, probably rather quickly; Boras will be left to spin doctor what happened (if he addresses it at all, which he probably won't), and worry about Damon. In the cosmic scheme of things, this firing says nothing other than Felipe Lopez decided to eschew the brainlessness and lockstep that most Boras clients tend to maintain; Lopez made the choice to think for himself, find a representative that was going to get him a job rather than one who was pushing his agenda and focusing on other, more "important" clients. It was the pragmatic move.

• Am this be an version of English?

    I tried to read Rob Neyer's posting on ESPN.com about Phil Hughes, but found myself hitting the continual mental roadblock of the indecipherable title of said posting and couldn't find my way over, under or around it. 

    Here it is: Phil Hughes Works On Changes Needs Chance

    Huh?

• Viewer Mail 2.13.2010:

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

You bet I dated myself! Those Ali-Frazier fights were amazing. I was working in NYC and went to see one of the fights at the Garden and it was the most electric atmosphere. I just haven't felt the same way about boxing since. But then I haven't gotten over Mickey Mantle either.

    I used to love boxing. I still have my mouthpiece somewhere. (Don't ask.) The thing about it is that it's always been so unrepentantly sleazy; the characters so diverse and impossible to formulate by even the most creative writers, that it was great theater.

    I have the greatest admiration for Don King because the man's an absolute genius who understood the psychology and motivation of a human being better than the canniest politician or psychiatrist. The admiration isn't because of what he did, but because of the way he did it.

    Even when he was screwing someone out of millions of dollars----whether it was influencing the outcome of a pay-per-view event or helping himself to his fighters' money----you had to tip your hat to his intelligence and boldness in doing it while not worrying about consequences; and he's a great promoter, self and otherwise.

The Brooklyn Trolley Blogger writes RE Scott Boras:

And once again Boras pulled another long-eared donkey from his hat and got the Tigers to vomit masticated millions in Damon's direction. Despite the dents he took to his armor over ARod and Manny, he just proved it's still not hard to find a sucker in a bucket filled with mudcats.
Good grief!

    We don't know that yet. The deal hasn't been announced and it might be that the offer wasn't for two years after all. That's the thing with Boras, there's no way of knowing whether he's dropping this stuff into the media on his own or if there was the framework of a deal that the Tigers are now re-thinking as they realize their circumstances (and Damon's circumstances) and decide not to go for two years. 

    It does say something about Boras's reputation and skills that a deal of more than one year is even possible given Damon's weak position.

Barry writes RE the Tigers and Johnny Damon:

If the Tigers have $14 million (or maybe a little more) to offer a player for a two year contract, then they would be better off looking to trade for a shortstop during spring training who can do the same job offensively as Damon. Detroit certainly has a few names in the hat with pitchers and outfielders that could be offered - however, I hope that Raburn & Ni are untouchable, and also Ramirez and Wells to see if they are major league quality players first. I would be happy to give the young fellows a chance if a deal is not able to be made. Batting order - 1. Rayburn LF, 2. Ordonez DH, 3. Cabrera 1B, 4. Guillen SS, 5. Inge 3B, 6. Avila C, 7. Well & Ramirez RF, 8. Jackson CF, 9. Sizemore 2B.

    The could make a move on Felipe Lopez at short, but they seem committed to using the no-hit, great glove Adam Everett. They could use a bat in the corner outfield spot more than they need a shortstop.

    Damon's offense is pretty substantial, so I don't know what shortstop would be available for what the Tigers have left on the farm. With the way they'd gutted the system in recent years, such a move would be unwise. The Tigers chances at contention this year are shaky at best and making desperation trades would be a big mistake. Signing Damon would be a far better move than any trade because all he's costing is money.

• Johnny Damon's offers:

    Almost as soon as I hit publish on yesterday's posting going on about how Johnny Damon's prospects were dim at best (sort of like the perception of Johnny's mental capacity), it started floating around the internets that the Tigers owner Mike Ilich had approved a 2-year, $14 million deal for Damon.

    Rotoworld (grain of salt, anyone?) did what they usually do in taking something they heard whispered and flung it against the wall as fact just in case it happened to be true, then backtracked when it wasn't official as if it never happened in the first place----FantasySP Portal; Rotoworld.com. All of this is rampant speculation right now and Scott Boras's operation may be behind a vast chunk of it.

    On some level, it says something about Boras's reputation that it was believed that someone would be so stupid as to give Johnny Damon----with no negotiating power and nothing to bargain with----a 2-year contract. The latest is that there is no deal in place; the White Sox weren't involved with Damon aside from casting a line into the water; and the Tigers offer is for 1-year and $7 million----ESPN Story. 

    On another level though, there's always the hovering spectre of the "one idiotic owner" upon whom Boras has made the chunk of his living over his career. Was it so stunning when the (for now) inaccurate reports of a 2-year deal were zipping along the Wi-Fi airwaves like something out of Tron? Even a businessman as intelligent as Mike Ilich had to be to amass his wealth with crappy Americanized pizza-pizza, recent history has shown that he's relied too heavily on his baseball people and approved a series of contracts that, to be kind, can be described as prohibitive; to be honest, they can be considered deranged. 

    Because of the money the fading and aging Tigers still owe Nate Robertson ($10 million); Jeremy Bonderman ($12.5 million); Miguel Cabrera ($126 million); Carlos Guillen ($26 million); Dontrelle Willis ($12 million); and Magglio Ordonez ($18 million), they were forced to deal the young and affordable Curtus Granderson and Edwin Jackson to get younger and begin a retooling. Granderson and Jackson were the only players/contracts for whom they were actually going to get something of value.

    Now, the best they can do is wait for those heinous contracts to expire and hope they can compete with what they have as they incorporate the youngsters Scott Sizemore; Max Scherzer; Daniel Schlereth; and Austin Jackson into regular roles. They made the right move by not throwing more bad money at a mid-30s player in Placido Polanco. While the club would've been hard-pressed to contend this year with their current roster, they weren't going to fall to the purgatory of the Royals/Pirates. They'd have been okay this year either way and Johnny Damon isn't going to make the difference between 77 wins and also-ran status or 86 wins and possibly Wild Card contention. 

    With that in mind, along with the non-existent prospects for Damon aside from the lowball offers from the Braves and Rays, why would Ilich have approved a 2-year deal? At most, I'd have approved a 1-year deal with an option and the total would not have approached the speculated $15 million. No way.

    It's insanity if the Tigers go that high on Damon, but of course, it's not totally out of the realm of possibility because there's always----always----someone ready to do something crazy. 

    I suggested yesterday that Damon needed a miracle to get anything close to the money he turned down from the Yankees; for a while, it appeared as if he'd save some face and get a deal in that vicinity; now, it's a question; and I'm quitting with the speculation because as cynical and pragmatic as I am, evidently even I can't count on the wealth-creating intelligence and economic climate preventing seemingly smart people from jumping headfirst into the empty pool.

• Royals to try Kyle Farnsworth as a starter:

    There's been endless laughter about the Royals giving Kyle Farnsworth a look as a starter, but I suggested it as recently as two years ago for the simple reason that he gives up so many homers as a reliever; is so notoriously shaky; and still has that electric fastball that there's no point in continuing to use him in a role that isn't working. Trying a new tactic is a worthwhile gamble because there's nothing left to lose.

    The caveat of "how much worse can he be as a starter" isn't particularly nice; nor is it a ringing endorsement for the player, but why not? He's big; he's mean; and when he came to the big leagues with the Cubs, he was a starter and was quite good occasionally----1999 Gamelogs. He was a serviceable starter in the minors as well. 

    What I would do with Farnsworth is tell him to pace himself as a starter; dial back on the fastball ever-so-slightly; worry about control and hitting spots. 94 on the radar gun with control is more important as a starter than 100 as a reliever and his penchant for allowing homers wouldn't be as catastrophic. In fact, as long as they're solo shots, who cares? 

    Could he be a good starter?

    Probably not.

    But could he be a back-of-the-rotation pitcher who'd give 160 innings or so and be of use?

    Absolutely.

    In looking at the Royals current back-end of the rotation, Farnsworth would be just as good as Brian Bannister. That says more about Bannister than it does about Farnsworth, but they're paying Farnsworth $4.5 million this season and have a club option for $5.25 million in 2011. If he makes the transition, wouldn't that be a great value? 

    It's the smart move. It might even work.

• Viewer Mail 2.12.2010:

Joe at Statistician Magician writes RE the NBA:

There is a lot more to the NBA sinking then just the financial aspect...

    I cannot stand basketball.

Jeff (Street Boss) at Red State Blue State writes RE David Wright and Johnny Damon:

Lowering the wall out there is going to cause Wright to have MVP numbers? Personally, I thought Wright looked sorta lost at the plate last year and it was obvious that he was buying into all the hype around that cavernous new home. Sure, I see him bouncing back this season, but at an MVP type level? I don't see it.

Damon (and other aging post-prime superstars under the direction of Boras) would do himself good by firing his agent. I'm just sayin'... anyone who screws me out of that much money ain't gonna be under my employ. Believe that.

    That's exactly the point with Wright. It was as if he was the platoon leader watching all of his troops falling one-by-one in an unfamiliar land with no explanation other than act of God punishing them for sins that they didn't even get to enjoy while committing. With Jose Reyes back healthy, Jason Bay and eventually Carlos Beltran behind him, and a new perspective on the park----even if it's only mental----Wright will rebound into the player he was prior to 2009.

    I'm still holding out hope that the Mets will wise up and name him captain of the team sometime in spring training. He deserves it and he's the unofficial captain of the team anyway. I'm also hoping that if and when they do it, Wright doesn't trip, fall and break his nose on the way up to the podium to accept the honorific. Baby steps, baby steps.....

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

Boxing hasn't been the same for me since the Ali-Frazier fights. Watching Tyson was like watching a street brawl.

    There's something entertaining about a street brawl and as sad as it was, Tyson's downfall was an inevitable tale of arrogance and apathy. You dated yourself with the Ali-Frazier reference, Jane. I admire that.

Braves Fan in LA writes RE Tom Glavine:

About Glavine retiring and taking a job with the Braves.... This is like having 3 GM's in one Front Office counting Wren, and Schuerholz. Glavine will be a stud in the front office, but he will be great to fill in for Chip Caray(scoot on over fella). I see our new GM coming after Wren. The other great thing is Tony Demacio (Glavine's scout who signed him, and Chipper) is 2nd in command under Scouting Director, Kurt Kemp, the privilege to learn even more about the Braves in the front office.

    I get the impression that this is similar to Greg Maddux joining the Cubs front office and for Glavine to get a feel for the job and see if he'd like to seriously pursue it over broadcasting, which was widely expected to be his future.

    Glavine will probably be more of an observer/sounding board than a power-broker to start. As well-spoken and smart as Glavine is, we don't know about his talent recognition skills; that will be proved or disproved with time. Between he and Maddux, I'd think that Glavine would be more willing to put in the hours and deal with the aggravation of being the organizational front man.

• The limited options for Johnny Damon:

    The Braves have reportedly offered Johnny Damon a 1-year deal that's for as little as a $2 million base salary with another $2 million in deferred money. The options for Damon have dwindled so rapidly that he's either going to have to take a lowball deal; hope for a miracle; or sit out and wait. There's no chance now that the promises and demands of agent Scott Boras will be met and Damon's trust in his agent has cost him a lot of money and may cost him a job in 2010.

    Of the three options, the best one remains a miracle that's unlikely to happen. That miracle would be the Rays managing to find some poor, brainless soul (maybe they should keep calling the Royals GM Dayton Moore) to take Pat Burrell and his $9 million salary for 2010. Then they could use that money to sign Damon, but the chances of that happening are non-existent.

    So for Damon and Boras, it's a matter of saving face. I'm sure Damon would be somewhat embarrassed by turning down so much money from the Yankees and winding up with the Braves offer, but it wouldn't be as pronounced as the humiliation for Boras as he demanded so much guaranteed money----money that any fool could see wasn't available----and saw his client reduced to a 1-year deal for a pittance in comparison.

    Ably assisted by his unthinking client, Boras made this mess. Now, the player has to either sit out or take the short money that's offered. Damon can handle the ridicule; can Boras? And will that affect him allowing his client to take the best deal offered so he can play? We'll know soon enough. In his career, Damon's shown no ability to think on his own to do what's best for himself and his family; there's no reason to believe he's going to start now.

• Carlos Delgado may retire:

    It's surprising that a team like the Mariners hasn't made a serious move on Delgado as a DH option. Their season is likely to come down to the lack of production they're going to deal with from having used sentimentality rather than reality in signing Ken Griffey Jr. for another year. (They actually should've signed Jim Thome.)

    With Delgado, it's clear he's not going to be able to play in the National League. Supposedly he's completely immobile at first base; so he's going to have to DH somewhere. The issue with Delgado is similar to that of Damon----how much is pride going to influence him in his choosing whether or not to play?

    Delgado has to be realistic. At his age (38 in June); and coming off of a torn hip labrum, he'll have to take a very low base salary rife with incentives. My guess is that Delgado can still hit even if he's gotten off to a slow start in Puerto Rico. His bat will be able to help someone in 2010 if he chooses to play.

• One of the best sports moments.....EVER:

    Today is the anniversary of one of the most memorable sports moments in my lifetime----Buster Douglas coming off the canvas to knockout Mike Tyson in what was probably the biggest upset in boxing history.

    I was 18 and had just gotten off work the day after the fight; I had no clue what had happened. I walked into the house, glanced at the NY Daily News sitting on the table and went into my room.

    I stopped dead in my tracks.

    Waitaminute.

    I walked back into the kitchen, looked at the headline again.

    BUSTED: TYSON KO'd in 10th.

    Huh?!?

    I walked into the living room and said to my father, "Mike Tyson lost?!?"

    He started laughing.

    This wasn't just the upset to end all upsets; it was inconceivable that a journeyman boxer like Douglas, who'd quit in his only previous title shot, would KO the seemingly invincible Tyson. But it happened.

    Douglas, with a world of boxing talent and lacking the killer instinct to be a truly vicious, great boxer, put it all together for that one night and----aside from the one gaffe that Tyson exploited in the 8th round with a lightning fast, reactionary uppercut---was flawless.

    The nuances of what goes on in the boxing ring are easily missed, but if you watch the sequence of punches that led to the knockout, you see that Douglas slapped Tyson's glove out of the way just as he was firing the brutal uppercut that sent Tyson's head snapping into another dimension. Douglas then fired a a left, right, left combination, the final punch being a chopping blow that sent Tyson flying backwards, his mouthpiece flying into the air. Tyson stumbled to his feet, but the fight was over and it was the clearest indicator that the Tyson monster was coming apart.

    The downward spiral had begun soon after his greatest performance in the ring----a 91-second dispatching of Michael Spinks in June 1988----but no one saw this coming. Incompetence in his camp; apathy; and arrogance pulled apart the Tyson construct and the Douglas KO was only a symptom of the fall.

    Everything about the night was historic in boxing. The magnitude of the upset; the stunned disbelief on the part of the announcers (Jim Lampley sounded like he forgot Douglas's name at the knockout blow); and the way the story neatly encapsulated Tyson's stumble from grace much like the drunken stagger Tyson did right after the fight.

    Of course, like most fairy tales, the Douglas Cinderella story ended the next fall when he looked fat and disinterested---nothing like the trim and focused champion he was vs Tyson----and got knocked out by Evander Holyfield. But for that one night, he was the king. 

    Here's the clip of the knockout; a sports moment never to be forgotten. By me anyway.

• Viewer Mail 2.11.2010:

Gabriel (Capo) writes RE parity:

Stupidity won't be cured by parity, granted, but maybe by restructuring the way the contracts are made the teams would have a better chance of keeping a franchise player (see Lincecum, Tim) and competing more often. It always comes to how big a deal Pujols and Mauer are going to get, and how big a hometown discount they're going to give, instead of focusing in the holes. Big contracts are detrimental to the organizations (see Wells, Vernon), and I think limiting them would give the teams more room to correct their mistakes and rebuild faster.

    Even if there was a salary cap, teams would still find ways to waste money. The Blue Jays had a budget, but they laid out that money on Wells. (I have to say that it's becoming clearer that former GM J.P. Ricciardi, for all his mistakes, was forced to sign Wells to that deal and wouldn't have done it on his own.)

    Pujols and Mauer aren't cash whores as Alex Rodriguez has been. ARod wanted his money; that's how he wound up in Texas. There's being a businessman as Mark Teixeira has been in wanting every penny he can get; and being a money whore. I really do prefer seeing teams like the Marlins scrimping, saving and finding players off the scrapheap and managing to compete. It also helps that the Marlins don't use a set of principles/stat zombie tenets in coming to their conclusions.

    You're right about teams being able to keep their stars if there was a finite amount of money available; but never underestimate a front office's ability to be stupid. They'd figure out a way to screw up badly whether there's a cap or not.

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

David Wright must be salivating at the thought of the stadium's new CF wall. The pitchers? Not so much.

    Wright's going to have a big comeback year with MVP numbers.

Joe at Statistician Magician writes RE the salary cap:

"Logic would dictate that if money was the final factor, then the Yankees and Red Sox would be in the World Series every year without exception regardless of variables."

No, it would have them in the playoffs every year. The Yankees missed the playoffs once this decade. The Red Sox made it more often than they didn't.

And doesn't the Twins payroll somewhat reflect what they actually make from *baseball?* Why should they have to invest money from other things back into their team when the Yankees and Red Sox make way more money from actually selling tickets and all that good stuff?

As far as clutch? ARod wasn't clutch at all in the playoffs, seemingly, until this season. Then all of a sudden he tears it up. No one builds there team around the perception that a guy is "clutch." That would be stupid.

    The Red Sox used to spend tons of money and screw up every year pre-Theo Epstein/John Henry. Look at the Mets; the Tigers; the Orioles of the early part of the decade. You can't spend your way out all the time. 

    As for the "clutch" argument, are you really going to sit there and dispute the fact that players like Dave Henderson, Jim Leyritz, Lenny Dykstra, John Smoltz and Reggie Jackson came up big in the playoffs? When others like Dave Winfield----a great player----fell flat on his face?

    If I needed a player for the stretch run and I had a choice between one who had slightly better production, but had faltered in the post-season; and another who had the resume for making things happen like the above-mentioned players, I take the player who's been "clutch" every single time.

David writes RE parity and the salary cap:

I'm going to play devils advocate to Joe for a minute even though he makes a lot of valid points. Let's step away from the NFL comparison and look at the NBA. They have one of the lowest caps in sports and Stern is considering lowering it even more. Yet with all that said, the NBA has a system where two teams consistently dominate and make the playoffs every single year - The Lakers and the Celtics. Small market teams have that even playing ground, and if you go over the cap, you are charged equally, which heavily discourages the richer teams from doing so. So where does the cap help this sport? Not anywhere if you ask me. In fact the NBA is sinking because of it. Baseball doesn't need a cap, and the Yankees are just one team that shows the downside of having it. Prince makes the best point in all of this: If Boston and New York are the highest paid teams (which they are) then why are the playoffs such a mixed bag every year. It's why I love baseball.

    The NBA system has the ability to pay much more to keep their stars than other, more financially powerful teams can. I remember when the Lakers signed Shaquille O'Neal and they'd cleared a load of money to make it possible to get him. It's a big risk to do that if you don't wind up with the player. 

    As long as there's a salary cap, there are going to be smart people who find a way to stickhandle their way around it as the NFL did with up-front bonuses right after their cap was implemented. 

    In addition to that, as history has proven, there aren't a bunch of dumber people running organizations than you'll regularly find in baseball; and that's part of the charm. 

John Seal writes RE Willy Taveras and the A's:

Um, I got nuthin.

Oh, wait, In Billy We Trust!

    Yah. Good luck with that. 

    Actually, I came up with a pretty clever #fakebillybeanequote on Twitter yesterday that summed up the Taveras episode quite well:

I saw Willy Taveras in the window and hadda have him. Then I got him home, changed my mind and drowned him.

    Harsh? Maybe. 

    Funny? Meh.

    Apropos? Absolutely. 

    Hang in there John, it's starting to look like Billy's gonna be gone by the end of the year. The David Forst-era is set to begin. 

• More creative math and talent recognition from Billy Beane:

    Um. Okay.

    Let's see if I understand this correctly. 

    The Athletics traded Aaron Miles and a player to be named later to the Reds for Willy Taveras and Adam Rosales----then immediately designated Taveras for assignment automatically placing themselves on the hook for the difference between the contracts of Miles and Taveras ($1.3 million now and $900,000 when someone picks Taveras up); and all of this was so the A's could get their hands on Rosales. Rosales, about to turn 27, is yet another mediocre/backup infielder; and the A's certainly don't have enough of those. 

    Rosales has some pop (he's hit as many as 18 homers in the minors); some speed and extra base hit potential; and he's gotten on base at a good clip in the minors; but is he someone who was worth the extra money the Athletics are paying to acquire him and Taveras and to dump Taveras immediately? They couldn't find a similar player to a career minor leaguer like Rosales who couldn't crack the moderately weak Reds lineup, especially as a shortstop, where the Reds had a gaping hole?

    Last week, when the A's traded for Taveras, I was prepared to unleash on Beane (again) for another bizarre betrayal of the Moneyball tenets he so avidly advocated in the fantasy tale. Prepared as I was to suggest another new innovation such as eliminating an infield position to place Taveras in right center and Coco Crisp in left center to prevent any hits at all, I was still under the impression that there was a reason for the deal. Trading for and releasing a player to take his salary requires an endgame; but was Adam Rosales that endgame?

    It's not as if he's 22; he's going to be 27. Is there truly an expectation that he's going to be more than what he is and what he's been in his career? Could Rosales be a useful player? More useful than Aaron Miles? Miles is a journeyman utility player who was horrific last season. Of course Rosales could be of more use. Miles is what he is as a big league player by now; but the days of Beane simply doing whatever he wants and receiving the pass of, "well, he must know what he's doing" are over.

    It's time to look at what he does with the same scrutiny that GMs who don't have the accolades and supposed brilliance that Beane does; and this deal is the latest in the long line of confusing decisions he's made.

• The Mets lower the center field wall at Citi Field:

    The Mets are lowering the height of the center field wall at Citi Field from 16 feet to 8 feet. As much as the club claims that it's more cosmetic than anything else (they want people to be able to see the red apple when it pops up after a Mets home run), obviously this was done to help David Wright regain some of his lost power.

    I can still see the look on Wright's face from a game last season as he hit a rocket toward center field that would've been a homer just about anywhere else and pursed his lips with a slight twitch of disgust as he cruised into second base with a double. Wright's power base is right and right center and if the Mets can lower the fences to help him hit a few more homers and feel more comfortable in his home park, so much the better. 

•  Viewer Mail 2.10.2010:

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

The salary cap discussion continues to intrigue me. Yes, the Yankees have the most money. But aren't the Twins a so-called small market team? And don't they find a way to compete every single year?

    The Twins are a middle market team by choice. Their ownership is far richer than the Steinbrenners; but they allocate a certain amount of money for the baseball team and that's it; the team management has to work within those parameters. The money excuse is and always will be used to come up with a justification for losing. The Twins and Marlins have proven that winning is possible while spending a reasonable amount of money.

Jeff (Street Boss) at Red State Blue State writes RE the Twins:

The Twins' payroll is at $96 million for 2010...AND COUNTING. How is that small market?

"No salary cap is going to cure stupidity...

Exactly. For those who do not believe, please see Detroit Lions, Cleveland Browns, KC Chiefs, etc.

They all sucked and they've sucked for a looooooooooong time.

    Believe me when I tell you, even if there was a salary cap, the teams with inept people running them will still be in their current positions. Everything begins and ends with competent or incompetent management. Period.

Joe at Statistician Magician writes RE a salary cap:

There are always exceptions to this. Why does everyone keep mentioning those exceptions? Even with a salary cap, there will be teams that are bad year in and year out because they suck at evaluating. The Lions, for example. But if the Royals had $200 million to spend wouldn't they have a much, much better team than they do now? The answer is an obvious, YES! They could cover up mistakes and afford better players. Plus, the older I have gotten, the more I DO realize that the playoffs aren't really a great indicator of who the best team actually was. Meaning that we cannot really correlate World Series winners with parity, as much as we can correlate playoff appearances.

    So, it's an "exception" when teams with lower payrolls contend and/or make the playoffs, but it's not an exception when the Yankees or Red Sox win their titles with their bloated payrolls? Logic would dictate that if money was the final factor, then the Yankees and Red Sox would be in the World Series every year without exception regardless of variables. 

    Even if a team like the Royals had access to that kind of money to spend on players, who's to say they'd actually do it? As I said earlier, the Twins have the money to have at least as massive a payroll as the Yankees and Red Sox, but they don't because of the way they run things.

    Define the "best" team. Are you speaking statistically? Or is it the team that forms a cohesive unit as more than a sum of their statistical parts and gets performances from their players where other teams see their stars falter? A salary cap is not going to change reality of stupidity and clutch play.

    For those that diminish clutch play, take a look at the likes of Mariano Rivera; Derek Jeter; John Smoltz; Josh Beckett; Jim Leyritz and Lenny Dykstra. It takes more than being the "best" to succeed in the playoffs and there's no way to quantify it by salary, numbers or whatever; performance is the decisive factor. The above-mentioned players have performed when it's counted.

• Cliff Lee has minor foot surgery:
  

    New Mariners 1A pitcher Cliff Lee had surgery on his left foot to remove a bone spur and will be out for 2-3 weeks to start spring training----Yahoo Story. 

    Is this a big deal? Probably not. Although it should be kept in mind that it's Lee's left foot, which is his pushing leg----imperative to a pitcher----and is nothing to dismiss as a matter of course. He was cut on; he's the key to the Mariners aggressive off-season makeover; and if they want to contend they need a healthy and zoned Cliff Lee from the beginning of the season to the end. He has had injury problems in his past. 

    It was also smart for them to get this done before it lingered into the season.

    On another note, similarly to a few weeks ago when the Mariners made the questionable signing of Eric Byrnes, is why isn't this surgery the butt of jokes it would've been had it been to Jason Bay of the Mets? 

    Like the Byrnes signing----almost identical in risk/reward/meaninglessness to the Mets acquiring Gary Matthews Jr.----the Mariners are given a pass because their GM, Jack Zduriencik is being feted far and wide as an emerging genius after one year on the job and a series of deep strike attempts and seemingly smart decisions; while the Mets are a convenient punchline no matter what they do. What would be said right now if the Mets new left fielder required a minor procedure in which he wouldn't miss any substantial time? 

    Lee's injury rap sheet is, in fact, far more extensive than that of the historically durable Bay; but if it was Bay who needed the procedure and the Mets who were the employer, imagine the hilarity that would be going on today all across the newspapers, blogs and the internets. I say this being a big fan of Cliff Lee and thinking that the Phillies made a ghastly mistake in trading him, but fair is fair. 

    I cannot take hypocrisy and cheap shots out of convenience. Zduriencik is the genius of the day; Mets GM Omar Minaya is wearing baseball's dunce cap; but the majority of the ridicule comes from verbal gaffes and circumstances beyond Minaya's control. Zduriencik's "genius" emanates from a solid, but occasionally questionable off-season (Chone Figgins? $36 million?) and that the Mariners jumped from 61 wins to 85, but it's easily lost that the 2008 Mariners team was one that lost 100 games instead of simply being a 100-loss team. (Sort of the like the 92-loss, 2009 Mets.) There's a difference. The 2008 Mariners roster was not a 100-game loser. Everything went wrong in 2008 and they self-corrected in 2009 and it had very little to do with anything Zduriencik did.

    These implications of brilliance and lovestruck articles being written in tribute to Zduriencik are as premature as the Moneyball lust that greeted Billy Beane and his acolytes following the success of the book. We're seeing the final act playing out with that farce now. Will the same thing happen to Zduriencik? Or will he live up to the hype? And will anyone admit they jumped the gun or move the goalposts to suit their own ends?

    In sports, brilliance is fleeting and easily abandoned; sadly, hypocrisy and self-justifications aren't. Let's see how it all plays out.

• The unretired number:

    The White Sox have unretired Hall of Famer Luis Aparicio's uniform number 11 so veteran Omar Vizquel could wear it in tribute----ESPN Story. I'm ambivalent on this matter----who cares?----but I find it interesting that there's little controversy over this decision when there was a massive uproar in 1993 when Barry Bonds signed with the Giants and Willie Mays (Bonds's Godfather!) was willing to allow his #24 to be retired so Bonds could wear it.

    Is there that much of a difference between the circumstances aside from the fact that Luis Aparicio is not Willie Mays and that Omar Vizquel is not reviled like Barry Bonds?

    Mays was okay with it back then (my guess is that he couldn't care less one way or the other; these things are more important to the fans and the organizations than they are to the players); and Aparicio doesn't seem bothered either. It's not as if the numbers were being given to scrubs. Bonds is Bonds and could (even before PEDs) be mentioned in the stratosphere with Mays; and Vizquel is about an identical player to Aparicio. I'm just wondering why no one's protesting now as they did with Mays/Bonds.

• Viewer Mail 2.9.2010:

Gabriel (Capo) writes RE parity:

I have to disagree with you in the parity issue. Will it be really all terrible if the Royals somehow found their way to the Wild Card spot in a season with a salary cap? I find the NFL's goal of having every team play at least one Super Bowl an excellent milestone in order to have a top-quality league. Every team playing at least one World Series it's a goal that I find not only reasonably, but a must. NFL's goal is reachable by clauses on the contracts, a general code of conduct, a well-placed salary cap and educated players and coaches. It all works for the best of the league, and still allows for laughingstocks, like the Lions. And even them have the belief that someday, by working hard, they will reach the top. It'll make the MLB a better league, and baseball a better sport.

    The problem with the Royals is that they're run so ineptly that even if there was some level playing field, their current leadership still wouldn't be able to compete with the Twins, Red Sox or Angels.

    The NFL is such a different animal than baseball because as Jerry Jones once smartly put it (for real and I'm paraphrasing from memory); "Football isn't like baseball where you have to replace one $5 million second baseman with another $5 million second baseman; you can have stars at key positions, stick inexpensive fill-ins around them and still win". Football is also more of a team sport where they all need each other to succeed; baseball is an individual sport within a team concept.

    Because baseball's union is so strong and the careers and health are more predictable, they get the guaranteed contracts that NFL players don't. The ending of a big league ballplayer's career due to an on-field collision is so rare that it's not even a consideration; in the NFL, it can happen at any moment even on the sideline if someone is in the wrong place, wrong time.

    Right now, MLB teams refusing to spend vast amounts of money on middling players as they have in the past is as close as we're ever going to get to a salary cap; and you can bet that once the economy improves, this financial sanity will be forgotten as if it never happened at all.

Jane Heller at Confessions of a She-Fan writes RE Lumbergh aka Steve Phillips:

I don't hope Steve Phillips gets another job in broadcasting and it has nothing to do with his bad behavior. I just can't stand his "analysis." He should have gone to rehab for repeating himself in the booth.

    Maybe I've been jaded by listening to Joe Morgan for all these years and when someone was finally in the booth to challenge his contradictions (sometimes three within the same sentence, literally), I was hypnotized; but I don't think so. I liked Lumbergh as a broadcaster; I thought he added something to the booth.

Joe at Statistician Magician writes re why he wants a salary cap:

Because I like there to be a level playing field in sports. I don't like chasing the Yankees financially, and MUCH MORE importantly, I don't think it is fair that small market teams have to chase us. There are small market teams that simply suck at building a winner. But the starting point is unfair to teams like the Royals and Pirates to begin with. 

    Would the playing field be level? Did the Yankees massive payroll win them a title between 2001 and 2008? Look at the teams that did win championships in those intervening years: the Diamondbacks; the Angels; the Marlins; the Red Sox (twice); the White Sox; the Cardinals; and the Phillies. The only ones that could be considered big market/big spenders during that time are the Red Sox. The rest were working within a middling-to-slightly above budget. 

    For you, as a Red Sox fan, to continue complaining about "chasing the Yankees financially" is a typical complaint from your organization when they don't get their way. The Red Sox aren't in the Yankees financial stratosphere? Are you serious? They miss out on Mark Teixeira and Jose Contreras? Well, we need a salary cap then. Waaah.

    Most of the small market teams aren't even bothering to chase the Yankees and Red Sox; the Pirates don't have a plan; they don't have a clue. As I said earlier about the Royals, their struggles have more to do with being stupid than with a lack of funds. The difference between the Twins and Marlins and these other clubs is that the Twins and Marlins don't whine about it; nor are they looking to formulate a myth of brilliance where none exists as the Athletics and Billy Beane have. No salary cap is going to cure stupidity, which is a rampant condition in many baseball front offices.

• The Steve Phillips apology tour begins:

    The Bill Lumbergh of the baseball world, Steve Phillips, went on the Today Show with Matt Lauer this morning and apologized for his sexual indiscretions that cost him the high-profile job as part of the three-man booth on ESPN's Sunday Night Baseball telecast----EPSN Story and you can find the interview on the Today Show website. In the interview, Phillips was quoted as saying that he "wanted to take ownership" for what he did; that he was "responsible"; etc. He also pulled a Mark McGwire-type answer in that he wasn't going to talk about the past. 

    All of this is fine. With Phillips, it's hard to tell when he's being "candid Steve" or "corporate-spin Steve". Only Phillips can know whether he's really contrite; whether he's really changed; whether he's going to be able to rebuild his life and career and keep control of himself when he gets another job.

    Phillips looked remarkably uncomfortable in the interview and I don't think it was an act nor was it an attempt to get people to feel sorry for him. But it's been a recurring part of Phillips's career as he nearly blew his job as the GM of the New York Mets when he was accused of sexual harassment for involvement with a Port St. Lucie Mets employee. The Mets let Phillips have a leave of absence and then return.

    To be so self-destructive that a man who'd risen to the GM seat of a big league club would put that job in jeopardy for a fling is either an ingrained issue or unbelievable arrogance. There are only 30 of those high-profile jobs available, and while some teams hire people who are the products of a fairy tale (see DePodesta, Paul); or maintain them for reasons no one can comprehend (see Moore, Dayton), to jump off the cliff and essentially fire oneself from that job with off-the-field behaviors is indicative of a deeper problem than just horniness and opportunity. 

    To compound the mistake by doing it again is inexplicable by any logic. Phillips went into broadcasting after the Mets fired him and was great at it. He'd again risen to a position----like the GM job----that many aspire to, yet few have the ability to achieve. Sitting in the booth on Sunday Night's ESPN game of the week and taking Joe Morgan to school on a regular basis had Phillips on the verge of superstardom, and he blew it because he couldn't control himself when a woman----any woman----was in the general vicinity. 

    I can totally get someone following his heart and doing something that may seem bewildering to many to reach that higher feeling. There's no shame in falling in love with someone else. It happens. But for Phillips to blow it all for little more than an a meaningless fling and ruin his career? Again? This wasn't love; it was a man who couldn't control himself.

    Now he's gone through the program to treat his issue and is back in the public eye trying to rehabilitate his image and career. Someone will hire Phillips as a broadcaster, presumably with an iron-clad, zero-tolerance policy in his contract; and I think he should get another job. It's neither my business nor my concern if a person is conducting himself in such a way away from his job as long as: A) he's not letting it affect his work; and B) isn't doing anything socially unacceptable or deviant.

    The one question about Phillips isn't if he's going to get another job, but will he do this again? You'd think the answer is obviously no, but he's screwed up so many times, how can anyone believe that he's under control until after the fact?

• Viewer Mail 2.8.2010:

Jeff (Street Boss) at Red State Blue State writes RE arbitration:

I heard Sean Casey tell his arbitration story and according to the Mayor, it's a very brutal process. He came out very hurt. Of course, Casey was a good player, but not great (certainly not in the same league with Lincecum anyway) but still. He said they (the Reds) called him fat, slow, a base-clogger, etc and that it really hurt his feelings, but not as much as when they started ripping into his baseball acumen. That's what really hurt him.

Of course, that's Sean Casey. Again, not Timmeh.

And I gotta agree with you on the parity issue. I think baseball is just right having the same core of good teams, a strong mix of competitive teams and then your few scrapheap teams (Royals, Pirates) at the rear. The worst thing that could happen is that it becomes the NBA, where there are three good teams then 27 .500 and below teams. That would be awful.

    I still think the MLB Network is a waste of time. Most of the personalities are there because of nepotism and a phony persona with behind the scenes hypocrisy and stupidity; or are former players. I think people get far better stuff from me. But that's just me.

    With the arbitration hearings, I understand a guy being hurt by the proceedings, but these guys need to grow up a little. You have to realize that most big league players have been told how "special" they are; or are "different" from the time they're 12-years-old; and they get away with actions other, less prominent players wouldn't because of that perceived superiority. When they're faced with reality (and honestly, Casey was slow and a baseclogger; and his career arc is, um, dubious...) they can't take it.

    It's the same thing when a player goes someplace for money and little else and stands in front of the media with the song-and-dance about how <blank> was where he wanted to be from the start. It's business. Perhaps the proceedings would be better if the player wasn't there to begin with. That's what agents are supposedly for----to protect the player from such things; but I'd like my players to be a little more mentally tough to take a little criticism and answer back on the field rather than cry about it.

    With the parity, it's somehow sweeter when a team like the Yankees or Red Sox are bounced by a team like the Marlins. Things are fine the way they are; those calling for a salary cap are complaining because they're not smart enough to find ways to win as the Marlins and Twins do or have some Moneyball/stat-style agenda. Period.

Joe at Statistician Magician writes RE the salary cap:

Even with a salary cap, which would promote even more parity, there would still be organizations experiencing sustained success. Kind of like the Patriots, Colts, Eagles, etc, in the NFL. So not everyone would win between 75 and 85 games. There would still be teams that win more than 90 and lose more than 90 because they are terrible evaluators.

But I am all for some kind of cap to cut out the truly ridiculous spending.

    I'm not in favor of the supposed National Pastime limiting spending. You don't hear the Marlins complaining about their circumstances; but the Red Sox regularly do even though they're in the same stratosphere as the Yankees when it comes to paying out salaries. The money issue can be circumvented by being smart. 

    You've never answered my question of why you care so much about how much money teams spend; in fact, nobody's answered it; and don't say that it's because they filter the raised prices down to the consumer because they'd charge the same prices for food, tickets and memorabilia regardless of the team payroll. Why do you care?

• Would parity be good for the game?

    Ignoring the obvious insanity of the projections of the 2010 season that have come out so far, there is something interesting to talk about when looking at PECOTA and CHONE.

    There's a large number of teams that are expected to finish at or around the .500 mark. This could be seen as a positive aspect of revenue sharing that the playing field is relatively even despite there not being a salary cap; or it could be seen as not being in the tradition of baseball in which the survival of the fittest doesn't necessarily have to rely on money to compete and win.

    Would baseball be better with the teams so closely bunched together? On the one hand, it would be a greater gauge on the intelligence of various front offices and managers. Whereas Moneyball created the illusion that statistics were the future of the game and that "undervalued" attributes were the key to winning within a budget, there is a basis for examining how teams with lesser payrolls are able to continuously compete.

    The Marlins and the Twins for example have a way of running their organizations that has proven to be notoriously successful in comparison to both the giant market/big spenders like the Yankees, Red Sox and Mets; and also when pitted against the Moneyball advocates the A's, Padres and Blue Jays. Because they relied on their wits, scouting and stats, the Marlins and Twins have been able to compete on an annual basis. Logic says that once parity is so ingrained in the fabric of the game, those teams will still be able to put a decent team on the field. 

    But would it be as entertaining with that level playing field? 

    Isn't it more interesting when a team like the 2003 Yankees gets bounced in the World Series by the upstart Marlins? Or when the Cubs and Mets spend relentlessly to fill their holes and still wind up far behind teams that don't have the desire nor the wherewithal to spend in the same way?

    Of course when a team like the Yankees has the manpower and money to cover for their sins, they don't have to worry about a Joe Girardi gaffe being the difference between a playoff spot and third place; but if the playing field as affected by everyone being closely matched, the strategies of the men in charge would be all the more important.

    Personally, I prefer the game the way it is now. The Pirates are the Pirates not because they don't have any money, but because they're stupid. The Marlins and Twins win within a budget because of the systems they have in place; the Yankees win because they have endless cash at their disposal; they do some smart things and they treat their players right. The Red Sox use stats and scouting techniques, are aggressive and spend to cover their mistakes. The Angels have a set of core principles from which they never deviate on and off the field.

    Would the game be better if every team ended somewhere between 77-85 and 84-78 and no one could predict what was going to happen because it would always end up coming down to the last weekend of the season for everyone? I don't think so.

• The Tim Lincecum arbitration hearing:

    I mentioned former Athletics owner Charlie Finley the other day and whenever I think of the arbitration process, I think of him. There was an HBO special about the Athletics and Raiders of the 1970s and the A's players that spoke always had great stories about the way Finley went through the arbitration process. 

    Paraphrasing from memory, Finley would rip into Reggie Jackson saying things like: "We played in 162 games last year, and he was only in 159 of them; there were three days where we didn't have someone of his caliber." Or: "Yeah, he hit 36 homers last year; and yeah, he drove in 109; but he's a superstar. He's supposed to hit 30; and he's supposed to drive in 100. So, in reality, he only hit 6; and he only drove in 9. I just don't know what to do..."

    With Sal Bando, Finley would say: "Balls go by him on the left; balls go by him on the right; balls go through his legs...." and Bando said his wife had to grab hold of him to keep him from leaping across the table to get his hands around Finley's throat.

    It's with this in mind that I'm wondering what the Giants are going to say about Tim Lincecum to prevent the arbiter from awarding him the $13 million that the twice-running NL Cy Young Award winner is asking for. The Giants have countered with $8 million.

    That's a big gap.

    The Giants are undoubtedly going to mention his arrest for carrying pot, but that's not going to be a big issue. I'm wondering if the Giants are going to break out statistics to wonder whether Lincecum is going to be able to keep up his level of work in 2010 and beyond; if they're going to bring up his quirky exercise regimen and diminutive stature as a reason that he's not worth the money; and if this is going to affect the negotiations for a long-term deal in the future.

    One of the criticisms of arbitration is that it pits the player against the team in an adversarial atmosphere that can linger no matter who wins. Finley didn't care about that when he went into the hearing room; but one has to believe that the Giants won't want to go too far in criticizing one of the best pitchers in baseball. Both sides would be better off coming to an agreement before it gets too vicious to repair.

• Viewer Mail 2.7.2010:

Jane Heller at Confessions of a She-Fan writes RE Jarrod Washburn and Johnny Damon:

Washburn said he might retire? Didn't Damon say the same thing before he started campaigning to be a Tiger?

    I think the big difference is that Damon can still play; he can still help someone. With Washburn, his stuff isn't there and if he did sign with someone, it would have to be short-term and inexpensive as a back-of-the-rotation starter. Damon is going to have to take a short-term/short-money deal because he's not going to get a multi-year contract; nor is he going to get a Roger Clemens-style deal to return at mid-season. Those days are over.

    Interestingly, both are represented by Scott Boras. I'm wondering what Boras can be saying to Washburn to assuage his aggravation over sitting out this long with much of anything coming his way. 

• Jarrod Washburn may retire:

    Yeah?

    So?

    As if it's a veiled threat or something, there's word that if Jarrod Washburn doesn't get a lucrative enough deal (or a deal) to join the Mariners or Twins and be close to his Wisconsin home, he may simply retire.

    Okay.

    And?

    To me, these types of statements coming from someone like Washburn strike me as announcements for people who like listening to announcements; for people who watch the Weather Channel for its entertainment value; or Sean Hannity fans----they need some background noise and it makes no difference what the noise is or what it's really saying.

    Washburn, who's lucky to even received the job offers he has considering how atrocious he was after being traded to the Tigers, wasn't that good before the trade; he's a journeyman who, for some unfathomable reason, attracted great interest in the past couple of years from teams that you'd think would know better (the Yankees for example). 

    Aside from brief spurts in 2008 and 2009 that made his numbers look somewhat respectable for the Mariners, he's been eminently hiitable; relentlessly below mediocrity. To be even more blunt about it, you'd do just as well piecing together his rotation spot with other journeyman and a decent Triple A pitcher. 

    Washburn's uninterested in pitching for the Mets? Who wanted him for the Mets to begin with? The Mets sure didn't. 

    The entire episode of "I may just retire" strikes me as an attempt to garner attention from a player that deserves no attention other than in an emergency or if said team is getting him for nothing.

    Did he want a farewell tour?

    Here's a farewell: Lotsa luck.

    There.

• Twins sign Orlando Hudson to a 1-year, $5 million contract:

    Orlando Hudson; Orlando Cabrera; Washburn and a couple of other remaining free agents are prime examples of what would've happened had Charlie Finley's brilliant idea been taken as something other than the rantings of a lunatic and implemented.

    Right before the free agency floodgates opened, Finley floated the suggestion to make every player in baseball a free agent at the end of every year.

    The other, less ruthless and cheap owners scoffed at the thought. What would the fans of the Orioles for example have thought of the possibility of losing Jim Palmer after one of his Cy Young Award years if George Steinbrenner offered him a bank truck? But Finley's idea would've flooded the market, forced players to take lesser offers to get their deals done early; or sat out and waited hoping to get lucky by January or February----as players are doing now.

    Of course the Palmer/Tom Seaver/Reggie Jackson-level stars would've gotten paid; but the lower echelon player who had use----the Sal Bando-type----would've been in the exact same situation that is now an annual rite of passage for Orlando Hudson.

    Instead of getting the 3-4 year deal Hudson would've gotten in the past, he's sat out until late in the winter and taken what he could get after sifting through middling offers from a couple of teams. This is what would've happened to a large chunk of players if there was no such thing as a long-term contract. It's only now that the owners are realizing----due to the economy and not any increased intelligence on their own----that if they hold their fire and don't panic, they can fill their holes just as effectively with the medium range player at a far lesser price than if they jump into free agency with both feet.

• More computerized projections:

    Here's CHONE's projections for the coming season----link.

    I do suppose anything's possible and as long as they're not altered every other day as PECOTA has taken to doing, then whatever regarding pre-season predictions. But if you check the link, you see that they have five teams going 81-81. Five. That's not that much different from having ten teams go 81-81; or fifteen teams go 81-81. Now that would be parity. 

    Nor do I understand how a team like the Indians, who won 67 games last year and this winter have signed Mike Redmond and no one else, can rise to 81 wins.

    And the White Sox? Under .500?  With that pitching staff?

    Obviously any prediction can technically be accurate, but when the computers and whatever else they use to come to the various formulations spit the final result, doesn't anyone think that it might be a little weird to have five teams break even? Think about it with a little realism rather than numbers; then answer the question.

• Viewer Mail 2.6.2010:

Jane Heller at Confessions of a She-Fan writes RE Chien-Ming Wang:

I wonder if the Dodgers will sign Wang once he's cleared to pitch. Torre always liked him.

    The Dodgers have been so frozen in place because of the McCourt divorce that they've done next to nothing. I'm sure Torre would love to have Wang and probably two of the other starting pitchers who sat on the market for ages, but they're sitting around in limbo. Whether they'll offer a lucrative enough deal for Wang is the question and at this point, I'd say they won't.

John Seal writes two comments RE the Athletics and PECOTA:

Holy moly! The A's are now back in a two-way tie for second place in the PECOTA standings! DON'T CALL IT A COMEBACK!

Yeah, two comments in one day, sorry...but I caught an editing mistake in your Hot Stove Losers column. You wrote that the A's were 'going to take advantage of the market by focusing on defense', but mistakenly typed 'Jack Cust' instead of 'Coco Crisp'. Then you wrote that 'they needed run-producing bats' and mistakenly typed 'Coco Crisp' in place of 'Jack Cust' (plus I think you also hit delete after typing 'Kevin Kouzmanoff'). Maybe hire a proof reader to catch these things before they go live...I'm available at competitive rates!

    PECOTA's mid-winter pennant race is getting so exciting that we may need a computerized pennant race show to keep track of all the computerized fluctuations. I can't even picture the anarchy going on in the zombie hives.

    Dunno what's liable to happen in the event of a blackout. Would that be the 1994 for the stat zombie? 

    Sorry about the perceived mistakes, John; but as you know, my final word stays as is once I press "PUBLISH". Billy Beane's genius mind may work too fast for my hands to keep up.

    We missed out last week on another level. I was ready to unleash if the A's had held onto Willy Taveras; think how great the A's defense would be if he used his innovative mind to stick Taveras in right center and Crisp in left center. The only balls that would be uncaught would be the ones flying over the fence; but they traded for him just to dump him. GENIUS!!!!!

• In some cases, there's an excuse:

    And said excuse is a natural amount of stupidity that cannot be quantified (see the Pirates of Pittsburgh or shall we call them the Pirates of Penzance? The Pittsburgh Pirates are more of a comic opera if you ask me.)

    Apart from that, the number of teams that had bad/bewildering winters is long and remarkably entertaining. 

    Let's take a look:

Detroit Tigers

    They dumped the salary of Curtis Granderson because after three years of diminishing returns on his overpaid roster, owner Mike Ilich closed the vault and they had little else to bargain with; no one's taking the contracts of Dontrelle Willis, Magglio Ordonez, Jeremy Bonderman, Carlos Guillen or Nate Robertson.

    They dealt Edwin Jackson in that same deal after he pitched brilliantly for them over the first half and ran out of gas due to overwork; the main player they got in return from the Diamondbacks----Max Scherzer----won't be as good as Jackson; and they acquired lefty Daniel Schlereth, in whom I'm not impressed. The key to that entire trade for the Tigers will be the development of center fielder Austin Jackson, who they got from the Yankees.

    Despite their claims to the contrary, this wasn't a winter of replenishing a depleted farm system; it was a winter of dumping as much money as they could because of remaining bad contracts.

Cleveland Indians

    Their big move this winter was signing veteran backup catcher Mike Redmond.

    Yah.

Kansas City Royals

    Collecting journeyman outfielders is always a good idea, especially when the outfield is probably one of the few areas where the Royals didn't need much help (at least in comparison to their other trouble-spots).

    Rick Ankiel? Scott Podsednik? 

    For what?

    Ankiel is feast or famine and can't catch up to a really good fastball; Podsednik is useful for a contending club, but not as an everyday player and definitely not in center field; they've been said to be willing to deal David DeJesus.

    Why? I dunno.

    They signed Jason Kendall to be their everyday catcher which will only hinder their weak offense even more.

    Where's the bullpen help they desperately needed?

    This organization is a nightmare and the moves they made are befitting an expansion team, except an expansion team has an excuse----they're an expansion team!

    What's the Royals' excuse apart from being the Royals?

    Actually, that might be enough of an excuse. Never mind.

Texas Rangers

    The trade of Kevin Millwood brought back the talented, but recovering from injury reliever Chris Ray. They signed Rich Harden who's always hurt; and Vladimir Guerrero, who can still hit, but isn't the wrecking crew he once was. The Rangers had better hope their young pitching is ready or else they're going to fall back from their 87-win 2009.

Oakland Athletics

    Let's see if I understand this correctly. They're going to take advantage of the market by focusing on defense...and they kept Jack Cust. 

    They needed run-producing bats...and they signed Coco Crisp and pursued Marco Scutaro.

    They needed a veteran anchor for the starting rotation who could gobble innings and stay healthy...and they spent $10 million on Ben Sheets. 

    If this is the endgame of Billy Beane's Moneyball-crafted genius, maybe I don't want to be called a genius after all.

Philadelphia Phillies

    Arrogance breeds stupidity. 

    The Roy Halladay for Cliff Lee swap was a lateral/backwards move. 

    They needed bullpen help and signed Jose Contreras. They needed rotation help and didn't get it. They were in the market for a third baseman and signed Placido Polanco and shifted him from second base. They exercised Jimmy Rollins's contract option for no reason other than they didn't want to hear his mouth, which they're going to hear anyway. Lucrative contract extensions were doled on Carlos Ruiz and Shane Victorino and they've gutted the farm system. 

    The only positive thing they did to improve the club this winter was to sign Ross Gload; aside from that, the winter of 2009-2010 will be seen as having sown the seeds of the Phillies downfall. 

Atlanta Braves

    All they needed to become legitimate World Series contenders was a power bat for left field or first base. That's it. 

    Instead, they traded Javier Vazquez----who had value----for Melky Cabrera.

    They let Adam LaRoche----who never wanted to leave Atlanta either time he was jettisoned, first by trade to the Pirates, and now by indifference and/or apathy----sign with the Diamondbacks for one year and $7 million; and they rolled the dice on the oft-injured Troy Glaus to play first base.

    In the span of two days, they went from a National League favorite to a team with many positive attributes and drastic holes. Nice work.

Chicago Cubs

    They're sticking their fingers in the dam as other leaks spring and it's going to burst sooner rather than later.

    They got Milton Bradley off the team, but had to take Carlos Silva from the Mariners to do it. Signing Marlon Byrd and are trying to pass that off as a major improvement is the height of fantasy; and they brought in the returning from injury Xavier Nady. Their contract situations are still a mess; they're old and fading and a major collapse is possible.

    All they did this winter was make things worse in the long-and-short-term.

Milwaukee Brewers

    Doug Davis is a solid enough pickup for the back of the rotation on a short-term deal; but $30 million for Randy Wolf?

    Trading J.J. Hardy for Carlos Gomez was a salary dump and they've done little to make themselves more than an 81-81 team at best.

Cincinnati Reds

    Getting Orlando Cabrera on a one-year deal was a good move, but they needed a power bat for the outfield and didn't get it. No one appears to know exactly what the Reds are----specifically the Reds. 

    Are they trying to clear the high-priced pitchers Aaron Harang, Bronson Arroyo and Francisco Cordero? Are they trying to contend in a moderately weak division? Going back to mid-season 2009 when they traded for Scott Rolen, their decisions were curious if not odd.

    They traded for Aaron Miles. Yay.

    The one big win could (and I think will) be the signing of Cuban free agent Aroldis Chapman, but it's hard to see him helping them this year.

Houston Astros

    A three-year contract for Brandon Lyon? I'm curious, what good is a closer (especially one who can't close) on a team that won't have all that many games to close to begin with? It's like the tree falling in the woods...

    The trade for Matt Lindstrom was a good move; but they needed rotation help more than relief pitching and all they did was sign Brett Myers.

    They need to do a housecleaning, starting with GM Ed Wade.

Pittsburgh Pirates

    The Pirates, being the Pirates, do things that defy logic even to a lunatic. 

    Non-tendering Matt Capps was ridiculous; they could've traded him for something, anything. They have someone who should receive an opportunity to close in Joel Hanrahan...and signed Octavio Dotel. They overpaid for Brendan Donnelly; signed Ryan Church and traded for Akinori Iwamura.

    To quote Bill Lumbergh, "Grrrreaaaaattttt."

Los Angeles Dodgers

    Frozen in place because of the divorce proceedings of the McCourts, the Dodgers haven't done much of anything. They kept Vicente Padilla; signed Jamey Carroll and Reed Johnson. Big deal.

    They needed help for their rotation and didn't get it and I'm still waiting for an answer (aside from convenience of comedy and piling on) as to why the Mets have been such a target for ridicule and the Dodgers----whose off-season has in fact been worse----haven't received similar abuse.

Colorado Rockies

    Does Huston Street warrant being called a closer if, more often than not, he's closing the game for the opposing team? 

    Street was signed to a lucrative contract extension for 3-years and $22.5 million. Bad idea.

    They needed starting pitching and haven't gotten it. Hoping Jeff Francis is healthy is about all they have to hang their hats on.

San Diego Padres

    The Padres are collecting Hairstons. 

    We won't be able to get a gauge on new GM Jed Hoyer until he actually does something. He's been rightfully stringent in his demands for Adrian Gonzalez in a trade. Jon Garland's signing is a non-entity for a team that's going to lose 95 games.

• Viewer Mail 2.5.2010:

Jeff (Street Boss) at Red State Blue State writes RE Tim Lincecum:

Hope you can squeeze in your thoughts on the Lincecum arbitration situation too next post.

The debate is running wild...

    I'll get to Timmeh in the coming days. The Prince is somewhat fried for a multitude of reasons...

Jane Heller at Confessions of a She-Fan writes RE the Drywall guy:

How to Hang Drywall is a pretty funny name for a blog.

    But it strangely serves its purpose. You have to respect someone who sees a hole and exploits it like an old-school Emmitt Smith. More than we can say for PECOTA.

Gabriel (Capo) writes RE Kevin Gregg:

Actually, I was in shock of learning of Gregg's possible signing. Then I went nuts with the completion of the deal. I have faith on the Jays' GM, but...it's Gregg.

That's what I get for mocking my brother's Cubs.

    At least the Blue Jays aren't signing him with the thought that he'll be able to close for a contender as the Cubs had done when they traded for him. I'm not sure of the thought-process in signing Gregg either. The Blue Jays have other options to close and it's not as if they're getting Gregg all that cheaply.

    $2.75 million?

    For Kevin Gregg?

    With my damaged elbow, I could walk people and give up game-ending homers for a quarter of the salary if that's what they're in the market for.

    I'm ready to rock. Or to be rocked. Whichever.

• Hindsight will be the determining factor:

    Certain teams have made moves this winter that could pay off big or blow up right in their faces. With viable reasons for making their decisions----on paper anyway----these teams can't be called "winners" or "losers" this off-season.

    Let's take a look at those whose moves have been considered alternatively smart in some circles and bewildering in others:

Boston Red Sox

    We'll know relatively quickly whether this newfound emphasis on defense is going to pay off for the Red Sox.

    I don't think it will, but others are under the impression that their pitching will benefit so greatly from the acquisitions of Mike Cameron and Adrian Beltre and the shifting of Jacoby Ellsbury to left field that the lack of offense will be a moot point. 

    Rather than stand behind what they've done, a large chunk of the Red Sox off-season has been spent on a smear campaign aimed at Jason Bay and by defending (pardon the pun) this defense-first agenda.

    Methinks they doth protest too much.

    There's a lot of worry in Boston that this isn't going to work. John Lackey will slide into the middle/front of the rotation and I have questions about his durability after two straight seasons that were cut short with injuries. The Angels didn't seem all that bothered to let him leave.

    This whole thing could explode by May and cause a panic in Red Sox Nation.

Toronto Blue Jays

    I was teetering on giving the Blue Jays a win for their off-season based on little more than that they finally fired GM J.P. Ricciardi.

    New GM Alex Anthopolous managed to get something of value for Roy Halladay even though he had no choice but to trade him and very easily could have ended up with nearly nothing as the Twins did in their trade of Johan Santana.

    Getting Brandon Morrow for journeyman reliever Brandon League will go down as a huge win; and they also pried top prospect Brett Wallace from the Athletics for Michael Taylor, who had a brief stopover after coming over from the Phillies in the Halladay trade. (I'd have kept Taylor myself.) They also got formerly "untouchable" Phillies pitching prospect Kyle Drabek. 

    Why the Blue Jays are on the verge of signing Kevin Gregg is beyond me.

Chicago White Sox

    GM Kenny Williams made his moves for 2010 in mid-season 2009 as he took Alex Rios off the Blue Jays hands and traded for Jake Peavy. This winter, he signed J.J. Putz to be the set-up man for Bobby Jenks; and acquired Juan Pierre from the Dodgers.

Los Angeles Angels

    They let Lackey walk without much struggle and signed Joel Pineiro to replace him in the rotation, something I see as an upgrade. I appear to be in the minority in this belief.

    The Angels got Gary Matthews Jr. off the club and are paying his salary to do it; they smartly didn't overpay to keep Chone Figgins. Signing Fernando Rodney shores up the bullpen and they let the fading Vladimir Guerrero leave. The Angels winter could well come down to whether Brandon Wood can handle third base and put up something close to the power numbers he did in the minors.

Florida Marlins

    It was a different off-season for the Marlins than usual as they didn't dump any of their larger salaried players for a chunk of another club's farm system. In years past, not only would Dan Uggla have been moved, but so too would Cody Ross, Jorge Cantu and possibly even Josh Johnson. Now, it appears that all will be returning.

    I'm not sure if this is a positive.

    The Marlins had a habit of giving hungry youngsters a chance to play and reloading by trading their veterans----and it's worked. Because of baseball's insistence that the Marlins spend some of their revenue sharing money on players rather than pocketing it, they locked Johnson up and are keeping their other players for now. I'd prefer business as usual for the Marlins for the simple reason that it's worked.

New York Mets

    Everyone's winter whipping post/punching bag has been ridiculed endlessly for their seeming ineptitude. But was the winter that terrible for the Mets if you ignore the convenience of attacking them? They signed Jason Bay to bolster the lineup at a price close to what was their initial offer; and they refused to get into a bidding war for mediocrity in the starting rotation.

    They never had a shot at John Lackey; didn't want to overpay for Joel Pineiro and after those two, the dropoff/risk in starting pitching made it senseless to be aggressive. Were they supposed to surpass the Athletics guarantee of $10 million for the oft-injured Ben Sheets? No one wants Erik Bedard or Jarrod Washburn; and is Jon Garland an upgrade over what the Mets already have if John Maine is healthy and Oliver Perez can find the plate? 

    If healthy, Kelvim Escobar could be a big sleeper addition to the bullpen.

Washington Nationals

    The Nationals have done a lot of "stuff", but it remains to be seen whether that "stuff" will be seen as making a difference one way or the other. Jason Marquis? Miguel Batista? Brian Bruney? Matt Capps? For the Nationals?

    People are expecting a drastic improvement, but is it hard to improve on 103 losses? They look like an expansion team that made some noise in the winter and might improve by 10-12 games. You know what that means for a team that lost 100 games the previous year?

    They've refurbished their ramshackle dwelling----but it's still ramshackle.

San Francisco Giants

    The Giants still have the starting pitching that carried them to 88 wins last season; they've improved the offense (it wouldn't have been that hard to do) by signing Mark DeRosa and Aubrey Huff; and brought back Bengie Molina because Buster Posey isn't ready defensively.

    If they get something close to the pitching they had in 2009, their offense should be improved enough to win 3-5 more games; and in the NL West, that could be enough for a playoff spot. The Giants are more than the sum of their statistical parts.

    Tomorrow, the Hot Stove losers.

• The Blue Jays need Kevin Gregg why?

    Unless they're signing him with the intention of trading him for something at mid-season (and I don't know who'd want him), what are the Blue Jays going to do with Kevin Gregg?

    The Blue Jays have a load of young arms for their starting rotation and presumably, several of those that don't make it as a part of the fivesome can be shifted to the bullpen as a way of getting them acclimated to the big leagues. Such a move could be useful as they work to reconstruct Brandon Morrow, who I've always seen as a long term starter. (I'd give Morrow every chance to make the rotation.) 

    With Jason Frasor, Josh Roenicke and Jeremy Accardo out there, what are they going  to do with Gregg? They wouldn't really need Gregg if Gregg was actually any good! He's not good. He gives up too many homers (13 last season); and he's wild. The Blue Jays need to let their young pitchers pitch as they retool. Gregg hinders that and is a waste of time and money.

• Viewer Mail 2.4.2010:

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

Chicken Pecota! Why not? Some mushrooms, wine, lemon butter....and a whole lot of crow.

    There are plenty of crows in my neighborhood too. Maybe I need to do a little hunting.

Anonymous writes: Hey. I don't normally leave comments, but I just wanted to say thanks for the great information. I have a blog too, though
I don't write as good as you do, but if you want to check it out here it is. Thanks again and have a great day!

How To Hang Drywall

    A) At least Anonymous knows his place in recognizing the fact that he doesn't write as "good" as I do; and B) the difference between Anonymous's link and PECOTA is that someone might actually find some use in the instructions of how to hang drywall.

• Fate helps those who help themselves:

    Things have ground to a halt in the free agent market and there's not much left out there to begin with and since I have no interest in spending precious words discussing how terrible Kevin Gregg is, it's time for the assessment of the Hot Stove winners for 2009-2010. The incompletes/non winners or losers will be discussed tomorrow; the losers on Friday----unless something monumental happens.

    Monumental.

    Here are the winners in no particular order:

New York Yankees

    Even though they parted ways with the World Series MVP Hideki Matsui and let Johnny Damon walk, they acquired Curtis Granderson and Javier Vazquez for almost nothing; and signed Nick Johnson at a bargain rate. The Yankees didn't need much to maintain their position, but they filled all of their needs smartly and inexpensively. 

Baltimore Orioles

    The Orioles got Kevin Millwood for nothing to front the rotation and mentor their impressive load of young pitching; signed veteran bats Miguel Tejada and Garrett Atkins to short-term deals; and shored up the bullpen with Mike Gonzalez. The Orioles could legitimately loiter around .500 with a little luck and maturation from their young pitching. 

Minnesota Twins

    They acquired a power bat at shortstop in J.J. Hardy for the immature Carlos Gomez; they signed Jim Thome for a very low salary and Thome can still hit; and most importantly, they're clearing the one major issue they had as they enter their new ballpark, Target Field----Joe Mauer's contract. 

    I repeatedly said that Mauer was going nowhere; he was never going to leave the Twins and the Twins wouldn't let him leave. Still there were people who thought the Red Sox, Yankees or whomever had a shot at Mauer. Now he's closing in on a contract extension to stay. He was not leaving. Ever. 

 Seattle Mariners

    I'm still not as prepared as others are to call GM Jack Zduriencik a "genius" (we've seen it before with Billy Beane----how's that going?) but he is clearly smart and gutsy.

    I was iffy on the signing of Chone Figgins to a $36 million contract; they shouldn't have brought Ken Griffey Jr back since it was done on sentiment rather than anything baseball-related; but all of the off-season questions were rendered meaningless when Cliff Lee fell into the Mariners lap thanks to the Phillies stupidity. They also agreed to a long-term extension with Felix Hernandez to lock him up.

St. Louis Cardinals

    They kept manager Tony La Russa, which was imperative; and retained Matt Holliday, which was their main off-season player priority not just to protect Albert Pujols in the lineup, but to send the message that they were trying to win. Pujols's contract is up after 2011 and they have to prepare to pay to keep him even if he's willing to give a hometown discount, which he undoubtedly will. They lost Joel Pineiro, but Brad Penny can slide into the rotation neatly if he's healthy.

Arizona Diamondbacks

    Many disliked the trade they made sending a load of young pitching away for Edwin Jackson and Ian Kennedy. Everyone knows by now how unimpressed I am with Kennedy, but I think Jackson looked fantastic last season with the Tigers (he had a Dave Stewart-thing going on) before early season overwork sapped his stamina late in the season. He could be a big winner in Arizona and I wasn't all that thrilled with the pitchers they dealt away to get Jackson. Max Scherzer should be a closer and Daniel Schlereth didn't do it for me. The Diamondbacks also signed Adam LaRoche to a very team-friendly, 1-year, $7 million deal. 

• Viewer Mail 2.3.2010:

Isaac at A Baseball Thing writes RE stat zombies:

Well, maybe I haven't looked on the right places, but I dont recall ever reading at stat sites like Fangraphs any admission of being wrong, and I have seen that here multiple times, so Onix really needs to get his facts straight.

    Not to worry. I think he's still looking for his testicles after Beeeebzy got done with him. Then I kicked them across the room for good measure. 

    You've never seen them admit that they're wrong for a simple reason----they don't admit they're wrong. Some people see it as a sign of weakness if they acknowledge a mistake or inaccuracy when it is, in fact, the opposite. It wasn't the fault of the computer projections or their faulty theories, it was that the players didn't live up to their part of the bargain; it makes perfect sense. 

John Seal writes RE PECOTA:

Watching the PECOTA projections is almost as much fun as the baseball season itself. A few days ago, my A's were winning the West...now they've slumped to third. They just need to put together a good 7 or 8 game winning streak, and they can be on top again!

    I didn't realize that their "objective reality" is as much of a floating bit of random chaos as it is for non-stat zombies.

    You may be onto something, John. They've slipped up more than they know. We're discovering their endgame. I think they'd prefer to have a season without said season actually being played. That would complete the journey from a languid baseball game on a warm spring day in the sunshine to what they want it to be. Rather than an enjoyable diversion, it would be spent in a dank basement surrounded by people that look like like Nate Silver. Personally, I'd rather look at girls; but that's just me.

Jeff (Street Boss) at Red State Blue State writes RE J.J. Putz and the stat zombies:

Ya know, Putz looks like the type of guy who'd stab me in the back. I'm not surprised by his comments at all -- true or false.

As for the FoxNews/StatZombie retort... I think the line about Halladay sums it up nicely. Now, if you will excuse me, much maniacal cackling is required.

    For all we know he's telling the truth about the non-physical and the elbow pain, but if I had to guess, I'd say Putz told the Mets he was okay to pitch; and if he wasn't, that's on him. 

Gabriel (Capo) writes RE Putz:

I'm sorry about my absence, Boss.

The comments made by Putz remind me of a situation here in the Mexican Football League. Some guy by the name of Carmona was caught doping while he was playing on the National team, got suspended, then caught again in a local major league team. He was suspended for life, and now he sued the Mexican Football Federation, threatening to talk about all the dirt inside the national team. I believe Putz it's just angry at the Mets because he does not have a big contract to close, and it's February already.

    No need to apologize. It was handled.

    Every team has these dirty little secrets lingering around. The main difference is that the Mets have become such a running joke that: A) reporters are sniffing around for more stuff to use to hammer them; and B) February is generally a slow news cycle in baseball, so they have to find things about which to write because they haven't the talent, imagination or work ethic to come up with something original. (See Olney, Buster.)

    Can't think of anything for a column? Let's attack the Mets. It's gone from accurate questioning about the team's protocol; to cheap shots. Now it's ludicrous.

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

The other day a guy called me the Sarah Palin of bloggers because my posts were so clueless. I was going to take it as an insult, but maybe he meant I should run for President. Hmm.

    The only way you'd be on a level with Sarah Palin is if you got a full lobotomy.

Joe at Statistician Magician writes RE PECOTA:

Paul,

Pecota beat you. It wouldn't be such a big deal if you didn't thrash it every chance you get. But when you are defeated, you instead attack "stat zombies" rather than admit that you were wrong. You made a few good predictions, it made a few good predictions. It won in the end.

And sure, It didn't know that Halladay might asked to be traded. But that isn't what it is trying to do. You think anyone solely uses Pecota? Anywhere? They would be so far behind if they relied on nothing else but a computer projection system. And to rely on only one? That would be even dumber.

    I'm not sure what's more disturbing Joe, that you sat there and calculated the numbers of who was "right" and "wrong" and who "beat" whom; or that you've been reading me for this long and still don't get it.

    For someone who tries so desperately to go beneath the surface (dismissing wins/losses; batting average; etc), you use the baseline result when it conveniences you. Counting up the accuracy or inaccuracy of a random prediction like the number of wins a team is going to have at the end of a long season is the same thing as saying that a pitcher who won 18 games is automatically a top pitcher without examining how he got those wins.

    Did PECOTA "beat" me with their win totals? Probably. Did they actually "beat" me? You tell me. I had four playoff teams right; they had three. I had teams doing well which PECOTA had at the bottom of their respective divisions; I nailed the Rays because what happened to them was impossible to quantify when looking at the numerical factors. If you take the full predictions in the context I intended them, then I "won".

    As loathe as you are to admit it, there are people who rely on the insipid PECOTA projections as their lifeblood because turning their back on the faulty system would send their entire lives into disarray as they might actually have to do some thinking and analysis.

    Plugging numbers into a computer program is easy; it takes no work other than typing; but is it right? It takes an analytical mind and some true knowledge about people and the game to do that and this is something the hardest of the hard core stat zombies haven't the capacity for. They're going down with the ship; they have no alternative. 

•  A recipe idea:

    I'm thinking of formulating a recipe called "CHICKEN PECOTA".

    It'll require rotting chicken; it'll be tough as shoe leather and taste like furniture polish; but a substantial number of tasters will insist that it's the best dish they've ever had because of computerized projection systems tell their tastebuds so. It's win-win.  

• J.J. Putz unloads on the Mets:

    Former Mets reliever J.J. Putz went off on a rant against his former club in an interview with a Chicago website----NY Times Story----in which he called the entire season a "mess from the very beginning" and claimed to have never even had a physical before the trade was completed. He also says that the Mets convinced him to pitch through the pain of a bone spur in his elbow.

    There are several levels to consider with this newest attack on the Mets. 

    If Putz didn't require surgery following the 2008 season, the injury couldn't have been that severe; but if he indeed went to the club with discomfort and the allusion by Putz is accurate, then there's no defense for that. In fact, it's inexplicable. 

    According to the linked article, players generally don't have physicals before trades are completed and even if Putz had taken a physical afterwards, what difference would it have made? The trade was completed; and if he said he was able to pitch through the bone spurs, then what was the club supposed to do? He was cleared to pitch in the World Baseball Classic, so one would have to assume he was healthy enough to pitch.

    The Mets truly need to take a look at their injury/medical protocol and reconsider how things are done. My question is why were there never these repeated allegations of cluelessness in 2006-2008 when the club was in contention and was one of the healthier rosters in baseball? But even with that, there's no way of defending the Mets if things were truly as disconnected as Putz says and it must be addressed.

    As for Putz, he was never happy as a Met from minute one. Had the club contended, stayed healthy and he was able to do the job he was acquired to do, it all would've been fine; but Putz wanted to close. All he did was whine privately about how he couldn't get the same buzz as a set-up man that he did as a closer. This would've been fine had he not been receiving and collecting his paycheck to do a job. If he was so badly injured that his bone spur was diminishing his velocity and control, how effective would he have been as a closer with that "buzz"? 

    Regardless of the contretemps with the club continuing like a hailstorm and the lukewarm defenses the Mets are providing for this latest media dissection of their operation, they had to perform their due diligence in acquiring a pitcher with a known medical issue, and they didn't.

    One question I have is why so many people are still ravaging the club for taking a more cautious approach toward players of questionable health after what happened last year? Did anyone really want them to outbid the Athletics for Ben Sheets with his injury rap sheet? Or make a move on Erik Bedard, who no one else wants either? Or Chien-Ming Wang, who's a worthwhile risk, but may not be ready to pitch in the majors until June? 

    What do they want? It's either/or. Roll the dice on an injured player and hope he's healthy; or play it safe, bide their time and see what happens as the season moves along. It's open season and there are few stories to write about. Nothing to write about? Let's dig for some more stuff on the Mets. 

• Viewer Mail 2.2.2010:

Onix writes RE PECOTA/Projection Systems and me:

2009 projections report:

PECOTA - avg. difference of 6 wins per team, 6 of 30 predictions off by 10+ wins

Prince - avg. difference of 8 wins per team, 12 of 30 predictions off by 10+ wins

Do you really want to hammer on PECOTA for its lack of accuracy?


I enjoy this site. It's like FoxNews of baseball sites. You keep harping on the one thing you get right (Marlins) and ignoring the many many many things you do not.

    I was prepared to fire back myself, but my troops beat me to the punch. Here they come. Duck.

Jane Heller at Confessions of a She-Fan writes:

The Fox News of blogs. Hmm. I was going to say something about Ian Kennedy, but I need to ponder Onix's comment first.

Jeff (Street Boss) at Red State Blue State writes:

Doesn't PECOTA harp on their big win too (the 2008 Rays)?

If this site is like Fox News then can I be Sarah Palin? In my rendition, she will not only be attractive, but SMART too!

Beeeebzy at Pretty In Pinstripes writes: 

This Onix fella's a friggin' GENIUS. Using Stat Zombieism to counter an attack on Stat Zombies? Genius. It's like fighting fire with a TI-83 graphic calculator.
His argument blew my mind.

And comparing this site to Fox News? Genius. I bow down to him because I am not worthy. I guess that's why he felt the freedom to share his statistical expertise on this site. Since he likens it to Fox News:

"The Special Olympics is to winners as FOX News is to experts. If you show up, you are one." - Jon Stewart

Onix showed up, therefore he is an expert.

How dare you question his number-crunching skills? You infidels!
So what if the only wood he's handled in relation to baseball is the pencil he uses to punch in numbers on his calculator. SO WHAT? Does that make him less knowledgeable about the sport than those who have had years of experience playing it? NO! Logically, according to an algorithm created by Baseball Prospectus, never having played baseball makes you more knowledgeable than former baseball players by a ratio of Infinity to 1.

While you all are busy following baseball games and gaining a deeper understanding of the nature of the sport, he's in a basement somewhere figuring out the 756208525072057th digit of Pi. So how dare you question his baseball knowledge?

We should all thank God for baseball experts like Onix. Without them, we wouldn't have ESPN.

Having said all of that, I doubt that Onix will appreciate the admiration for his analysis in my comment because, sadly, sarcasm is wasted on the stupid.

    I think the message is becoming clearer that if you wanna get at me, you're gonna have to climb over a lot of people. 

    I am, of course, duty bound to retort as well. 

    The Fox News of blogs?

    Since Fox News is essentially an infomerical for the radical right of the Republican Party and I'm an entity unto myself (or a natural disaster, whichever you prefer), it's barely worthy of effort to answer such an absurd allegation. If nothing else, the fact that so many people are still under the impression that I'm a Yankee fan should be a clear testimony to my objectivity; that I've defended people for whom I have little affinity the likes of Keith Law and Rob Neyer; and that I do use statistics in coming to my own conclusions.

    Since Onix is such an avid fan of my work, one would think they he'd know that I spent a week in November on a series called "20/20 Hindsight"----here's an example----looking back on the entirety of my predictions with more in mind than simply "right" or "wrong" when it came to the club's records. Is that in the Stalin-style that is a hallmark of Fox News?

    If anything exemplified that which is Fox News, it was during Election Night coverage in 2008 when Karl Rove was still trying to twist his numbers to find a path for John McCain to win and looked crestfallen and bewildered as if he'd just been rejected for a date by a blow up doll when Brit Hume interrupted Rove's mathematical creativity by informing him that Barack Obama had just been called as the winner in Ohio, essentially ending the story.

    Rove reverted to that friendless high school loser who parlayed his alienation and inability to connect with other human beings into a lucrative and powerful career manipulating people regardless of truth or convictions. His gaping mouth, flopping comb-over and head recoiling into his neck in humiliation was reminiscent of a turtle who was searching for a place to hide. 

    Keen student of my work that you are, have I ever backtracked on any prediction? Explained away a wrong conclusion by blaming someone other than myself? Offering a specious caveat to defend myself or a fellow believer of my way of thinking? Can the stat zombies say the same?

    It's also interesting to note that PECOTA changed their projections again!!!!

    Is this going to be an everyday occurrence? Without any acknowledgement of their vacillation and self-serving alterations aside from the wimpy, "well, the numbers are floating and not static"?

    Oh.

    Thanks for that.

    What you and the other stat zombies fail to realize, understand or accept is that these are human beings you're dealing with. One of the reasons that the Padres degenerated into such a train wreck as they took Moneyball to its logical conclusion; why the Dodgers were demolished under Paul DePodesta is that you have no comprehension of anything other than what pops out of your calculators; that when you send the message that the players are merely chattel to be shuttled around and dispatched as soon as one whose OBP is a shade higher; whose number of "pitches seen" is slightly higher than his predecessor, they'll be gone.

    This is just as faulty a way to build an organization as teams like the Royals who ignore statistics entirely.

    If you want to take a look at little more than the bottom line of a number of predicted wins as PECOTA does; if you want to focus on computerized projections to "prove" or "disprove" someone's accuracy, there's no way I can argue with you. It's similar to the repeated statement that I was "lucky" in my picks of the Marlins, Rays and Giants last year to win the number of games that they did and being close to right. There's no response if you haven't actually read my book. (And that's not a sales pitch----read it or don't, I don't care.) 

    Did PECOTA mention that Roy Haladay would quietly ask to be traded, for example?

    If you want analysis based on little more than what the numbers say, then you have no use for me to begin with, so it makes little sense to read what I write unless you're looking for a reason to attack me. That's fine. I'll print the comments, respond to, and debate with anyone at any time; and most likely win on my own merits rather than with some partisan-fueled, pompous, arrogant and condescending dismissal; or a simple ignoring of reality to push forth my agenda----sort of like the way Fox News does on their "news" network.  

• Will Ian Kennedy's Fortunes Change In Arizona?

    I've never been shy in repeating (ad nauseam) about how right I was in my 2008 assessment of Ian Kennedy. Not only did I say that he was nowhere near as good as the other young Yankee starters Phil Hughes and Joba Chamberlain, I said that of the three pitchers, he was most likely to either not make the club out of spring training; or make the club, get pounded and be sent back to the minors. 

    Because Kennedy was seen to be the most "polished" of the three pitchers, he was expected to have immediate success in the big leagues. While pitchers like Hughes and Chamberlain----who have far better stuff that Kennedy----occasionally need time to bridle their more evident gifts, a pitcher who has to rely on location and movement to dominate in the minors is going to use that experience to maintain his success in the majors. 

    At least that's the theory.

    The reality is that regardless of how "polished" and "poised" a pitcher is, he has to have stuff. He has to have it. And if he doesn't have it, then he's going to get punished. As did Ian Kennedy. In addition to that simple truth, Kennedy always appeared to be a tinkerer; someone who thought too much out on the mound. Thinkers tend to not be listeners; and so it was with Kennedy as things came apart in 2008 that there was always a minor mechanical tweak; a new wrinkle on a pitch; a floating reason why he wasn't dominating as he did in the minors; something that would be remedied in his next start. You need only look at his big league performance to see the end result of said hardheadedness and fiddling.

    It wasn't just Kennedy's horrific numbers that were the major problem in 2008. It was his notorious gift for delusional self-analysis that caused veteran teammates to look at him oddly as if to say, "what's wrong with this kid?" In a clubhouse with Derek Jeter and his enforcer Jorge Posada, who'd been through the wars, there had to be an air of bewilderment that Kennedy would...not....stop.

    Veteran players don't want to hear lip from rookies to begin with; but when that rookie is getting rocked all over the place and is still finding ways to somehow justify not only his performances, but his presence in the big leagues, it's only a matter of time before everything comes crashing down. The signs were there in 2007 when he had his impressive September call up; the signs that it wasn't going to be as easy for him as it looked.

    Mediocre control pitchers cannot be walking 9 hitters in 19 innings. In the minors, hitters are going to swing at pitches that are close to the strike zone; they're going to help a pitcher out; and the penchant for making a pitcher pay for making a mistake isn't as pronounced----that's why it's the minors. Any pitcher who's relying on something other than raw power in the minors and has some feel for what he's doing on the mound is going to have success. Everyone in the minors can crush a fastball; so when there's a pitcher who's got decent command of the strike zone and a serviceable breaking pitch, he's going to have success.

    It doesn't work like that in the majors.

    Kennedy rough big league experience was a symptom to the larger problem. In the majors, the hitters aren't going  to offer at pitches as a favor, especially from a rookie; they're not going to be tricked with cuteness. They're also going to hammer mistakes.

    It's a cycle. A young pitcher tries to get the close calls he got in the minors and the umpires (not immune to a little rookie initiation to send the message as to who's in charge) don't give the close calls. Once he doesn't get the close calls and starts to throw pitches that are nearer to the heart of the plate to get strike calls, and if he doesn't have the power fastball and devastating breaking ball or changeup to make a hitter miss, he gets creamed.

    Kennedy's stuff is not that good.

    No matter how many different pitches he tries to formulate; what he conjures to unlock the "secret" to success in the big leagues, it won't happen because he doesn't have the stuff. There's no escaping from that reality.

    You may ask how I know so much about this. Well, I know about this because I was the same way!

    During my unimpressive "career" in school and on the sandlots, I suffered from similar fantasies as Kennedy. I thought I was better than I was; I was always coming up with a new pitch; I was smarter than everyone else; I didn't listen; and most importantly, I had a big flapping mouth.*

*I've changed a lot, huh?  

    Would I have been better off not trying to throw an array of pitches that included a screwball, a changeup, a split-finger, a forkball, a sinker and whatever else popped into my addled mind? Of course. A fastball and a curve are more than enough to get hitters out before getting to the higher levels.

    It's sometimes enough to get hitters out in the big leagues.

    But only if he has the "stuff". And if he listens. And keeps his mouth shut.

    Kennedy doesn't have the stuff to be anything more than a back-of-the-rotation starter at best. He doesn't listen. He's too impressed with himself and his plans and schemes to fix what's really wrong on the mound and maximize his limited abilities; and he's never going to get anything done in the majors until he learns how to do as he's told and stop making excuses for why he's getting roped all over the lot.

    It may not matter though.

    Because he doesn't have the stuff.

    A pitcher can be nursed into a semblance of success, but only if he listens. Is Ian Kennedy ready to listen? Or is it going to take someone to do as I suggested in mid-2008----and I mean this----knock him around a little bit to get it through his head that he neither knows what he's talking about, nor should he be talking about it to begin with; that he isn't going to get anywhere until he starts following orders rather than re-inventing the wheel because of what worked in the minors. 

    We'll know soon enough whether Kennedy's struggles with the Yankees taught him a lesson. Pitchers and catchers report in a couple of weeks. If Kennedy comes up with another series of pithy and clever quotes of what he plans to do with the Diamondbacks, we'll know; we'll also know the end result; and it won't be good. 

• Reds sign Orlando Cabrera to a 1-year-contract:

    A 1-year contract at $3 million for a veteran player of Orlando Cabrera's resume sounds low before looking at how things have played out. Cabrera is one of those players----like Johnny Damon and Orlando Hudson----who has use, but is trapped in a purgatory of not wanting to take a giant paycut; nor switch positions to have a job. They have a certain stature in the game to be able to be somewhat inflexible and not have it appear as if they're being divas.

    It's this rock-and-a-hard-place circumstance that has Cabrera moving to his fifth organization since 2007. He's a good player, but not someone who's in heavy demand that he'll get an immediate job during free agency. He's a "chips fall" guy. Once the main names start to come off the board, teams take a second look at him; teams that might not indulge in the free agency game as avidly as others.

    That's how Cabrera wound up with the Reds.

    Does he help them?

    There's a movement afoot to anoint the Reds as possible Wild Card contenders this year. PECOTA has them (today at least) at 81-81, which normally would mean mediocrity; but if PECOTA's accurate (yah, right!!!), that would have the Reds hovering around contention for a playoff spot late into the season. 

    I don't see it.

    They have some solid enough starting pitching, but their outfield is one of baseball's worst; they're relying on the injury-prone Scott Rolen to stay healthy and repeat his comeback year from 2009; and Joey Votto's emotional problems would concern me.

    With Cabrera, the Reds are better today than they were yesterday, but that doesn't mean they're contenders, because they're not.

• Viewer Mail 2.1.2010

Joe at Statistician Magician writes RE A Few Good Men and stats:

I know that you were quoting the movie. I haven't seen it in years, but I do remember the notorious first line.

Second, PECOTA is a tool, nothing more. It is an attempt at *something* not an attempt at *everything*

Third, something that I have noticed, is that the RIGHT statistics along with subjective analysis is the best way to approach the game of baseball. SO for example, if YOU took the time to understand things such as 'WAR' and wOBA, then you could use them, when needed or desired, rather than simply dismissing them most of the time. The point is, we all use statistics to some extent. Why not use the ones that are more accurate? Stats that take into account most facets of the game (WAR).

    Anything is an attempt at "something". We're getting existential here on PAULLEBOWITZ.COM.

    Your stat zombie is showing Joe as you're getting a little condescending and pompous and it's not flying here.

    To the best of my recollection, the only time I ever mentioned WAR in a posting was when was dragged into a Baseball Think Factory scrum that I had nothing to do with in any capacity. Aside from that, I've never even discussed it. Having never discussed it or wOBA, my admittedly rudimentary math/logic skills will yield the result that I've never dismissed either of them.

    Yes, I do know what they are and I do understand them. 

    I make my judgments how I make my judgments, whether you like them or not.

    PECOTA is a tool. Conveniently, the dogmatic creators and proponents of PECOTA are tools as well. It all fits perfectly as far as I'm concerned. 

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

I agree that the Mets did not need a wholesale make-over. They had really good players who got injured last year. Lots of overreaction going on.

    The overreaction is partially due to a piling on effect. Some of the criticism of the club is justified, but it's gotten so far over-the-top, I don't know how any reasonable person can take it seriously anymore.

    I get the impression that there's a genuine air of optimism around the Mets inside the organization. They're almost embarrassed to express it publicly because of the endless ridicule and PTSD from the disaster of 2009, but it's there.

    Because the Phillies and Braves have weakened themselves to the degree that they have; that the Marlins are always respectable; and the Nationals, while not being anywhere close to improved to the point that others think, aren't a punching bag anymore, the implication is that this will be bad for the Mets; I don't see it that way. I see it as an opportunity because other teams will be in the same morass as the Mets leading to an easier road to contention in the division.

    The Mets are going to shock more than a few people this year. Mark my words.