The trade deadline is 4:00 PM Eastern Standard
and teams are scouring, wheeling, dealing and pleading. I'm not speculating on what might happen; go to the supposed
"insiders" for that; but I'm perfectly willing to analyze what has happened or is officially unofficial.
Let's take a look.
The
Yankees get Austin Kearns from the Indians and are going to get Lance Berkman from the Astros.
I'm not sure I understand the Kearns acquisition as anything more than "he's available and I'll take him".
He's an okay player; isn't making any money; has some pop in his bat; is having a solid season; can play all three outfield
positions; and they only gave up a player to be named later which is presumably not much of a prospect. He's not someone who
is going to hurt the club, but it's a "meh, whatever" move. The Yankees have had luck with obscure names for whom
the initial reaction was a shrug, but they've arrived and contributed. Why not?
With Berkman, they're surrendering very little----RHP Mark Melancon and INF
Jimmy Paredes----to get a power, switch-hitting bat who's inexpensive and is only a rental. He's had an off year for him (.245
batting average; 13 homers); but he's still got an on base percentage of .372 and the smell of the pennant race, a chance
at a ring and upcoming free agency will spur a renaissance.
The Yankees hole at DH wouldn't have hurt them too terribly moving forward, but again, he was
available; the Yankees can afford him; the risk is non-existent; and he'll hit. Plus getting Berkman keeps him away from the
Rays and White Sox (to whom Berkman rejected a trade earlier in the day).
This won't preclude the Yankees from doing something else like getting a starting pitcher or a
reliever.
The Indians are willing to
sell anything and everything. They signed Kearns to a minor league contract, he replenished his career after a rotten year
with the Nationals in 2009 and they got something for him; the Indians have been pretty smart in getting prospects for veterans,
so one would assume the PTBNL has some quality----a power fastball for example----that could warrant use down the line.
The Astros are clearing out the house of the last
vestiges of their run of contention from 5-15 years ago. They're paying parts of the contracts for both Roy Oswalt and Berkman
and put both loyal soldiers in great situations to try and win. They're starting over. In his brief big league trials, Melancon
has exhibited that he has no idea where the ball is going once it leaves his hand, but he's been very good in the minors and
has a strikeout fastball. Paredes is a 21-year-old infielder in A ball who has speed. The Astros are collecting players with
speed.
Time will tell with the Astros
haul from these deals. We've seen clubs try to replenish their teams with unheralded deals and be criticized and others have
been celebrated for their brilliance; both assessments have turned out completely wrong.
The Red Sox were raked for trading Jeff Bagwell....to the Astros....for
Larry Andersen in 1990, but Bagwell was a slap-hitting, right-handed batting third baseman and they had a couple of third
base prospects then that were rated higher than Bagwell. Who knew he'd develop into the power threat he became? And it's questionable
as to the *legality* of the way he did it if you catch my drift.
In retrospect, it was a bad trade for the Red Sox and a great trade for the Astros.
The "genius" Billy Beane traded Tim
Hudson to the Braves and was lauded for the deal in which he received Dan Meyer, Charles Thomas and Juan Cruz----none of whom
did anything at all for the Athletics.
Many times it's about luck; coaching; opportunity; and *other* means; or all of the above.
Immediate reaction is meaningless and arbitrary.
The White Sox acquire RHP Edwin Jackson from the Diamondbacks for RHP Daniel Hudson and LHP David Holmberg.
My admiration for White Sox GM Kenny Williams has never had as much to do with his substantial baseball
acumen and intelligence as it has with his sheer fearlessness and lack of concern about what the "experts" say.
The James Bond villain of the baseball world again
defied conventional logic by eschewing the acquisition of the bat the White Sox are believed to need and acquired the well-traveled,
but talented Jackson. In exchange for Jackson, Williams surrendered one of his top prospects in righty Daniel Hudson and lefty
David Holmberg.
Holmberg is 19 and has
been getting rocked in A ball. Hudson is 23 and pitched well in the minors, but poorly in two of his three big league starts
this season. Jackson has struggled as well, but he was pitching for a terrible team. There was talk that Jackson was only
stopping over with the White Sox as Williams was going to try to spin him off for Adam Dunn or another bat. The Nationals
were said to want Jackson----we'll see, but if the White Sox keep Jackson, it won't be a bad thing. He's a good pitcher and
is gutty and mean.
Williams is
a sharp judge of his personnel and acts quickly without fear or regret. Hudson wouldn't help the White Sox now; Jackson might
whether he's in a White Sox uniform or traded. What also has to be kept in mind is that while Hudson is 23, Jackson is about
to turn 27. This isn't a trade of a young minor leaguer for a grizzled veteran that can be ripped as trading youth for a mid-rotation
expensive luxury because Jackson is entering his prime years.
Did Williams look at the fact that Jackson is a contact pitcher and that his team is poor defensively?
That there's a chance these factors along with the power-laden American League will result in Jackson giving up a lot of hits,
runs and homers? Of course he did. But he doesn't care.
The Diamondbacks are collecting arms. Hudson can slide
into their starting rotation; he's cheap and fresh and they got him for Jackson, who was a possible----albeit unlikely----non-tender
candidate this winter; plus he's represented by Scott Boras which makes a reasonable contract extension all but impossible.
The 19-year-old Holmberg is in the same category of the young pitchers they got from the Angels in the Dan Haren trade----low
minors arms who won't be in the majors for awhile.
Another good move for both sides.
The Rays acquire RHP Chad Qualls from the Diamondbacks for
a player to be named later.
Qualls has been horrendous this season. Was it that
he was on the Diamondbacks? Was it the transition from set-up man to closer? Or was it the overwork he endured with the Astros
as a part of their superlative bullpen that has sapped his pitches of the extra movement and pop on his fastball?
He looked great against the Mets in his final appearance
with the Diamondbacks; his fastball was popping and moving. I tend to believe that the move to a contender with the Rays will
revert him back to what he was with the Astros and he won't be asked to close. He's going to be a free agent and will be motivated
to get a nice contract for next season.
It also has to be noted that Rays VP Gerry Hunsicker was Qualls's GM with the Astros and Jim Hickey his pitching coach; both
should know the difference between him having lost a lot on his stuff and if ancillary factors were affecting him negatively.
This is a great move for the Rays.
I feed on your weakness:
Joining Jon Heyman (AKA SI_JonHeyman on Twitter) in the ranks of prominent sportswriters (for places of employment rather than content or ability) is New York
Post columnist Joel Sherman (AKA JoelSherman1) as both have now....blocked me from following their tweets.
I almost feel embarrassed for them.
Almost.
The players
have thin skins? What about the writers who can't handle someone telling the truth about their inane baseball assertions and
absurd mistakes in reporting? Their answer to honest questioning of them in any way warrants a block?
It would be one thing if I was abusive; if I called them names; if
I cussed at them, but I don't. What truly spurs their fear of me isn't anything other than my point-by-point attacks on their
work----in the present and past----to exemplify that which they got wrong and refuse to acknowledge. Like the murderous creature
in Alien, I enter, wreak havoc and explode from the inside until there's little left but the dead carcass. Yes, I'm merciless,
but I'm never cheap.
Being cheap
would make me easier to dismiss.
Think about it. Joel Sherman currently has 12.221 people following his tweets. What does it say that he took the time and
effort to block me? I hadn't even noticed that he'd done it until his account was linked as having Tweeted something about
a trade and I clicked on to see what he'd said....and saw that his tweets were locked from people who aren't following him
to see.
If you're unfamiliar with
Twitter, you can block people from following you; and you can lock your tweets from being viewable by people not on Twitter
or those who aren't following you.
Sherman locked his tweets for what appears to be a brief time; he's unlocked them now, but I'm still blocked. Frankly, I couldn't
care less. His tweets----like Heyman's----provide little-to-nothing for much use as anything but entertainment and fodder
for ridicule; but a columnist from the New York Post----hardly the bastion of journalistic integrity----locked his tweets
from public viewing?!? On the eve of the MLB trading deadline to boot?!?
What does that say about him? About his reluctance to engage in debate with someone
who has something to say and the ability to debate with an organized argument and no misgivings in stating his case and admitting
he's wrong if need be.
Joel Sherman
is a cheap shot artist who clearly can't handle my fire. This is the same person who has advocated the dismissals of baseball
people with no compunction about them in the human sense; the same person who borderline slandered Art Howe when he managed
the Mets as if he was the epitome of stupidity. Was Howe a good fit for the Mets and New York? No. But did he deserve to be
ravaged so completely by the likes of Sherman who is proving to be so spineless that he has to block someone who disagrees
with him?
So immersed in his own
agenda, as recently as March of this year he played up the brilliance of Mariners GM Jack Zduriencik (I discussed this recently
and linked his insipid and ill-thought-out case) as the Mets having missed out on an "Amazin" executive----Posting July 19th.
Yeah. Amazin'. It's Amazin' that
Zduriencik has made the Mariners worse than they were when he got there.
Ignoring me doesn't make me go away. In fact, blocking me was a hugely idiotic mistake
since all it did was prove that I'm getting to him in some way; that he knows who I am and he can't deal with me and what
I do.
These little men with their "sources"
don't want to argue over issues or acknowledge the existence of a "blogger", but blocking me does just that.
If he has any shame, it should be eating away at him
right now. Do you think that's happening? I don't. If he wants to scrap, we can scrap; but it's easier to run; to write garbage
and avoid the criticism that comes with a public forum from a recognizable venue.
I have enough confidence in myself and my beliefs that I'm willing to engage
with anyone. Shouldn't similar self-belief be a prerequisite for being a baseball "expert"?
Apparently not.
The problem is that they have no answers; no reply; inadequate firepower to retort----they
won't run the risk of being publicly humiliated; but isn't it better to lose an argument than to be perceived as afraid. Running
and hiding is easier and safer.
Locked tweets? Blocking? Cowering in the corner? He calls himself a man?
It's good try, but here's a flash----no one can hide from me.
Viewer Mail 7.31.2010:
Jeff (Street Boss) at Red State Blue State writes RE Roy Oswalt and the Phillies:
Meh. Despite this Oswalt deal, I still think the Phils miss the playoffs this year.
That's 50% wishful
thinking and 50% analysis (albeit half-assed).
Hey, at least that one famed fan won't have to sell her body for
playoff tix.
I'm sticking to my pre-season call on the Phillies fading, but if the
Wild Card winds up at around 87-88 wins, they'll be within striking distance late.
I found it ludicrous that people were taking the twin events of Oswalt
getting knocked around and losing to the Nationals and J.A. Happ's solid start for the Astros as an opportunity to lambaste
the trade. It was one start for each.
What will be very interesting is if how the Phillies react to a missed post-season. The Red Sox and Yankees fans have accumulated
a sense of entitlement that has affected their team's decisionmaking process and spurred them to (over)spend at times and
make staff changes when they were unwarranted or unwise.
Sometimes I think it's easier for an organization like the Rays or Marlins----who have such an ambivalent fan base----that
they can do what they want without repercussions. The Angels fans are reasonable as well and might be willing to accept their
club's past success and give them time to retool on the fly if 2010 is indeed lost. Such is not going to be the case with
the---ahem----demanding (let's be kind) fans in Philadelphia.
There's good chance that the overmatched Ruben Amaro Jr. will trade and spend his way out of trouble
and only succeed in accelerating their demise.
Jane Heller at Confessions of a She-Fan writes RE the Phillies, Roy Halladay, Cole Hamels and Oswalt:
The
trio of Halladay, Oswalt and Hamels make the Phillies very formidable, no matter what their other weaknesses are. I'd be
scaaaared if I were in that league.
With that bullpen and the dogfight just to make the
playoffs, the Phillies are going to need to push their top three starters harder than a club with a trustworthy corps of relievers
would. They can't afford to let Brad Lidge, Ryan Madson, et al, gack up close games if the starters are more likely to slam
them home.
Despite assertions to
the contrary, Halladay isn't Superman and he's been pushed hard with the complete games; Oswalt has had nagging injuries;
and Hamels is still a young pitcher who struggled in 2009 after his necessary overuse in 2008 on the way to the title. If
they do make the playoffs, their top three might be gassed by the time they get there.
Gabriel (Capo) writes RE Jorge Cantu and the Rangers:
I like the Cantu trade. He'll probably play 1B, and he'll at least bolster
his stats in The Hitters' Heaven in Arlington. I want the Rangers to win this year's pennant.
Cantu's the type of player who people forget about until he's hitting a clutch homer in extra innings
in a big, late-season game or the playoffs. The Rangers are going for it and while the acquisition of Cliff Lee was flashy,
getting Cantu may end up being more important.
Damn that Amaro is one strange...strange...strange cat.
I don't get his thinking when you look at the whole Lee/Oswalt saga. JA Happ...Gone! I can't fault the move on it's
own merit in so far as making the playoff push. It's more of a case of what is that Amaro doing? Strange way of doing
business. Oswalt is taking shots and has disk problems etc. It can work out for Phila...but can very easily blow up in
their face. Happ was a good live arm.
As I said the other day, success is a dual-edged sword.
Amaro worked his way up the ladder organically, but appears in over his head. It would take courage to be the one to step
back and say he's not going to do certain things that could hurt the club's long-term future, especially in Philadelphia.
But he's trying to be everything to everyone----maintain a prospect base; get Halladay; get Oswalt; keep Domonic Brown; considering
trying to get Lee back----and it's very, very, very hard to do with a limited payroll.
Amaro's young; he can't be portrayed as the man who demolished the Phillies,
but Pat Gillick knew his time as the Phillies GM was going to be short because of age and his penchant for moving around late
in his career; Amaro can't say that; what he's doing with a championship club is going to follow him for the next 30 years
as he works in baseball.
What's he's
specifically trying to avoid----wrecking the place with desperation deals, overspending and losing with a team that had championship
aspirations----could be exactly what's happening in a gaffe-laden, self-fulfilling prophecy.
My book is still available on Amazon, I-Universe and Barnes and Noble.com. It's available for download as an E-book here. You can also now get it for less that five bucks on BN via download here.
The Phillies made a short-term killing in getting
Roy Oswalt and cash from the Astros for lefty J.A. Happ and two minor leaguers. Over the long term, the true nature of the
success or failure of the trade will be more clear.
Let's take a look at the deal for everyone involved.
The Astros add volume and ability
at a low cost.
In exchange for Oswalt and $11 million to offset his remaining guaranteed
money and 2012 buyout, the Astros received Happ, minor league outfielder Anthony Gose and infielder Jonathan Villar. They
then spun Gose to the Blue Jays for Triple A first baseman Brett Wallace.
Gose, 20, is a speed demon who, judging by the number of times he gets caught stealing, is still
learning how to adequately use his gifts. Villar is a 19-year-old middle infielder who can run as well. Both are in the low
minors and aren't players for whom the Phillies or their fans should get into a twist about losing in the short-term----and
who knows what they'll be in five years time?
Happ has positives and negatives. I love his stuff and think he can be a consistent winner in the big leagues with
the potential to win 15-18 games on a good team; he's also not as young as you'd think considering that he was a rookie last
season. Soon to be 28, he fits the mold of Phillies prospects who were kept in the minors until they were deemed absolutely
ready to play in the big leagues; they did the same thing with Ryan Howard and Chase Utley and it's hard to argue with that
success. Happ has not been overused by the organization so a burnout shouldn't be an issue. He'll be extremely cheap for the
next few years and, providing he's healthy, will be a solid starter for the rebuilding Astros.
That's the key. Happ's health.
Happ missed most of the first half of the season with a forearm strain and only
recently returned to big league action. A forearm strain has to be monitored and could be a precursor to a more serious injury
like a torn ligament that requires Tommy John surgery. One would assume----a big assumption with some teams----that the Astros
received the proper medical reports on Happ and are satisfied that he's well enough to pitch without risk.
Another issue with Happ is his pressure-handling skills. In last
year's post-season, he had control problems and a deer-in-the-headlights look on his face as if he was petrified. This is
not something to discount if and when the Astros improve enough to make a playoff run. It's hard to win with frightened players
and Happ appeared frightened.
If he's
healthy and allowed to pitch and develop for a bad team, Happ can be a useful piece in the Astros rebuild because of his talent
and low financial cost. His health is most imperative because he's good enough to win in the big leagues.
As for Villar, who knows? He's 19. The Astros have a gaping hole at shortstop so if Villar is on the fast track, it's
not absurd to think he could be in the big leagues as soon as 2011.
The acquisition of Wallace was entertaining in the way it rapidly removed the dunce cap from the head
of Astros GM Ed Wade. First, he was being referred to in all sorts of derogatory terms, then he suddenly wasn't all that bad
when he acquired a big league ready bat to replace the soon-to-be-traded Lance Berkman.
If Berkman's not traded now, the Astros are either going to decline
his $15 million option for 2011----he has a $2 million buyout----or in essence complete a "sign-and-trade" by having
a trade in place to a venue to which Berkman agrees to waive his no-trade clause before activating the option. They can get
something for Berkman and insert Wallace in his place.
Despite Wallace's frequent address changes----he's been traded three times in the past year in the middle of some big deals,
he's a big time prospect. Traded from the Cardinals to the Athletics as the centerpiece for Matt Holliday, he was only Athletics
property for half a season; he was traded from the Athletics to the Blue Jays for Michael Taylor as Billy Beane skillfully
insinuated himself in the wild machinations of the Cliff Lee to the Mariners/Roy Halladay to the Phillies trades; and now
he's been sent to the Astros where he'll presumably get his opportunity to play in the majors. Wallace is 23 and judging by
his numbers, he can really hit, doesn't strike out much and gets on base.
Aside from the money they kicked in, the Astros did quite well in getting two inexpensive and immediately
implementable cogs with Happ and Wallace and a young player who could be playing shortstop for them in the near future.
The Phillies reap the benefits of back room machinations.
Without knowing exactly what happened, it's clear that the Phillies benefited greatly from several outside factors.
First, Ed Wade was a longtime Phillies employee and
functioned as their GM from 1998 until the end of the 2005 season. One thing I find funny about the way Wade is perceived
is that he's considered a fool whom the Phillies were lucky to be rid of...but it was under Wade that they drafted Chase Utley,
Ryan Howard, Cole Hamels, Pat Burrell, Ryan Madson, Brett Myers, Marlon Byrd, Joe Saunders (he didn't sign), Gavin Floyd,
Michael Bourn and Kyle Kendrick.
Many credit scouting director Mike Arbuckle for the drafting of these players----most of whom contributed in some way to the
Phillies run of excellence----no one knows how much influence Wade had in their acquisition and development; but it's twisted
to blame Wade for the failures of the organization and credit others for the successes.
In a prime example of the fleeting nature of ill-informed perception,
Wade was cast as everything ranging from corrupt in trying to help the Phillies and getting little back; to incompetent; to
not being all that bad when he netted Walllace for Gose.
Did Wade want to help the Phillies? It's only human to think that he still has some affection for the team
for whom he worked for so long; a team that still has a large number of players he brought into the organization and helped
develop. In comparison to the other teams that were after Oswalt, the Cardinals being most notable, I can't imagine that Wade
or McLane wanted to see Oswalt in a Cardinals uniform regardless of the pitcher's desires or the offer the Cardinals presented.
These surreptitious maneuvers that scream, "let
me help my friend" happen far more often than is realized. I'm still convinced that Omar Minaya's affability and popularity
as a person around baseball helped him in the Johan Santana negotiations. No one can prove it, nor would they admit it, but
I'm sure both the Yankees and Red Sox got word to Minaya with a spy-level of subterfuge that neither were in on the deal;
that he should hold out because the Twins had nowhere else to go. It also helped that both the Yankees and Red Sox were invested
in keeping Santana away from the other while simultaneously getting him away from a rival in the Twins and out of the American
League.
It happens.
Wade isn't a great GM, but he's not an idiot.
I can think of many worse GMs than Ed Wade based on their practical decisionmaking----and one is Ruben Amaro Jr.
Ruben Amaro Jr. should play the lottery. That's how lucky he is. I said yesterday that the Phillies
would be insane for trading Happ and prospects for Oswalt, but that was under the belief that they'd be absorbing his whole
salary; and they're not.
Because the
negotiations were taken over by Astros owner Drayton McLane, who was speaking directly to Phillies owner David Montgomery----CBS Sports Blog----it's not hard to see that McLane was influencing the deal heavily. After acceptable players were agreed upon, it's clear
that McLane's affinity for Oswalt caused the strange agreement to give the Phillies such a large amount of money to pay him;
that he wanted to put a longtime, loyal player in a good situation to win.
McLane is criticized for his meddling, but he nixed sell-offs in both 2005 and 2008 as the "experts"
had buried his club both times and the Astros climbed from dire circumstances to make the World Series in '05; and come within
a few games of the Wild Card in '08. He spends money when he needs to and the team has been successful on and off the field
with him as owner.
What more do
people want? A Billy Beane book length resume (AKA Moneyball) of faux brilliance? Or someone who's done things that looked
odd at the time, but worked?
Indirectly,
this all helped Amaro. He got Oswalt for relatively little in the present. Happ wasn't going to help the Phillies all that
much this season; the young players are years away; and they didn't spend all that much money to get a top starting pitcher
for 2010 and 2011.
That said, the
Phillies had better win now because they're expensive and aging. The core of the team is signed long-term to lucrative contracts
and, by the time 2012 rolls around, will be in their mid-30s; the team will have a vastly different face.
Ryan Howard, Chase Utley and Roy Halladay are all locked in to be
Phillies for the long term; but Jimmy Rollins, Brad Lidge, Oswalt and Raul Ibanez all have contracts set to expire after 2011
and are hard to see remaining with the club (although Amaro's loony contract extension for Howard makes anything possible);
they'll also possibly have a new manager with Charlie Manuel 66-years-old.
This would all be fine if they weren't gutting the farm system to win now!!!
Much was made of bolstering the prospect base when
trading Cliff Lee, but they've traded a chunk of their youth to acquire these veterans. This is a cost of being a contender
annually and having a fan base that expects success as a birthright; they can't back off of trying to win immediately; a byproduct
of that desire is the loss of kids who would infuse the big league club with inexpensive energy.
The loss of Arbuckle makes replenishing the system all the more difficult
and Amaro----with the questionable trade of Lee and the terrible signings of the likes of Danys Baez and contract extensions
for Shane Victorino and Joe Blanton, is putting his team in this position where they're going to have to continue shelling
out for veteran help with little flexibility in payroll and a diminishing number of desirable prospects.
The Phillies have leapt back into the playoff race for both the Wild Card
and the NL East----and they'd better win now because the window is closing rapidly.
This
makes the Phillies better, but doesn't address fundamental holes.
With Halladay, Hamels
and Oswalt, the Phillies throw out three top, proven starters. But that doesn't address the bullpen; nor does it halt the
lingering questions about the clubhouse factions breaking out over salacious rumors of an affair between Jayson Werth and
Chase Utley's wife. Utley has been out with a torn ligament in his thumb so isn't around the team; but eventually, he'll be
back; if the rumors are true, will personal problems be on the back-burner? Is it possible?
Werth was on the trading block, but circumstances have made that impossible
with the oblique injury to Victorino; the pending free agent Werth is not getting through waivers after July 31st, so he's
going to be with the club.
The
Phillies are going to be in the playoff hunt, but Manuel will have to do his best job yet of keeping everyone on the same
page of winning on the field while not having an off-field explosion. The weaknesses of the National League contenders have
given new life to a Phillies team that was slumping terribly. They're battle-tested and have come through in the clutch before.
Contrary to popular belief, their playoff chances don't hinge on those three starters, but how well the bullpen performs down
the stretch.
It's not the trading deadline,
it's the Twilight Zone:
Some of the other trades that have been completed are sensible; some are strange.
Padres acquire
INF Miguel Tejada from the Orioles for Double A RHP Wynn Pelzer and cash.
The Padres needed a big time offensive upgrade.
Miguel Tejada is not a big time offensive upgrade. In fact, he's not much of an upgrade at all.
The Padres are based on pitching and defense.
Miguel Tejada, who cannot play shortstop anymore, is going to be playing
a lot of shortstop.
They didn't
give up much to get him, but just because something is cheap, that doesn't mean you're obligated to take it. I don't understand
this.
Twins acquire RHP Matt Capps for minor league catcher Wilson Ramos and minor league
LHP Joe Testa:
I like Matt Capps, but is he worth the Twins top prospect? Even if the
top prospect is a catcher and has his way blocked by Joe Mauer? Ramos is a work in progress, but Capps has been overworked
by the Nationals; isn't an upgrade at closer over Jon Rauch and is a pitcher the quality you could presumably find after the
non-waiver trading deadline and not give up your best prospect to get.
The Twins have made some questionable deals in recent years. The aforementioned Santana trade was a
train wreck; and sending Matt Garza and Jason Bartlett for Delmon Young and Brendan Harris didn't look particularly good before
this year----Young's playing very well----but they'd have been better off keeping Garza and Bartlett.
A smart organization that runs their team correctly, the Twins make an
awful lot of strangely overaggressive trades for middling players and this deal for Capps is the latest one. You have to get
more for your top prospect----who plays a sought after position----than Capps.
Rangers
acquire INF Jorge Cantu from the Marlins for minor league RHPs Evan Reed and Omar Poveda:
If anything exemplifies what the Marlins do, it's how they replenished the floundering Cantu, used him to their own
benefit for a couple of years, then traded him for useful, organization-building arms.
Cantu had been released by the Cincinnati Reds after 2007 and was invited
to spring training on a minor league contract by the Marlins in 2008. Cantu had a terrific year with 29 homers, 95 RBI and
70 extra base hits. He had another fine year last season and was slumping a bit this year, but still hitting with some pop
(10 homers). He's versatile and will hit in the cozy confines of Rangers Ballpark.
My book is still available on Amazon, I-Universe and Barnes and Noble.com. It's available for download as an E-book here. You can also now get it for less that five bucks on BN via download here.
Because he has a record that puts him in the
pantheon of managers in baseball history; because he's always had a reason for doing the things he does; because he's got
a law degree and is considered not only one of baseball's best and smartest managers in history, but one of the smartest people,
Cardinals manager Tony La Russa is allowed to get away with things for which other managers would be roasted and probably
fired.
There are the usual criticisms:
he overmanages his bullpen; he reinvents the game with his decision to bat the pitcher eighth (there's an interesting column
about this by Tyler Kepner in today's NY Times); he's had embarrassing public dustups with players; he's defended the guilty in a blind, ludicrous way; and he's repeatedly
lost in the playoffs with superior teams.
These criticisms do have merit; but for the most part, La Russa's teams are going to play the game correctly, win regularly
and be contenders without fail. If he has championship-level players, he'll have them competing for a championship; if he
has players that are able to be manipulated and molded to what he and pitching coach Dave Duncan are trying to do----although
lacking in star talent----they'll still hang around contention and possibly break through as they did in 2006.
I've gone over his successes with marginal talents
like Jeff Suppan and the rebuilding of the likes of Chris Carpenter; his failures with Rick Ankiel and J.D. Drew; the public
disputes with Ruben Sierra, Scott Rolen and Jim Edmonds; and his absurd defense of Mark McGwire when McGwire was repeatedly
denying use of performance enhancing drugs. My point isn't about La Russa himself, but what La Russa's success and reputation
allows him to do during games that other managers either wouldn't have the guts to try or would possibly get fired if they
did.
Last night, La Russa made a bizarre
decision in allowing lefty Trever Miller to pitch to David Wright with 2 outs in the bottom of the 12th inning knowing how
Wright murders lefties----link----and that Wright cannot catch up to a good power fastball anymore. Mike MacDougal was warming up in the Cardinals bullpen
and La Russa elected to roll the dice by allowing Miller to pitch to Wright. Miller is exactly the type of lefty upon whom
Wright feasts. Wright grounded back to Miller; MacDougal pitched the bottom of the 13th and retired the Mets in order; the
Cardinals won the game.
It was still
the wrong move even though it worked.
Had Wright homered off of Miller, La Russa would've been questioned about it, bristled at the audacity of anyone who dared
second guess the great Tony La Russa, intimidated the reporters and said that he left Miller in because he was running out
of pitchers; didn't know MacDougal that well; and he trusted the big ballpark to keep Wright in the yard even if Miller made
a mistake.
Success or failure has little
to do with strategy being "correct"; La Russa had reason to do what he did and it worked. It was still wrong.
This brings out the bottom line with a manager----whether
or not his decisions work and if the team wins. In the end that's all that matters.
La Russa has been a success because he's had a reason for doing the things
he does----even if they don't make obvious sense----and because they've worked. Is Charlie Manuel a good strategic
manager? Is Joe Girardi? Is Lou Piniella? Is Terry Francona? Is Mike Scioscia? Is Joe Torre?
They all have their hiccups; their flaws; their strengths. They've
survived because of the simple fact that they've won. Scioscia is widely regarded as the "best" manager in baseball
while his teams have had as many playoff meltdowns as La Russa's have. Many times it's been because of gaffes by Scioscia.
One glaring example is the squeeze bunt against the Red Sox in game four of the 2008 ALDS.
The game was tied in the top of the ninth inning, the Angels had
Reggie Willits on 3rd base and one out. Scioscia called for a suicide squeeze with Erick Aybar at the plate. Aybar couldn't
get the bunt down and Willits got caught in a rundown and tagged out. It was a ridiculous decision in those circumstances.
This exemplifies Scioscia's strengths and weaknesses. The strengths----he trusts his players; is willing to gamble; follows
his own template without deviation----are as much of a reason for his label as the "best" as those same qualities
that are a foundation for failure. The Angels had a strategy of using speed and aggressiveness and stuck to it after they'd
acquired a power bat for the middle of the lineup in Mark Teixeira at mid-season. The adherence to "what we do"
as in the Angels strategy is part of the reason they're brilliantly run and consistently successful. Scioscia is a big reason
for that and he's never getting fired no matter what he does.
But the "best" manager in baseball? It's all contextual; a circular entitly.
Earl Weaver was a great manager not because of his
success; not because he was entrenched as the Orioles manager forever; but because he adjusted based on his personnel. La
Russa does that; Scioscia doesn't.
Are
they wrong? Are they right?
I think
Jim Tracy is the best strategic manager in baseball, but his Colorado Rockies are in freefall; he had no success with the
Pittsburgh Pirates in two years as their manager. Is it because of him? Was his elevation to the manager's office for the
Rockies was spurred their blazing hot run last season that led them to the playoffs? Or was it other factors? Was it the change
from Clint Hurdle to the more subdued and cerebral Tracy? Was his failure with the Pirates a lack of talent and that the Pirates
are, well, the Pirates? Or was it that everything clicked at the right time?
Bobby Valentine is a superior strategist to just about anyone in baseball, but can't find a job in
the majors because of his personality and that people don't want to deal with the "Bobby V package"; it's understandable.
A manager can do the right things
on and off the field and still be on the chopping block. He can do the wrong things----as Joe Maddon often does----and still
win because of talent.
Much was
made of Joe Torre's calm leadership during the Yankees run under his watch and as I said weeks ago, he deserves credit for
the success, but he also warrants blame for the failures. Many other managers could've won with that Yankees team in the late
90s.
The 2001 Diamondbacks were
so laden with veteran leaders that they could essentially have functioned without a manager (and they sort of did with the
empty uniform Bob Brenly).
So,
which is it?
Is La Russa a genius because
of his courage as a gambler? Because of his intelligence? Or does his job security because of his success allow him to have that courage and gamble?
It feeds into itself; and it's a perk of having won and being perceived as "knowing" what he's doing even
if it's wrong or fails.
It's a perk
of being La Russa and he takes full advantage of it.
The
Phillies are insane if they trade J.A. Happ for Roy Oswalt:
The latest rumor (take these for what they're worth regardless of the source) is that the Phillies
are the last team standing in competition for Astros righty Roy Oswalt.
Without issuing the cheap shot that will be fired by everyone regarding the overall absurdity
of the Phillies trading He Who Shall Not Be Named (otherwise known as Cliff Lee) in the interests of maintaining financial
sanity and re-stocking the organization with prospects, I have a different----more logical take----on the whole morass.
I'm not of the camp that believes the Phillies
should allow outside influences and said cheap shot artists to affect their decisions one way or the other. If they feel Oswalt
is their best option to win now, they can't worry about what people say about He Who Shall Not Be Named and how ridiculous
it was to trade him in the first place.
That said, are they out of their minds?
They're going to trade J.A. Happ---a future annual 15-game winner provided he's healthy----and absorb the Oswalt salary
for this year, next year and possibly 2012 if Oswalt demands his 2012 option be exercised to okay a trade to the Phillies?
And it's not only Happ they're trading; the latest is that the Astros are going to get Happ and other prospects.
Factoring in the salary of Oswalt; the way the Phillies
farm system has been gutted in the past two years; that the Shane Victorino injury will prevent them from trading Jayson Werth
to bring in the prospects to get Oswalt (as one of the plans suggested), and the Phillies are digging a hole deeper than former
BP CEO Tony Heyward and former Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich could formulate with their flapping mouths and notorious
ineptitude. A hole they won't be able to climb out of in the coming years.
I'll hold off on really lambasting the Phillies and GM Ruben Amaro Jr. until a deal is completed----ESPN is reporting that a deal is done and requires Oswalt's approval before being official----but if the Phillies trade Happ and prospects for Oswalt, they're
absolute fools no matter what Oswalt does in a Phillies uniform.
John Tudor. Now that's an interesting name from the
past. But back to Strasburg, of course the Nationals were right to be cautious with him and scratch his start. Not only
is he a talented young pitcher, but he's their box office, their biggest asset. Why mess around and have him "play
hurt?"
I'm trying to imagine the reaction if Strasburg hadn't said something
or if the Nationals had pitched him regardless of shoulder woes and he'd really gotten hurt. I think the reaction would quite
possibly have been somewhat negative.
Jeff (Street Boss) at Red State Blue State writes RE Strasburg and the Nationals fans:
It's
obvious that the good folks in D.C. still don't understand the finer points of baseball. The people who came to the game
last night were pissed off 'cuz he didn't start?
They just don't get it.
Yet.
It's times
like these that I wish Tim Russert were still alive. He'd kick these newbie fans' asses for sure.
In fairness to the Nationals fans, there's not that much of a reason to go see the Nats at this point
aside from having a look at Strasburg. All fan bases have their non-baseball, event-types who'll only go because they're going
to be seen there and have the ability to say that they were there. Plus, it's Washington DC----I don't believe much
in the way of conviction goes on around there unless you're talking in a court of law when the scandals come out and the sacrificial
flunkies are made to take the blame for their boss's activities that were outside the law.
Ichiro a diva? Perhaps, but if you actually read any
of the interviews he's given, it seems pretty clear that he does care what happens to the team. I think part of what Americans
see as selfishness is simply a cultural emphasis that doesn't translate well.
For instance--"Ichiro should
dive for more balls in the outfield." Ichiro has stated more than once that he doesn't do that often for two reasons:
first, because diving rarely makes the difference between catching and not catching; and second, because diving is more
likely to injure him, costing the team his services.
Or another good one--"Ichiro should steal more often."
Considering that last year was the first time in his career that he finished outside of the top 5 in the AL, that seems
a bit harsh. Ichiro's thoughts on the matter? Better (if you're not sure you can take it) to hold back and remain on the
bases than get thrown out and cost the team both a lead runner and an out. His 80%+ career success rate speaks for itself.
I understand why people who attack me refuse to leave a name, but when someone writes something reasonably
intelligent, I don't get the need for anonymity.
Of course Ichiro cares about what happens to the team, but there's a fine line between selfishness and helping the
team and it's often indistinguishable to outside observers; but the players know. You can have a player who says he's helping
the team by getting base hits when it's known that the assertion of "helping the team" is on equal footing, in his
mind, with padding his stats.
No
one can question Ichiro's defensive credentials----he's a terrific outfielder with a fine arm; and the diving is negligible;
it's necessary when it's necessary and if he needs to dive for a ball, he should dive for a ball; but he's so fast and so
good that he doesn't generally need to dive. I'll give him a pass on that one.
The stolen bases? Also negligible. I'm against arbitrary basestealing just for the
sake of it----it's one of my issues with Jose Reyes over the years; sometimes he steals only to shove it in the face of the
opponents when he's far better off staying where he is; he's cut down on that.
My definition of a selfish player is one who could do more to help the team even
if it means sacrificing individual achievement; what makes Ichiro worse is that he's acting selfishly with his reluctance
to try to hit for power and instead accumulating singles under the pretense of helping the team and has the "cultural
emphasis" shielding him and explaining away his behaviors.
The "cultural emphasis" you allude to is convenient when questions are raised about his apparent
lack of passion and penchant for slapping the ball the other way to get to his 250 hits; but he's ignored said "culture"
points when collecting vast amounts of money from the Mariners while using pending free agency and a threat to leave as a
lever to force out manager Mike Hargrove because Ichiro didn't like him.
Hargrove wasn't a great strategic manager, but he handled the clubhouse and was respected; can
that be said of his full-time successors John McLaren and Don Wakamatsu? McLaren was the epitome of the longtime bench coach
in over his head when given the big job; and Wakamatsu has had disciplinary issues throughout this whole season. Hargrove
was unafraid of getting in a player's face for such transgressions. So how's that worked out for the Mariners and Ichiro?
He's got his money and a manager he approves of....and the team's awful.
In the end, with Ichiro it's about Ichiro. While he's on a team that's winning, he subtly
alters his game to win; for some players, when things are spiraling and the team cause is lost, it's every man for himself;
and Ichiro is one such player. There's no justification for being a pure singles hitter and a diva and making $17
million a year. None.
He's been
in North America for almost ten years----is he not completely assimilated? Or is he only assimilated when trying to get paid
and stat compile his way into the Hall of Fame while playing for an annual loser?
My book is still available on Amazon, I-Universe and Barnes and Noble.com. It's available for download as an E-book here. You can also now get it for less that five bucks on BN via download here.
When word got out that Stephen Strasburg was
scratched from his start for the Nationals against the Braves because he couldn't get loose, Ron Darling said during the Mets
telecast (I'm paraphrasing) that he'd never heard of that before. The implication was that Strasburg was either being a baby;
the Nationals were being too cautious with him; or a combination of the two.
There's a mistaken assumption that because I'm against pitch counts and the treatment of pitchers as
if they're breakable artifacts that I maintain a brain-dead "tough guy" outlook on how to handle pitchers as if
any twinge or ache should be ignored and they should pitch as long as there's no bone protruding through their skins.
It's nonsense.
Under no circumstances should Strasburg have been allowed to pitch if
he couldn't get loose. He was diagnosed with shoulder inflammation and is "day-to-day"----ESPN Story----and the Nationals are going to be more cautious than they were previously. And they're right to do it.
For someone as smart as Darling to revert to the ballplayer "code"
of playing through pain as a means to either impress others or show how tough he is is a bizarre straddling of the line from
the Yale educated philosophy buff and the old-school athlete who'd rather be perceived as macho than do what's best for himself
and the club by speaking up when feeling something out of whack.
Was Strasburg supposed to pitch anyway? Was he expected to risk that Hall of Fame arm in the interests
of pleasing others?
Despite the Nationals'
questionable attempts to improve on the fly and stay in "contention" when they don't have current personnel to do
so, they'd rather lose 95 games than have anything happen to Strasburg in the interests of a relatively meaningless game against
the Braves in late July. The club's future rests on Strasburg and that shoulder which he couldn't get loose; had they pitched
him or if he'd kept his mouth shut, it would've been the epitome of idiocy, just like Darling's comment. It'd be one thing
if it was coming from someone like Rob Dibble, but Darling should----and presumably does----know better.
On another note, the Nationals had to start Miguel Batista on short notice
and the fans expecting to see Strasburg were decidedly not happy about it. Batista's a piece of work; he writes poetry
and novels; says what's on his mind; and is old-school on the mound in that he'll pitch wherever and whenever he asked and
is willing to buzz the hitters when he needs to. Any team can use Batista on and off the field.
A pitcher who couldn't get loose:
When I head the phrase, "couldn't get loose"
with Strasburg, I thought back to an article about another pitcher who had a similar issue, pitched through it and began a
long career of good-to-great pitching and rampant injuries with extended stays on the disabled list.
In 1990, Peter Gammons profiled former Red Sox, Pirates, Cardinals
and Dodgers pitcher John Tudor as he was in the twilight of his career trying to hold on as long as he could. The entire article
can be found here----Sports Illustrated, May 21, 1990.
Here's the relevant quote and
what those who are immersed in the shaky premise of what defines a "man" should try to comprehend if they think
Strasburg should've pitched last night regardless of his shoulder problem:
After his third start
for the Red Sox in '79, he says, "My shoulder was such a mess that when I went to warm up for my next start, I couldn't
get loose."
Burdened by injuries, he was labeled by some in the
Red Sox organization as "gutless."
Tudor was an excellent
pitcher when he was healthy; in fact, I don't think he was given adequate credit for being as good as he was. There were few
better during his blazing hot streak in 1985 as the Cardinals marched to the National League pennant. Would he have been better
had he been treated more judiciously by the club and himself? If he was willing to tell someone that he was in pain rather
than drag himself out to the mound injured and make matters worse?
It was a different time then and had Tudor said something, there's every possibility that he would've
been shipped to the minors; had his reputation besmirched throughout baseball as a supposed "wimp"; and seen his
career go down the tubes. Plus Tudor wasn't the prospect that Strasburg is; he didn't have an entire organization's future----on
and off the field----riding on him.
In short, he was disposable. But that doesn't make it any better that he chose to pitch injured based on some ridiculous notion
that he's not a "man" if he doesn't.
Speaking
of Tudor...
This isn't
to suggest that the team and the pitcher should be absolved of all blame for him getting hurt and pitching through the pain,
but Tudor's mechanics had a great deal to do with his injury history. They were horrible. He threw across his body and barely
used his legs or lead arm to gain leverage; plus he was a short-armer (he didn't extend his arm fully until he released the
ball); it was only a matter of time before either his elbow, shoulder or both blew out----which they eventually did at separate
times.
Mechanics play a large part in
a pitcher's longevity; probably more-so than his workload. If he's overstressing his arm, he's going to get hurt sooner or
later. Nolan Ryan and Greg Maddux had drastically different approaches to getting hitters out; but they both shared flawless
motions that were honed to the point where they didn't have to worry about where their elbows were; where their landing spot
was; where their glove was positioned----it was natural. Their long careers and absence of arm injuries is a testament to
throwing properly.
This isn't to
say that Tudor was wrong in pitching the way he did either. It's very possible that if he tried to copy a Ryan or Steve Carlton,
he would've gotten rocked all over the ballpark. It was Tudor's motion that----in part----made him so effective. In the article
linked above, it's mentioned how well he hid the ball and that his release point would get lost in his uniform; then he added
great control to the mix. If he was more conventional, hitters would've been comfortable and gotten a better look at the ball
and likely bashed him.
With Josh Tomlin
making his Major League debut last night against the Yankees (and winning), I thought about former Pirates lefty pitcher Randy
Tomlin who had a short but useful career.
Randy Tomlin had mechanics that could only be described as atrocious. He threw completely across his body (worse than most);
he landed as if he was taking a step toward the first base dugout. Tomlin didn't throw hard and had something he called a
"Vulcan" change-up that looked like the "live long and prosper" sign from Mr. Spock on Star Trek with
the ball buried between his middle and ring fingers; he won 14 games in 1992 and got hurt in 1994. After hanging around the
minors for a couple of years trying to come back, he retired at 31.
Would Tomlin have even had a big league career had he been taught to pitch more conventionally?
Or was it that quirky motion that got him the few years----good years----in the big leagues? We'll never know, but my guess
is that he wouldn't have.
Because
of these different individuals and their effectiveness despite small stature or lack of "stuff", it's not feasible
to try and create a one-size-fits-all pitching motion; and this, by extension, is the same reason that the arbitrary pitch
counts, innings limits and babying rampant in baseball is not as cleverly planned an endeavor as the inside baseball and blind
followers portray it. It's a result of self-justification and fear and why every individual should be treated as an individual while in an intelligent framework of how best to develop him and keep him healthy.
Cookie-cutter techniques are boring, paranoid and,
most importantly, don't work.
Ugh...
Joba. Spot on with the man-child's sitch (it's never pleasant being compared to (Kyle) Farnsworth, I'm sure)...
I
don't think the Yanks will get much for him at this point. Maybe he would do well with a change of scenery.
If
he joined my team I'd kick his ass for every time he did one of those outrageous fist pumps in a meaningless situation.
They'd be able to get a star player with Chamberlain as the centerpiece of a deal; they're not going
to trade him now though. In the long run, it might be beneficial to have this struggle happen as long as it doesn't cost them
a shot at a title this year. If Chamberlain has become such a reviled character to Yankee fans and the media, then it'll be
easier for them to stick him in their desired role for him. Tempered expectations will let him slowly rebuild his confidence
and stuff; over time, they could get the pitcher they thought they were getting in their preferred role for him; it won't
be as quick as they'd hoped, but plans and schemes don't always work immediately and end up better in the end.
With the fist pumping, I'd be stunned if he hadn't
been spoken to by Derek Jeter and Mariano Rivera about his excessive celebrating; he's getting his comeuppance now and I think
we can all pretty much imagine the stuff he's hearing from the opposing clubs' bench jockeys. (You may not believe this, but
I was quite the bench jockey.) I'd also bet that Jeter is quietly applauding some of the things that are said to Chamberlain
as he slumps because he asked for it and he's getting it.
I think sending Joba to the minors would be a good idea.
Cliff Lee went to the minors and look how that turned out. Contrary to your comment on my blog, Joba was indeed rushed through
the minors the first time around, rising through three levels to the majors in 07. Yes, there were The Rules, but the problem
might be a case of too much too soon.
It's a fine line between rushing him to the big leagues
and using him for the now. The Yankees felt----accurately----that he'd be a nuclear weapon out of the bullpen for the end
of 2007; that they'd be able to deploy him in that role, win a title and then move him back into the starting rotation. Instead,
the championship plans were casualties of the Cleveland midges; Chamberlain's stuff and personality became such a phenomenon
that they took on a life of their own and infected those hopes for his future.
Joel Sherman wrote in the Post that the Yankees don't want to send a negative
message by demoting Chamberlain directly from the set-up role to the minors and that his struggles aren't a result of laziness----he's
still working hard----link.
If find this logic to be weak
at best. Who cares about the message it sends? If anything, it's going to send the message that no one is safe if they don't
do their jobs. And the hard work bit? They could put me in uniform and I'd work just as hard as Chamberlain. So? Does that
have anything at all to do with me getting people out? If it takes three weeks in the minors to get him together, why's that
such a bad thing?
Max Stevens writes RE the Angels:
While I like the trade
for Dan Haren, I don't really get the Angels' acquisition of Alberto Callaspo, do you? He's a relatively inexpensive
upgrade from Brandon Wood - and presumably the trade signals the beginning of the end of the Brandon Wood experiment
for the Angels - but the acquisition of Callaspo doesn't really bolster the production the team will get from its infield,
unless there's something I'm missing. Perhaps the idea is to platoon Callaspo with Macier Izturis, or Callaspo and Kevin
Frandsen? As an Angels fan, neither combination, nor the prospect of Callaspo getting the bulk of the playing time,
fills me with much excitement.
Callaspo was cheap in terms of cost and he's a relatively
unknown but solid player. He had a fine year last year with good numbers across the board and he's not making any money. Wood's
gotten numerous chances and no one can ever say they pulled the plug on him too early; he's still only 25, but he's done nothing
at the big league level to justify any more opportunity. The Angels are trying to win now; they need more offense and Callaspo
provides that over Wood; plus he's versatile if they get a power bat for third base in the off-season or in a trade in the
immediate future.
The Angels' offense
hasn't been the major problem----pitching from the back of the rotation and the bullpen has. They did bolster the lineup quietly
with Callaspo.
My book is still available on Amazon, I-Universe and Barnes and Noble.com. It's available for download as an E-book here. You can also now get it for less that five bucks on BN via download here.
Joba Chamberlain has become the combination of Frankenstein; the
hunchback of Notre Dame; the Elephant Man; and Kyle Farnsworth in the circle of Yankee fandom. In fact, I'm sure some of his
teammates----who were subjected to the stifling attention doled on a young pitcher who'd essentially accomplished nothing
aside from being a media phenomenon and blowing away big league hitters for little over a month----were somewhat rankled over
the special treatment he received.
Dragged into the debate of whether he should be a starter or reliever, it had to have grown tiresome to hear this young pitcher
canonized for nothing; to see his accomplishments placed on the side because of what he "could" be; because he bore
a resemblance in motion and ability to Roger Clemens.
Now, the circle is almost complete. Fans don't even want to hear the name Joba Chamberlain as a starter or reliever; his former
defenders in the media are suggesting that he be included in trade talks; and even the likes of Mike Francesa, who looked
like his head was literally about to erupt (no doubt emitting a volcanic blast of Diet Coke from his bloated cranium) are
only still lauding Chamberlain's talent as a self-justifying device rather than honest assessment----far be it from Francesa
to ever admit he's wrong about anything; so invested in Chamberlain's success as a reliever after his daily bloviating on
the subject that he'll stick to his "Joba is a reliever" mantra to the end of days, Chamberlain's career, Francesa's
retirement, or all three.
As cynical
as I am, the subjectivity of Chamberlain's rapid plummet is stunning. How he got to this point isn't in debate. The Yankees
jerked him around; babied him; treated him as if he was a breakable and invaluable artifact; and have fostered his demise.
But that doesn't absolve the pitcher
himself.
He has not been good.
The whole combination of nickname (I'm going
to stop referring to him as "Joba"); hype (from team, fans and media); personality (the fist-pumping is only charming
when he's doing well and only to Yankee fans); and ability (he's got brilliant stuff) have combined to build and incrementally
dismantle this monster.
Can he
be rehabilitated in a Yankee uniform in any role? And how can they salvage him as reality sets in and he's judged on what
he does rather than an interpretation of what he can be?
The Yankees have several choices with Chamberlain. They can trade him while he still has value in the
eyes of opposing executives or before he gets hurt; they can use him in a role less stressful and important as the eighth
inning; or they can send him down to the minors.
Trading him is fraught with risks, but he could potentially be the centerpiece for the return of a star player. Opposing
organizations would still give up a lot for Chamberlain; but the reality is that the Yankees: A) don't have the glaring need
for a star player they'd get with Chamberlain fronting the deal; and B) the big chips for whom Chamberlain might have been
worth moving----Dan Haren, Cliff Lee----are off the board. Plus with Lee and Carl Crawford, all the Yankees have to do after
the season is throw money at them rather than give up a still valuable asset like Chamberlain. I don't see it happening until
the off-season and it's highly unlikely then.
They're not going to stick him back in the starting rotation now. The public and media would slaughter them for the
wishy-washy was in which Chamberlain has been handled and the repeated indecision on his role; plus, it wouldn't work. Given
his stumble as a reliever, the call for him to remain there won't be anything more than the selfish bellow of Francesa and
the brigade of not seeing truth as they're blinded by egomania of being "right". If they want to make him a starter,
it has to be next season.
What
they can do is what manager Joe Girardi suggested after using Dave Robertson and Boone Logan to get through the eighth inning
last night and go by matchups and whoever is pitching the best. Right now, that's Robertson. They can't trust Chamberlain
in a close game. Placing him in a lesser role in the sixth or seventh inning with a lead that is too ample to be blown is
the best way to try and get him straightened out unless they're willing....to send him to the minors.
It's not crazy to demote him.
No one could reasonably argue that his performance isn't demotion-worthy and
if it was anyone else, he would've been sent to the minors or traded already. Chamberlain might benefit from an increased
wake-up call of being sent down, plus it's a strong message to everyone that the Yankees don't have a scholarship program
that allows rotten performance to go unpunished. Would he be mentally tough enough to handle such a fall from grace? Would
it be an opportunity to rebuild him out of the spotlight? It shouldn't be dismissed out of hand and after a few more bad outings,
it could happen for the good of the pitcher and the team.
Everyone has a hand in the decline in results and reputation that has befallen Chamberlain. The Yankees insipid set
of rules to ostensibly "protect" Chamberlain have sown the seeds of this burgeoning disaster. The fluctuating roles
are a byproduct of internal and external debate of how best to use the pitcher and he's now a non-entity in the Yankees bullpen
because Girardi is afraid to use him.
It's either rebuild him or get rid of him to give him a clean start; and either/or might be the best thing for him. Expectations
have dwindled to the point where no one's going to much notice what they do with him as anything other than idle curiosity
bestowed upon a freak or as a means to criticize Chamberlain's (mis)handling. In any event, what's done is done; what the
Yankees do about it going forward is the question.
Speaking
of "insipid" and "Girardi":
With Yankees manager Joe Girardi's contract expiring at the end of the season, there's been talk that
the Illinois native would have interest in the open Chicago Cubs managerial job.
On the one hand, it would be a revelation as to Girardi's true managerial skills
if he did take the Cubs job, but does anyone really think that he's going to leave the Yankees for the Cubs? It's a negotiation
ploy that's not going to work because if he actually did try to use the Cubs job as a hammer over the heads of Brian Cashman
and the Steinbrenners, I can bet that they'd wish him well, let him leave and find someone else to manage the club without
hesitation.
There's a part of Girardi
that still has the "athlete's ego" and takes offense that his contribution to the Yankees' success is minimal; that
anyone can take that group of players and win, but it's pretty much true. In fact, Girardi was lucky that his glaring mistakes
in last year's post-season didn't cost the team the championship.
Girardi is very smart and still learning, but he'd neither make the money in Chicago that he'll make
with the Yankees; nor will he have the prestige or guarantee of having the players to win.
He is not going to the Cubs.
Eye of the beholder:
The Diamondbacks return on the trade of Dan Haren to the Angels is being roundly
criticized. I can't sit here and say anything about the players they received aside from what I read on the stat sheet and
what others are saying about them; there's no way to know much about those players aside from established big leaguer Joe
Saunders. As I said yesterday, two of the three look good enough numerically and age wise that the Diamondbacks got a pretty
good package in Patrick Corbin, Tyler Skaggs and Rafael Rodriguez.
Who knows?
It has to be taken into account that under their current regime the Angels haven't made many mistakes in trading youth for
veteran help. The acquisition of Mark Teixeira in 2008 "cost" them Casey Kotchman and Stephen Marek. Marek is pitching
well in Triple A for the Braves as a reliever, but he's also going to turn 27 in September; if he was a legit, big time prospect,
he'd have made it to the big leagues by now.
The Diamondbacks liked the package they got from the Angels and the Angels took Haren's whole contract. To rip the
trade now right after it was completed isn't just premature, it's stupid.
Viewer Mail 7.27.2010:
Jeff
(Street Boss) at Red State Blue State writes RE Bobby Valentine; Dan Haren and the Angels:
If he gets a gig, I would hope Valentine could manage a game better than his job jockeying.
There's another "OOPS" moment for ya.
As for the Angels and Haren... ruthless, those Angels.
Ruthless. They don't ever give up. That's baller.
It's a shame how managers without half of Valentine's strategic skills are recycled, but he's done this to himself.
You can cross off about 20 teams that would either want nothing to do with Valentine personally; wouldn't have the players
to compete; or wouldn't pay him what he wanted. Then there are the teams that could handle him, were willing to talk with
him----and he alienated them or things didn't work out (the Red Sox before hiring Terry Francona; the Orioles; and now, apparently,
the Marlins).
Where's he going? I'd keep
an eye on the Dodgers situation with Valentine. Tommy Lasorda loves him like a son and the club is going to need a big name
with skills to replace Joe Torre if this is truly it for him. Valentine is a candidate there. The Cubs? I don't see it. Conceivably,
a new regime in Texas might want a name to manage the Rangers and if they keep Nolan Ryan, he and Valentine were on good terms
when Valentine managed the Rangers 20 years ago.
If he toned it down a little, he'd get another job; but he's Bobby V and he won't.
The Angels aren't simply ruthless; they're fearless too; and stealth; and aggressive; and smart; and they don't panic;
I could go on and on.
Max
Stevens writes RE the Angels:
In a response to a letter posted Monday, you suggested
that Bobby Abreu is among a number of players who will be gone at the end of the 2010 season. I could be wrong, but
my understanding is that the Halos gave Abreu a two-year deal after last season, worth about 18m. If this is the case,
it seems to me that the club needs to get younger and better defensively at both corner outfield positions. Would they
move Abreu to DH? Also, will the Angels be serious players for Carl Crawford in the offseason, or are they more likely
to give Mike Trout and/or Peter Bourjos chances to make the team and be everyday players? Crawford is a solid player, but
the Angels would be adding a lot of salary at a position where they have guys in their system who seem like they may be ready
for the show sooner rather than later.
Max is right. My mistake. Abreu is locked in for next
year with an option for 2012. The other contracts about which I spoke were accurately assessed. (I also said the Skaggs was
a 40th round pick yesterday when he was actually the 40th pick in the first round----I'm a mistake machine!!!)
Since they value pitching, the Angels always have
to be watched with the likes of Cliff Lee, but they are also enamored of Crawford. They're highly, highly, highly unlikely
to overmatch the Yankees spending power in their desire to get Lee, so the next logical choice is to go for a bat in Crawford
and use the pitchers they have while looking for a less-expensive name like Jake Westbrook to fill out the rotation.
With the youngsters, the Angels have never been shy
about giving one of their kids a chance to play, so they might decide to go with one of their homegrown talents; but if they
don't get Lee, Crawford is someone they're going to be after and one of the few teams with the money and venue to get him.
I was a guest
with Sal at SportsFan Buzz on Friday discussing all sorts of stuff. You can listen directly here----link----or click on Sal's site and download it from I-Tunes.
My book is still available on Amazon, I-Universe and Barnes and Noble.com. It's available for download as an E-book here. You can also now get it for less that five bucks on BN via download here.
Few people had seriously mentioned the Los Angeles Angels as big time
players for Dan Haren...until Dan Haren was traded to the Los Angeles Angels.
It's a part of the way they do business to play their cards close to the vest
and dive in aggressively and without warning; and of course, they went for pitching when they might have been able to survive
with the current pitching staff and gone for a big time bat the likes of Adam Dunn or Prince Fielder. Instead, the Angels
chose to acquire Alberto Callaspo to play third base and make the big strike two days later in getting Haren from the Diamondbacks.
In exchange for Haren, the Angels sent LHP Joe Saunders,
LHP Patrick Corbin, RHP Rafael Rodriguez and a player to be named later, said to be minor league prospect LHP Tyler Skaggs.
The Angels gave up a lot to get Haren, but they're trying to win now and they know they're going to have Haren for the long
term.
That's not to say the deal
is without risk.
Haren has not
pitched all that well this year, but that may be due to being the last man standing for a decimated Diamondbacks team and
that his mechanics are slightly off kilter (he doesn't seem to be pausing as much as he once did on his leg lift); Haren's
going to benefit from the change-of-scenery and a stable organization as opposed to the rampant disarray currently en vogue
with the Diamondbacks.
Saunders
is the lone, established big leaguer going to the Diamondbacks and is, at best, a mid-rotation starter on a decent team. His
stuff isn't particularly impressive and he's been terrible this season. He's a contact pitcher who allows a lot of home runs;
doesn't strike anyone out; and is in for a rude awakening when he realizes how atrocious the Diamondbacks are defensively.
Unless they shore up the defense and Saunders benefits from switching to the National League, he's going to be worse in Arizona
than he was in Anaheim----not only now, but for his entire tenure with the club.
I wonder if the Angels would've tried to peddle Scott Kazmir to the Diamondbacks
instead of Saunders if Kazmir wasn't on the disabled list. Kazmir's stuff is way better than that of Saunders, but he's fragile
and has pitched poorly. Plus, he's far more expensive contractually.
Corbin is a 20-year-old starter who's got solid strikeout/control numbers in high A of the Angels minor
league system. Rodriguez is going to be 26 in September and has spent time in the big leagues without much success; he was
used as a starter earlier in his minor league career and switched to the bullpen; he's allowed a lot of homers and his strikeout
numbers aren't good----a reliever who allows a lot of homers and doesn't strike people out isn't of much use. Skaggs, a top
prospect, is only 18-years-old; he was drafted with the 40th pick in the first round last season and has put up terrific numbers
in high A.
In short, the Diamondbacks
dumped Haren's entire salary; got some volume in pitching and a big time, young pitching prospect. Skaggs could be on the
fast track to the big leagues; the Diamondbacks have never shied away from bringing their youngsters up to the big leagues
early (Justin Upton for example) and letting them learn on the fly.
On another note for the Diamondbacks, I find it interesting when teams have a GM with the "interim"
tag attached to his name and allow him to make such important trades of franchise cornerstones.
Jerry DiPoto is a widely respected baseball man, but he's still only
an interim GM; one would assume that he's a pretty good bet to get the full-time job, but he's still technically not the GM.
It's an odd way of functioning; just as the Padres fired Kevin Towers after allowing him to deal Jake Peavy last season and
almost trade Adrian Gonzalez; and as the Cubs are now doing with Jim Hendry on extremely shaky ground, but handling the possible
sell-off of Derrek Lee, Ted Lilly and others; I question the wisdom; but it looks like the Diamondbacks made a nice trade
here.
With the Yankees having set
a hard line in their negotiations for Haren, the Diamondbacks were smart to jump on the Angels deal quickly. Part of that
comes from knowing how the Angels function----their reputation precedes them in that if they have an offer on the table and
their potential trading partner hesitates, essentially shopping the deal around as the Mariners did in their negotiations
with the Yankees for Cliff Lee, the Angels are liable to tell you to take a hike; or not specifically tell you
to take a hike, but let you know that they're no longer interested in your deal in a different way----by trading for someone
else.
Had this been a rental of the Lee
variety (although the Angels have the money to keep Lee whereas the Rangers don't), then the price would've been to steep;
but the Angels know they're going to have Haren, can try to make a run at the Rangers this season and be prepared to contend
in 2011 as well with Haren a giant step up from Saunders.
I don't think the Angels are going to be able to catch the Rangers this year; and they can forget about the Wild Card;
but this isn't an acquisition for two months; Haren's an Angel and will remain an Angel for the long term.
It looks like a win-win for both sides.
Desperation is repellent:
It's an fine line between showing interest in something
while maintaining an air of attractiveness or seduction. Repeatedly declaring one's interest in that which has caught his
or her eye is the surest way to lose it.
Bobby Valentine wants to manage in the big leagues again. His flirtation with the Marlins has either run its course and is
over, or will have to wait until after the season to be rekindled. Now that the Cubs are going to be looking for a new manager
with the retirement announcement from Lou Piniella, effective at the end of the season, Valentine has openly expressed interest
in the job----ESPN Story.
Like anything else with Valentine,
there's the potential of the eruption of a nuclear fireball and it's mostly due to the behavior of...Bobby Valentine.
Would Valentine be a good choice for the Cubs?
It depends on their intentions.
Valentine is well-versed in stat based theory,
has a gambler's soul when it comes to in-game strategy and the experience and courage to make maneuvers based on what he feels
will win a game rather than what's easier to explain to reporters and front office people. The Cubs have hired a stat guy,
Ari Kaplan, to work in their front office and if they're going to do a drastic organizational rebuild, then Valentine is a
bad choice; but if they intend to move forward and try to win on the fly, they do have enough talent at the big league level
and in their system to make it a realistic and sensible option to hire Valentine.
They have contracts that are completely immobile like Alfonso Soriano,
so a total overhaul doesn't make much sense; but the Cubs don't even know who their GM is going to be next season, so thinking
about a manager before they keep GM Jim Hendry or replace him makes little sense.
I don't see Valentine with the Cubs next year; nor do I put much stock in the
idea that Joe Girardi would leave the Yankees for that job; Ryne Sandberg is going to be the next manager of the Cubs.
For Valentine, he's running out of options. He pulled
out of the running for the Orioles when all indications were that he was about to be named Marlins manager; now that that
is on life support, he's talking up the Cubs. If they don't want him, he's either going to have to hope the Mets do something
out of character and bring him back or the Dodgers go after him if Joe Torre retires. Aside from that, he's running out of
big league jobs to "covet" and actually have a chance of getting.
Desperation leaves you at the mercy of that which you desire; and it's bad strategy as well.
The Yankees are right to
try to make the best deal they can - for them. If the Diamondbacks have other suitors for Haren and the deal is better somewhere
else, then let them take it. But the trading deadline is looming, so who are the other teams and what are they offering?
This is another example of the Yankees wanting something, but not taking into serious account the other
clubs who might be after the object of their affection. If the Yankees had agreed to take all of the Haren money, Haren might
be a Yankee right now.
There's
nothing wrong with asking for what you want (this can also be said of the Valentine situation), but there has to be flexibility.
If the Yankees are comfortable going forward with their starting pitching as it stands now----and there's little reason not
to be as long as Andy Pettitte will be back in a reasonable timeframe----then they could pull a "take it or leave it"
with the Diamondbacks regarding Haren; or the Astros with Roy Oswalt; or any other starter available; but if they wanted Haren,
they should've done what needed to be done to get him.
The competition for Haren appeared to be the Phillies and the Cardinals. I'm sure the Yankees were smart enough to
know that the Angels would be monitoring the circumstances from afar and were always a threat to strike----and they did.
Kyle Johnson writes RE
the Angels and Dan Haren:
With the acquisition of Dan Haren from the D-backs do
you see the Angels catching the Rangers by season's end or are the offensive differences just too big? Also imagine what a
starting three of Lee, Weaver, and Haren would be like if they were able to sign Lee next off season. Would be a very intimidating
team, no?
I don't think the Angels are going to catch the Rangers, but they are
going to be in position to capitalize on a young team's panic late in the season if they're close in mid-to-late September----you
never know; and late season collapses are becoming an annual event in baseball.
The Angels have a lot of money coming off the books in the next couple of years.
Bobby Abreu, Brian Fuentes, Hideki Matsui and Scot Shields will all probably be gone after this year; Kazmir after next year;
and Torii Hunter after 2012. They could certainly figure a way to get Lee into their salary structure; but now that the Yankees
are out on Haren and almost definitely not taking Oswalt, it's going to be hard to outbid them on Lee.
My book is still available on Amazon, I-Universe and Barnes and Noble.com. It's available for download as an E-book here. You can also now get it for less that five bucks on BN via download here.
Considering how reviled he is throughout stat
zombie circles (and I don't think much of him as a GM either), eyes must have been rolling out of heads when David DeJesus
injured his hand crashing into the center field wall trying to catch Derek Jeter's drive earlier this week. In that one moment,
Royals GM Dayton Moore's willingness to trade DeJesus were sabotaged.
The one reaction I saw was Jayson Stark (a non-stat zombie) saying, "Oops" on Twitter; but
I'm certain that there are others who are ripping Moore up-and-down for: A) asking for so much in exchange for DeJesus; and
B) not trading him earlier.
Both arguments
are, of course, ridiculous.
The Royals
were under no edict to move DeJesus despite their current situation of, well, of being the Royals. They're not going anywhere;
they're building for a future that could be as far off in the distance as men walking on Neptune; and DeJesus is one one of
their best players with a contract that pays him only $6 million next year. They have no reason to trade him unless they were
bowled over by an offer. They might've gotten a break in DeJesus getting hurt so they can either deal him in the winter and
possibly get more than they would've gotten now.
DeJesus is highly underrated; very versatile defensively; has some pop; gets on base; and he's affordable. Trading
him prior to a lucrative enough offer being presented would've been a panic move by Moore and a justifiable reason to attack
him; aside from that, DeJesus got hurt and is out for the season----accept it and move on.
None of this is the point. The point is that the agenda-driven criticism
is doled out so unevenly that you'd think my repeated harping on it would yield a shift. But it hasn't.
In case you missed it, Ben Sheets of the Athletics was placed on the disabled
list yesterday with a strained elbow.
In other words, Sheets is back in his office.
So, where's the criticism for Athletics GM Billy Beane for not trading Sheets earlier? The Athletics are now over .500,
but in the grand scheme of things, they're not in any better a position than the Royals; not shielded from criticism for any
reason other than the sacred cow that is their GM; the beacon of their "revolution" laid out in Moneyball.
The Sheets signing was a strange one to start with,
especially for a guaranteed $10 million; people like me savaged it; and even the Beane acolytes in the media questioned its
wisdom. Sheets didn't pitch last year after surgery on the same elbow; looked dishonest because of his knowledge that he
was injured and was still trying to extract a contract from a pitching-hungry team before his season-ending surgery----it
was as if he hoped someone would sign him and when no one did, he begrudgingly agreed to have surgery as if it was a cosmetic,
elective procedure. I wouldn't want a guy like that on my team.
Sheets was horrible in the spring, but he did manage to get himself out to the mound every fifth day
when the season started; he pitched well enough; and was a viable trade chip for the Athletics.
But they didn't trade him.
And now he's back on the disabled list.
The Athletics will be able to get Sheets through waivers after the trading deadline
and if he can pitch after the stay on the DL, they'll be able to move him, but they won't get as much as they would've had
they dealt him earlier.
Are the Athletics
contenders for a playoff spot? They're 7 1/2 games behind the Rangers in the AL West----they're not catching them. They're
9 1/2 games behind the Rays in the Wild Card race----they're not catching them.
Aside from aesthetics and having a GM who "gets it", are they in any
better position than the Royals?
No.
To me, the Athletics and Beane deserve more criticism
than the Royals do for their reluctance to trade Sheets when they could've dumped his salary and gotten something for him
even if what they got was a "tools" player who wasn't performing well; or a fill-in piece that could be of use later
on. After the season, they're going to get nothing for him; while the Royals will still have DeJesus and could trade him in
the winter or next season.
In both cases,
I actually agree with the hesitancy to make a quick trade. It's the absence of equal analysis that I have an issue with. The
criticism is again based not on fact, but on allegiance, and it's wrong.
Speaking of which...
Disaster,
thy name is Mariners:
Do you realize that the Mariners don't have one player who has 10 home runs.
It's late July.
And they don't have one player who has 10 home runs.
This is with a GM who was considered a "genius" as recently as three months ago.
I'm not blaming Mariners GM Jack Zduriencik for the entirety of the Mariners
failure, but like the above section about Moore and Beane, I'm waiting for equality of judgment based not on partisanship,
but on....objective reality.
Waiting, waiting and waiting.
A team
that was built for defense has the 9th worst fielding percentage in the American League; and is at the top of the board in
errors committed----the Zduriencik strategies of dealing on the fly while clearing players and adding other players has failed.
It's another case of half-measures and "doing stuff" while not fixing fundamental problems.
What are the Mariners fundamental problems, you ask?
Ichiro Suzuki for one; a lack of talent for another.
Ichiro is a diva; he's too expensive
and would only have use on a good team.
What does he do that makes him valuable aside from occupying a massive chunk of team payroll for hitting a bunch of singles
and selfishly accumulating hits and a high batting average? Put Ichiro on the Yankees or Red Sox and bat him leadoff and he'll
score 150 runs and presumably he wouldn't behave as he does in Seattle----running the show and dictating who the manager is
as a prerequisite for him to stay as he's rumored to have done with Mike Hargrove; but with the Mariners, he, along with Felix
Hernandez, is one of their few publicly marketable names, therefore he gets away with it.
Answer me this: if the Mariners put Ichiro on the market, who'd want
him as anything other than an exchange of contracts? Set to make a guaranteed $34 million after this season, is he of any
use to another team if he's going to be the selfish "I got my hits and that's what matters" player he is now?
The argument of "I got my hits" vs "I
played for the team" is subtle, but unmistakable and baseball people know it and can spot it immediately. Ichiro could
hit 25 homers if he wanted to. Easily. His average would suffer, but so what? What good is it if Ichiro singles and is stranded
on the basepaths because there's no one behind him to drive him in? That's a fault of the Mariners upper management for choosing
to bring back Ken Griffey Jr. and not sign Jim Thome, but Ichiro is also under their watch and he doesn't play for the team.
The season is lost and Ichiro's going to accrue more stats that look glossy----but intelligent baseball observers know the
truth; the truth that he's an expensive, selfish and losing player.
The lack of talent in Seattle is striking. Look at their roster and they look like an expansion team.
They have Hernandez, Ichiro, Franklin Gutierrez and...and....and....what?
Nothing.
There
are negligible pieces here and there; a young bat like Michael Saunders who could become something; Luke French could develop;
Dustin Ackley, Johermyn Chavez are minor league bats that have promise; but what else is there?
This is all occurring as the Mariners----with a "genius" as
their GM----are going to easily lose 100 games. Things went wrong for them this year and that's understandable and not the
fault of Zduriencik to any greater degree than the Mets stumble in 2009 was the fault of GM Omar Minaya; or the Diamondbacks
fall was the fault of their fired GM Josh Byrnes.
Mistakes were made in all cases----some explainable, some not; but the appellation of "genius" was so stupid
and based on nothing other than shared beliefs that I fear I'm wasting my time in asking for the righteous and self-serving
indignation that would be present in cases like Minaya and Moore.
Objective reality? I don't see it.
Is any other fan base this negative?
Maybe I see it more closely because it's the Mets, but are fans of the Cubs, Indians, Royals and Orioles
more negative than Mets fans? And why? The team has so far surpassed any expectations before the season that there should
be baseline acceptance of their current state on one end of the spectrum; and joy on the other for the mere fact that they're
over .500 in late July and still a viable playoff contender.
They're streaky and awful on the road; they're short in the pitching department and don't hit in the
clutch.
But they're still hanging around
playoff contention.
Mets fans don't want
to hear this, but any playoff run at this point would be playing with house money. In 2010, they're incorporating a better-than-expected
youth movement and cheap signings like R.A. Dickey and Hisanori Takahashi; and possibly moving toward a future that is very
bright not for 2010, maybe not even for 2011, but for 2012.
A playoff spot is right there for the taking with any number of National League teams this season and
it may come down to whichever club gets lucky in a trade or is hot in September. That could be the Mets; it could be the Giants;
it could be the Phillies----it could be anyone.
The big picture provides clarity. The 2012 Phillies are looking more and more like they're going to be a very bad team
due to ongoing front office idiocy. The Braves are loaded with young players; the Mets are as well. And the Mets, with all
the Bernie Madoff-spurred allegations of an inability to spend money, are still going to be one of the higher ceilinged teams
in terms of spending ability and will have a lot of room to do so as the dead money from Luis Castillo and Oliver Perez comes
off the books, and Carlos Beltran's contract is set to expire after 2011; right now, it's iffy as to whether the Mets are
going to keep Jose Reyes after he goes free agent following 2011.
The money will be there.
Jason Bay is having an atrocious year, but is it really that different from the year Beltran had in 2005? It's better
in fact because the expectations for Beltran were much higher and he took a year to adjust to New York. Bay is experiencing
the same thing and may be----as David Wright was----spooked by the vast dimensions of Citi Field; I'd expect a more relaxed
Bay in 2011 and for the team to get something close to what they expected this year.
The front office has been smart in not acting desperately to win now as
they did in 2004 by trading Scott Kazmir for Victor Zambrano. In retrospect, the trade of Kazmir was only a bad deal because
they could've gotten a Tim Hudson from the Atheltics for Kazmir after the season, not because of anything the mediocre Kazmir
has done since with the Rays or Angels.
This negativity is out of context; the target placed on a manager in Jerry Manuel----who probably won't be shepherding
the youth movement anyway----is misplaced. Any playoff for this team in 2010 would be stolen similar to the way the Rockies
used a blazing hot streak all the way to the World Series in 2007; the Mets future is 2011-2012. It's close and it's bright.
Brighter than that of a lot of teams in baseball.
The doomsayers need to look at
that reality and react accordingly with a cold, realistic detachment rather than continually attack and play up their own
pre-season predictions that were based on selfishness rather than accurate appraisal.
But that's prevalent today as well.
The Yankees and Dan Haren:
If I were running the Diamondbacks front office and engaging in discussions
to trade Dan Haren to the Yankees, and the Yankees had the audacity to ask for money to supplement Haren's contract and, in
addition to that, were refusing to give up the players I wanted, I'd tell them that we'd continue a dialogue as the week wore
on; then I'd hang up the phone, look at my assistants with head-shaking frustration and shock at the arrogance and say, "So,
they want me to give up my biggest asset; give them money to pay him; and back off my demand for Joba Chamberlain----all
so they can still have the money to sign Cliff Lee in the winter. Are they this self-absorbed or are they truly out of their
*bleeping* minds?!?"
While the Yankees
complaining about the way the Mariners and Zduriencik appeared to use them to get a better package for Lee from the Rangers
had some basis, they're still behaving as if the rest of baseball owes them something. Why would anyone in their right minds
want to help the Yankees both financially and in personnel? To think that the Diamondbacks are stupid enough to give the Yankees
money to pay Dan Haren is so insane that only a lunatic would buy into and engage in it.
Are the Diamondbacks going to get a better deal for Haren now than
they would in the winter? It's questionable; Haren's locked up contractually; the only risk for the Diamondbacks is if he
gets hurt as DeJesus did----apart from any self-imposed edict, they're under no obligation to trade him.
It's obvious what the Yankees are doing----that they want Haren at their
price in terms of players and want money to cover his contract so they can still find a way to sign Lee; I don't blame them
for it; in fact, it's admirable that Yankees GM Brian Cashman would try to do that, but overall, it's madness.
If I were the Diamondbacks, I'd say straight
out to Cashman that if he wants Haren, he's either taking the whole contract and giving me a nice package of blue chip youth;
or he's getting a small amount of money and giving me a nice package headed by Chamberlain. If that's not acceptable, take
a hike.
To me, playing harder ball with
the Yankees or Red Sox than with other teams is part of doing business in the world of haves and have-nots. There's no restraint
on salaries, so it's up to the individual clubs to check on the teams with big money and condescending attitudes by marking
their territory and holding the line. This is why Zduriencik is probably being quietly applauded for his actions in the Lee
negotiations----he beat the Yankees at their own game. The Diamondbacks should take heed as well.
Didn't hear about the Figgins thing. He must be homesick
for the Angels, because everybody on Scoscia's teams hustles.
I don't think people
realize that this stuff happens all the time off the field but it's more pronounced and a bigger case is made of these altercations
when they occur in the dugout because they're public. It can be a useful air-clearing session when it finally blows up and
it's not a bad thing. People don't have to get along personally to work together.
It's hard to imagine someone regretting getting the money they wanted, but Figgins
looks miserable in Seattle; the team is dysfunctional and awful and he left the Angels----a great situation with an organized
and successful team----to go into a wasteland that's not going to get better anytime soon. It's hard to give him a pass for
repeated lack of hustle, but zoning out when losing day-after-day is understandable.
Angels people are probably looking at the Figgins-Don Wakamatsu incident
and saying, "Chone didn't act that way here," and it's more of a comparative teamwide assessment than a simple statement
of fact.
He's got his money
though.
Joe
writes RE my delving into the 80s:
Funny how you are stuck in 80's mode the day after I
watched 'Hot Tub Time Machine.'
Did you watch the unrated version? I haven't seen
it yet.
I'm sensing a future for you
in the deadpan comedy arena, Joe. Maybe you can open for Ken Davidoff and his ventriloquist dummy, "Dolan".
Cliff
Lee ~ I wish I was as optimistic as you. In my heart I think Baby Jeff and Mets R Us are going to blow it. I don't think they'll
be as committed to signing Lee as they'll need to be. You also must take this into consideration; Reyes' deal is up after
2011 as Wright's will be. The Wilpons should know at this very moment, at least in theory, if they are going to pay the big
money needed to retain them. KRod's deal is up after next season and in two season's time the effective Johan window will
close.
And a moment of silence for
your boy and mine, Fernando Nieve; ruined by Jerry Manuel in 2010.
The Lee-to-the-Mets scenario
is going to be determined by whether the Yankees get Haren and if the Mets pay Lee when he's available; but it's not a Hail
Mary situation where they have no chance of getting him----things have broken relatively well for the Mets lately whether
people admit it or not.
This idea that
the Mets aren't willing to pay players is silly. They paid for Bay; they still have a high payroll----we're not talking a
Marlins/Padres-style sell-off.
Wright
is going nowhere. Not by trade, nor by free agency. He's locked up through 2013 anyway. Reyes might be allowed to leave; Santana's
here to stay; Francisco Rodriguez? He has a $17.5 million club option for 2012 with appearance/health clauses that he'll easily
reach. Even without K-Rod, they can find someone to close.
Regarding Nieve, people loathe admitting this, but there are players who you sign, use, exhaust and discard. Nieve
has a good fastball and slider----ability to be a useful pitcher, but he's not someone you can say the Mets "ruined".
Could Manuel have been more judicious with him? Of course, but it's not on the level with abusing K-Rod, Mike Pelfrey or Santana.
Nieve served his purpose and they designated him for assignment. He might be back or he might not. Life will go on.
My book is still available on Amazon, I-Universe and Barnes and Noble.com. It's available for download as an E-book here. You can also now get it for less that five bucks on BN via download here.
Give in and love it, what's the point
in hating me? You can't argue with popularity.
The above lines are from the movie Wall Street,
which reminds me that there's a sequel to the film coming out soon; this also reminds me of a clip from the old Ben Stiller
Show on Fox from years ago called OliverStoneland. The Ben Stiller Show was brilliant, but presumably too highbrow (in a comedy
sense) for fans of Married With Children to grasp late on a Sunday night and after a few beers.
But I digress.
The Yankees are involved in talks to get Dan Haren from the Diamondbacks and in the aftermath of their
failed pursuit of Cliff Lee, Haren, on the whole, is probably a better long-term investment due to age, finances and probable
cost. It will be fascinating to see who the Diamondbacks want from the Yankees in exchange for Haren----they already have
a relatively young catcher named Montero (Miguel Montero), so they don't need Jesus Montero from the Yankees.
I suggested after the Lee negotiations fell apart
and the Yankees' subsequent tantrum that perhaps they and the Diamondbacks could work something out centered around Joba Chamberlain----Posting 7.12.2010. In much the same way the Mets Generation K came apart in the mid-90s, is it possible that two of the three phenoms will
have to try and fulfill their potential elsewhere with Chamberlain and Ian Kennedy reuniting in Arizona?
Trading Chamberlain is no longer so far-fetched as he's faltered in the
bullpen and it's beginning to become clear that the likelihood of him becoming the "next Roger Clemens" as much
of the hyperbole (from me included) suggested. He's in play for a trade.
But that's not my point.
Haren isn't quite as good a pitcher as Lee, but he's not that far off; he's remarkably durable and doesn't have Lee's
injury history; he's two years younger; and, most importantly, he's signed long term at a comparatively cheap rate.
The Yankees would get a similar performance from Haren
as they would from Lee and would only pay a fraction of the cost financially. With the contract he signed with the Diamondbacks
in August of 2008. Haren is signed for $12.75 million per in 2011 and 2012 with an option of $15.5 million and a $3.5 million
buyout for 2013.
Cliff Lee is going
to cost at least $120 million to sign; and while he's a free agent and won't require the Yankees to ante up the talent they're
going to surrender to get Haren, taking everything into account, it's a wash----a cheaper wash----to get Haren.
I believe the Haren to the Yankees talk has legs and
will happen. Of course I have to add the twin caveats of not believing a deal is done until it is done; and that
you should not pay attention to anything said or written by Joel Sherman.
On another note, the interwebs were abuzz with the thought of the Yankees getting Haren, but it wasn't simply the idea of
getting a top-tier pitchers that caused all the excitement; naturally some Yankee fans exemplified why a large segment of
them are so relentlessly despised by the public in general when they exclaimed that in 2011, they'd have Haren and Lee.
I've never given the Yankees a hard time about using
their financial might to get whichever player they wanted regardless of the cost; they have the money, spend the money; but
it's the arrogance that is so off-putting; this belief that because the Yankees want something and that they are
the Yankees, they should get it. In addition to that, we've seen what can happen when so-called "dream teams" are
put together. Many, many times, it doesn't work.
If the Yankees get Haren, you can forget about them getting Lee unless they find some fool to take A.J. Burnett's contract.
That won't happen.
The days of collecting stars and paying for them without any restraint
ended when the Steinbrenner sons and Brian Cashman took complete control of the Yankees. Do you really believe that they're
going to be paying a starting rotation the amount of money it would cost to add Haren and Lee?
Let's break it down.
C.C. Sabathia: guaranteed $23 million
annually through 2015.
A.J. Burnett: guaranteed $16.5
million annually through 2013.
Haren: guaranteed $29
million through 2012.
Phil Hughes: arbitration eligible
and due a big raise.
If you add Lee to the mix and his $20 million-plus annual salary, the
Yankees would be paying over $80 million annually for their starting rotation alone!!! Then you realize they have to re-sign
Derek Jeter and Mariano Rivera and there's no way it's going to happen.
The Yankees are not getting both Haren and Lee.
Forget it.
Observing
with vested interest...
Omar Minaya, Jeff Wilpon and the Mets are watching and hoping their good luck regarding Cliff Lee continues. First the Phillies
traded him to the Mariners; the Mariners collapsed; then a trade to the Yankees that was said to be "done" fell
apart; Lee was traded to a team in the Rangers that won't be able to keep him; and the Yankees are in on Dan Haren.
If the Yankees get Haren, they may also be delivering
Cliff Lee to the Mets.
After getting
Haren, the financial circumstances make it all but impossible for the Yankees to make a heavy play on Lee this winter; so
where is The Stone Cold Killer going? The Phillies can't afford him and, despite Lee assertions to the contrary that he'd
consider anyone, he's not going back there. The Dodgers are in disarray. The Cubs? Forget it. He's not going back to the Mariners.
The Orioles? No thanks. The Red Sox might check in, but they're not paying Lee either when they want Adrian Gonzalez and are
going to have to pay him Joe Mauer money.
Where's Lee going?
I said months ago
that it would come down to the Angels and the Mets. If the money is similar, Lee is such a competitor and so vindictive that
he'd love nothing better than to be 90 miles away from Philadelphia, on the big stage of New York and shoving it to Ruben
Amaro Jr. every time he walked out to the Citi Field mound.
Despite allegations to the contrary, the Mets are going to have the money to sign Lee especially if
they backload a deal with the bigger paychecks coming after Oliver Perez, Luis Castillo and Carlos Beltran come off the books
after 2011. They have a lot of young players on the way up and will be in shape to contend with that youth coming to the forefront.
They'll be paying low salaries to their 1st baseman (Ike Davis); 2nd baseman (Ruben Tejada); right fielder (Fernando Martinez);
catcher (Josh Thole); and two-fifths of their starting rotation (Jon Niese, Jenrry Mejia). They'll be able to afford Lee.
The Angels are a stealth, ruthless and
deadly opponent; but don't discount the Minaya charm that netted Pedro Martinez and Beltran after 2004 when few saw the Mets
as a realistic possibility for either. Underestimating that aggressiveness and convincing sales pitch has been a mistake before
and could be so again; plus the money will be there.
The dominoes are falling and they're falling for the Mets.
For a change.
The
Mariners' train wreck gets worse:
Chone Figgins and manager Don Wakamatsu got into a Billy Martin-Reggie Jackson-style confrontation in the dugout after
Figgins was pulled from the Mariners game vs the Red Sox for lack of hustle----ironically the same team and for the same reason
as the Martin-Reggie dustup. You can see the clip here----MLB.com link.
I'm still waiting for an answer as
to why no one is eviscerating the Mariners in general and shredding GM Jack Zduriencik in particular. Imagine if this happened
with the Dodgers, Royals or Mets? In addition to the horror film into which the Mariners of 2010 have deteriorated, now players
are fistfighting with the manager? In the dugout?
The perception is going to be that the players don't think much of Wakamatsu. From the Ken Griffey Jr. nap controversy;
to the lack of hustle; to the horrible way they've played overall; to this latest incident, it's a disaster in Seattle. I
have no way of knowing what the players think of their manager, but actions speak far louder than words and the way the players
have openly disregarded Wakamatsu and any form of baseline decorum, you don't have to take too far a leap to realize that
he's not highly thought of.
With Figgins,
he didn't hustle on the play and he did deserve to be yanked. I'm getting the impression that he's the latest in a long line
of players who left a more stable and organized situation and was shocked and disoriented by the absence of commitment and
chain-of-command with the Mariners. It happened with Carlos Silva after he left the Twins; and it's happening with Figgins
after leaving the Angels.
Nor can
it be lost on anyone that both Silva and Figgins were signed by two different regimes in terms of reality and outside appraisal----and
both were expensive busts.
That's
no excuse, but it is an explanation. Maybe the entire culture in Seattle isn't as altered as was believed simply by the hiring
of a new GM who adheres to stat zombie principles; principles that have been bolstering and protecting him.
So, is Zduriencik still a genius?
Anyone? Anyone? Bueller? Anyone?
I'm in 80s movie mode today. Dunno why. Maybe it's a subconscious hearkening
back to the Mets glory days as Darryl Strawberry, Dwight Gooden, Davey Johnson and Frank Cashen are preparing to enter the
club Hall of Fame. Maybe.
Getting to see the "legit"
writers' wheels spin via Twitter and the like is a pleasure for me. Like you mention, sometimes they say the dumbest things.
(Heyman does this a LOT!)
Oops!
"Oops" is for the playground.
It's such a joy to see that they're just as capricious in their responses and assessments as everyone
else; worse in fact because one would think that if they're writing about the sport and getting paid well for it, they'd have
to: A) have writing ability; and B) some knowledge of what they're saying.
Heyman? Are you referring to The Blocking Machine? He's a weak man.
First it was "Fire Manuel!" Then it was "Keep
Manuel!" We've seen this many times before in the media. A team wins and the manager is safe. It loses and the manager
is fire fodder. Just how it goes.
They're sitting there and waiting for a cold streak
to get a fire the manager chant going. Sometimes it's justified, sometimes not; but you'd think with the Mets streakiness
this year and that they're still very close to the top of the Wild Card race, they'd take that into account before firing
up the familiar and lame rhetoric again. Clearly I'm giving them too much credit.
Gabriel (Capo) writes RE the media:
I agree with Jane, the media is always in favour of a manager if a team
is doing well, and asking for his/her head if the team's losing. It happens all around the globe, and in every team sport
with a manager involved. That said, most of the time the statements are made to sell. Right now, more than before, they have
to grab attention, and controversial statements are the easiest way to generate interest. I saw on "Private Parts",
the Howard Stern movie, that people who liked and disliked Howard Stern tuned in just to hear what he was going to say. It's
the way the media has always worked, and until bloggers can cover a team and become beat-bloggers, it's the way it's gonna
be.
Negative stories are always more juicy than
positive stories and they're easier to write.
It's interesting you bring up the Stern movie. I became an ambivalent fan of his after his hypocrisy
regarding the divorce. The movie is funny in so many more ways when watching it with hindsight. I remember his promotion of
the film----it was okay, not great as he claims----and it grew tiresome that he continuously played it up as if it was better
than it was. His movie career has fizzled along with his attempts to take the next step in all forms of media. He lost something
important when he became a happier person in his personal life. It was a trade-off that alienated hard core fans like myself
and was presumably inevitable.
Power to the Bloggers! Milt (Phila), obviously is a sacrificial lamb, but it was a pro-active
move. I'll say that. Will it work? Milt wasn't the problem so who knows. Guess Amaro was firing a shot across the bow. And
Francesa is just way too smug for me. He's too everything else for me also. I tuned him out a decade ago. He makes my ears
bleed. Am I really missing something by not being on Twitter?
It's getting to the point
where bloggers are the only place to get intelligent analysis and it may be because we're detached from the more often than
not planted "inside" information.
Sometimes a change is needed for its own sake. The switch from Thompson to Greg Gross will be seen to have worked only
if it works and the Phillies hit better. Their problems go far deeper than a hitting coach.
The funniest thing about Francesa is that he portrays himself as a Godfather-type,
but he's more Fredo than Vito. It's somehow appropriate.
I'll say this regarding Twitter: it has its uses for discussion and information; it can be a fun, though addicting, diversion; and if you sign up, you'll
automatically be a member of the most feared and respected crew in the place----mine. I say go for it. I can use you.
Joe
writes RE his J.D. Drew pajamas:
Hey, my JD Drew pajamas don't care anymore and won't
fit me. Do you know where I can find Keith Law pajamas with little Keith Law faces all over them?
There are many directions for me to go in responding to this, but I'll instead ask a question: what's
with the sudden burst of humor, Joe? (At least I hope it's humor; I'd hate to think you're serious about Keith Law pjs, but
you might be. That's the scary part.) Did you get lucky with the ladies or something? Is that accounting for the improved
outlook?
I was a guest with Sal
at SportsFan Buzz yesterday and discussed everything going on with baseball on and off the field. I even mentioned the Yankees and Dan Haren
hours before it became a trending topic everywhere.
I'm ahead of the game. As usual.
You can listen directly here----link----or click on Sal's site and download it from I-Tunes.
My book is still available on Amazon, I-Universe and Barnes and Noble.com. It's available for download as an E-book here. You can also now get it for less that five bucks on BN via download here.
...but not quite; this is not the deranged rantings
of an unhinged lunatic...
Or is it?
After seeing a couple of mentions
of Mike Francesa on Twitter referring to a rant he was on about the Mets, I came up with some good lines to incorporate into
a posting that would deal with Francesa's decline from somewhat reasonable, respected----though torturously pompous and arrogant----analysis
from years ago.
Naturally, in order
to add the lines into said posting, I would have to have a reason to discuss Francesa, which meant I'd have to do something
I have chosen not to do in recent times----listen to his show.
And I did. WFAN Mets beat reporter Ed Coleman was on with Francesa discussing the latest plummet of
the team (by my count the fifth of which has occurred this season) and another managerial death watch has started for Mets
manager Jerry Manuel.
Then, as the day
wore on, I realized I didn't need to listen to Francesa to come up with a way to add my crafty lines (you'll have to identify
the ones I think were good enough upon which to base an entire posting yourself); all I needed was the futility of sports
analysis in general and the way individuals transform while analyzing in particular. That evolution is not always positive.
You have to wonder what the agenda is
in today's age of information at the click of a button.
Gone are the days in which the reporters and commentators were doing something that appeared to be from another world;
almost untouchable----a place where one had to have some semblance of qualifications to receive the forum to begin with.
One of the reasons that the hard core media is so
threatened by bloggers is that bloggers are making them have to step up their games to a level they may not be able to reach.
There's no crime in having limitations, but when pushing the envelope to maintain a position, an explosion is imminent.
What's the thinking? Do reporters and commentators
see that their time is coming to an end and they're going the way of the dinosaur? That people no longer care about capricious
and self-serving statements meant to draw attention as if they were drawn up by a PR firm or commercial entity? That eventually,
a segment of the public will recognize quality work and honesty rather than behave like sheep and listen to what everyone
else is listening to; following the crowd and doing what's popular rather than what's right?
Francesa began mailing it in long ago. His personality has darkened to
the point where he's totally unlikable. It's all about him. There's no concern with accurate, opinionated appraisal; everything
he says and does is either a knee-jerk reaction based on partisanship or a conduit to increase the attention drawn to himself.
It's almost as if he sees himself
as a Godfather type persona----benevolent, kind, family oriented and brutal when the time comes and all other avenues are
exhausted in pursuit of justice.
While in the movie, that was Vito Corleone, Mike Francesa is nothing like that. He is the epitome of fiction and narcissism.
The important factor in determining which entities
to take seriously in terms of commentary are how they got to their current position in the first place. Do people go on Francesa's
show because he's respected even if he's disliked? Do they listen because they know they're getting his truth even if it's
unpopular? If they disagree? Or are they making allowances for their own ends? Because he's still able to subtly and not-so-subtly
twist public opinion into the direction he chooses? And that they need him?
There's a difference.
A big difference.
Rational self-interest
is an imperative part of functioning in daily life and if that means that people from the Mets have to take Francesa's abuse
and still guest on his show for long term mutual advantage, you can't fault them for it.
Does Francesa get this? Or is he so immersed in the ego that has made
any attempt on his part to admit he was ever wrong about anything begin to sound like Fonzie from Happy Days? "I was
wr-wr-wr-wr----wrong"?
This posting
is not about Mike Francesa although he's a perfect vessel to use as a means to deciphering and tearing apart this phenomenon.
One of the beautiful things of the previously mentioned
information age is the access to the true and immediate thinking of those in the position to provide the news before they
have a chance to proofread and edit. Whereas their true intentions are clear when reading between the lines, it was never
as obvious as it is now that they provide running commentary on entities like Twitter or in live blogs.
Those that consider themselves "true" writers
like Buzz Bissinger attack bloggers for their supposed lack of qualifications; but it's only from bloggers and those without
a hidden investment in current events that true opinions are provided. In many cases, it could be the rantings of an ill-informed
and borderline psychotic personality, but at least it's real. At least there's not a Mike Lupica-type who's sitting at his
desk being contrary just for the sake of it.
You see the mean-spiritedness; the laziness that comes from the paid personalities more now than you ever did before
because of access to their work in progress and running thought processes.
This terrifies them because they know their time is coming to an end.
Managers getting fired gives them something to write and talk about. Teams
that were supposed to be one thing and instead have degenerated----for one reason or another----into something else gives
them sustenance. Is a firing the answer? Or is it a question? Is the repeated wonderment of the job security and calling for
one's job have an end point or is it a zero sum game?
Would these writers, safe within their protective cocoon of faceless sources and fantasy-created rumors,
like it if someone was constantly suggesting that they be fired? It's safer and easier to be on the sidelines making bland
assertions that change within the day; the hour; the minute; the second. There's no responsibility. No one has to capacity
or self-confidence to say, "Y'know what? I was wrong" for fear of losing the veneer of inside information; of expertise.
It would blow their cover.
Perhaps it's a byproduct of complacency that has caused
this shift.
Are there circumstances
where a firing; a trade; a change of some kind is the right thing to do based on a myriad of factors? Of course. But it should
happen with reason. Organically. You can't force it, but that's what is attempted by the "experts" who have a forum.
Their strategies are obvious to those
that see through them. You can tell----just feel----when you're getting conviction----right or wrong. It's reactionary
and it's meaningless when you read about the potential firing; the trade rumors; the editorials because what's beneath the
surface is there to see if they want to see it.
Is Jerry Manuel in trouble as Mets manager?
Did Phillies hitting coach Milt Thompson deserve to be fired?
Did the Royals make a mistake in holding out to trade David DeJesus?
Are any and all of these speciously reasoned statements based on accuracy
or on what might be useful in the moment to "say" and appear to relay a definitive opinion?
I can answer the questions I posed above easily enough.
I can add more questions----about the McCourt divorce; about Roy Oswalt;
about anything and everything----if I so choose. It's the same as the media focusing on one small story that's relevant or
easy about which to discuss because it's topical and a ratings or traffic booster.
Jerry Manuel is in no more trouble now than he was earlier in the season.
Fans want blood and firing the manager is the easiest thing to do to placate their anger for a time. The media doesn't care
one way or the other on a professional level----it gives them something to say without having to do any legitimate work. Is
he going to be fired? Possibly. Will it help? Who knows?
What needs to be understood about the Mets is that their season, put into context, is still very much alive and in far better
straits than those in the same media suggested as they did their hatchet jobs in the winter attacking every facet of the organization.
If you were told in January when the savagery was at its height that the Mets would be 49-47 on July 23rd, 4 games out of
the Wild Card lead, would that look good or bad? Considering that an utter collapse was predicted just about everywhere, of
course it would be seen as a positive that they're in position to make a run regardless of their hot and cold streaks.
It's all about perception.
Did Milt Thompson deserve to be fired as Phillies hitting coach. Firing
any coach aside from the pitching coach is a maneuver designed to do something just for the sake of doing something. Is the
struggle of the Phillies because of Thompson? Is it inner turmoil? Is it injuries? Or is it the aforementioned complacency
that comes from repeated success?
If the Phillies go on a hitting tear now with Greg Gross as their hitting coach, it will be seen as the turning point, but
if they still struggle, it will be seen as a desperation decision that didn't work. If Thompson got the credit for the devastating
lineup the Phillies have been in recent years, then by all means, he should get the blame when things aren't going according
to plan. In both cases, it's silly to dole credit or blame even in hindsight.
Perception.
David DeJesus injured himself running into the wall on Derek Jeter's long fly ball last night in the Royals' loss to the Yankees.
DeJesus has been the subject of trade rumors that are probably now gone because of the injury. Jayson Stark of ESPN (whom
I respect as one of the few credible voices ESPN has) exemplified the inherent flaws with the immediacy of rapid response
when he said on Twitter:
#Royals have been taking time waiting for a team to pay hefty price for David DeJesus. Hurt thumb tonight. Might be out past deadline.
Oops!
"Oops!"?
Stark----to my knowledge----has not been among the number to use Royals
GM Dayton Moore's mistakes as a means to suggest replacements of the stat zombie variety to get another of their "own"
into a position of power based more on belief systems rather than competence----he's no cheap shot artist----but to suggest
that this was another mistake on Moore's part is absurd.
The trade deadline is a week away.
DeJesus is an inexpensive, versatile and useful player who would be an excellent addition to any contender. He got hurt a
week before the trading deadline trying to make a catch. That's life. That's how things fall sometimes. In retrospect, since
the Royals won't be able to trade the injured DeJesus, it could be seen as a windfall if he is either traded in the winter
or is held onto and continues to improve.
To suggest that this one incident is worthy of more contempt heaped on an embattled GM in Moore (who, for the record, I don't
think knows what he's doing) is a shaky premise. Were they supposed to rush on a trade they deemed inadequate because of a
concern that DeJesus was going to get hurt? What would be the reaction if Moore did something like that and admitted it? Wouldn't
it be a bigger "oops"? Wouldn't that be gross incompetence and fear?
Perception.
You can point to anything in sports and life as a means to hammer home this point. As you read the
stories in the gossip columns about athletes and admonish them for a lack of commitment to their jobs, you have to take it
a step further and understand that the game may not be as life-and-death to them as it is to a hard core fan.
On the record, if a hitter is slumping, goes
0 for 4 with four strikeouts and responds to questions regarding his performance with some standard cliche such as "I
was overmatched"; or "I'm in a slump", it's possible that the real response is that he stayed out too late
the night before; or he had a fight with his wife or girlfriend and was distracted; or one of his children has a cold; or
he's worried about trade rumors; or some other more truthful justification of his failure.
In this vein of humanity, I always go back to a story I heard from a friend
regarding former big league lefty Allen Watson. As a rookie, Watson was scheduled to start for the Cardinals on August 24th,
1993 in San Diego against the Padres. The story goes that Watson was sitting around the clubhouse----basically by himself----looking
around and wondering where everyone was before coming to the terrifying conclusion that he had forgotten to change his watch
to West Coast time and the game he was scheduled to pitch was going to start momentarily.
As a rookie, Watson had a choice: tell manager Joe Torre what happened
and run the risk of a reputation as an idiot and/or a flake and possibly get sent down to the minors never to return; or go
out to the mound having barely warmed up and hope for the best.
You can check the pitching line from that day to determine what route Watson took---he got rocked----and you can't argue with him considering his longevity in the majors.
It was a human mistake. Similar to the mistake that Don Mattingly made managing in place of the ejected Torre with the Dodgers
in which he accidentally made two trips to the mound within seconds of each other by turning and saying something to close
Jonathan Broxton as he was walking off.
It was a human error that happens again and again.
Can you really rake someone over the coals for it?
Only if you're intentions are something other than acceptance of humans being what they are----flawed
and forgivable in most cases. It takes a blast of reality to understand that there are players in sports who are more interested
in getting paid and laid than they are in winning championships; that they don't have the rabid desire that fans want them
to have; that the fans have.
It's humanity
and it has to be accepted to grasp the nature of what's said; what's written; what's done; and what happens. It could sap
some of the enjoyment from the diversion, but at least it would be honest.
And if that's what you're looking for that's probably why you're reading me to begin with.
Viewer Mail 7.23.2010:
Lisa Swann at Subway Squawkers writes RE George Steinbrenner, Lou Piniella, Joe Torre and the Yankees:
Good piece. I agree with most everything in it.
One minor quibble. You write:
"He
would've been the obvious choice to replace Torre every year he was managing in Tampa; and by the time Torre was relieved
of his duties, Steinbrenner wasn't at his decisive, bloviating best to overrule his baseball people and hire Piniella."
IIRC, The Boss had had enough of Torre in the fall of 2006 and wanted Piniella. Lou supposedly turned it down, because
Torre was still the manager. Or at least that's the story as has been reported.
By the time Torre was gone, Lou
was already under contract with Chicago.
Anyhow, I hadn't read your blog before this. Will have to bookmark it!
Bookmarking is always a good thing!
It depends on who you listen to and believe regarding Piniella's desire for the Yankee job. In Bill Madden's book, he says that Piniella was interested in the Yankees job after 2006 and that Piniella's agent told the Yankees they'd have
to move fast if they wanted his client.
Could Piniella have been trying to drive up his price for any and all interested clubs? Force the Yankees' hand? Make the
Cubs or Yankees move more quickly with the threat of the other job being available? All of the above?
I can't imagine that Piniella would've let Torre's contract influence
him either way. If Steinbrenner went to Piniella and suggested he take over as manager before Torre was fired, it's possible
that Piniella would have refrained from openly angling for another man's job, especially one he respects; but if Steinbrenner
told Piniella that Torre was out regardless and he wanted Piniella to take the job, the Torre contract wouldn't have stood
in the way.
It was a similar situation
when Torre was in trouble after both 2006 and 2007, only with the Mets as the threat; the Yankees were said to be concerned
that the Mets would fire Willie Randolph and hire Torre. I can't imagine that Torre would willingly have taken his close friend
Randolph's job, but if the job was open, it was open. I'm sure Randolph would've given Torre his blessing to take the job
had he been fired in either year. Had Steinbrenner fired Torre and Piniella was taken by the Cubs, there were names----Buck
Showalter for example----who would've jumped at the chance.
The way I saw it with Torre after 2006, he was asking to be fired. Batting Alex Rodriguez eighth in
the ALDS was a ridiculous, petulant call on the manager's part and a direct challenge to the Boss to do something about
it and pay him off to leave. He survived that year as manager, but not after 2007.
With Piniella, there was always a big ego to add to the mix. How would it have
looked for him to go to the Cubs and be the man in charge when their curse was broken? The club had guaranteed to spend money
as the Devil Rays did, but it was going to and did happen with the Cubs. They were talented enough to win and the argument
could be made that they didn't win because of mistakes made....by Lou Piniella!
Knowing what his life would still be like under Steinbrenner and having to
spar with the media and the front office to get what he wanted, it was presumably easier to take the Cubs job. It didn't work
out, but who knows what would've happened in 2008-2009 with Piniella in place of Joe Girardi? He might have made a mistake
that could've cost the Yankees as it did the Cubs in both 2007-2008. It worked for the Yankees, not so much for the Cubs.
I was very hopeful when
the McCourts bought the Dodgers. They did do a lot of good things. But you make a good point about the team being of greater
value to sell if they don't leave it in disarray.
The alterations in scouting
and front office turmoil could eventually lead to things coming apart on the field for the Dodgers without a total teardown
with the dumping of veterans.
Owners
are always in the crosshairs no matter what they do. They can be quietly determined and involved like Arte Moreno of the Angels;
or they can be absentee, hands-off like David Glass with the Royals; or they can be out front like McCourt is and George Steinbrenner
was. Whether or not they win is always the ultimate barometer. The Dodgers have won under the McCourts.
Jeff (Street Boss) at Red State Blue State writes RE the Cubs and Ryne Sandberg:
I know
Cubs fans are giddy about possibly promoting Sandberg, but I think -- like most sentimental things the Cubs tend to do --
it's gonna end up a sour situation.
I'm just going on past experiences; and the past says: the Cubs just can't
get right.
Hooray!
I'll withhold judgment on Sandberg until I see him
manage. His resume is solid and he'll get a pass for awhile because of who he is. The Cubs have a lot of young talent as well;
we'll see what trades they make at the deadline and what kind of front office shakeup there is after the season. Of course,
the Cubs history is what it is and that's not good.
The Prince on the Podcast:
I have an appearance scheduled for later today with
Sal at SportsFan Buzz.
Prepare for hurricane like conditions
is my advice.
My book is still available on Amazon, I-Universe and Barnes and Noble.com. It's available for download as an E-book
here. You can also now get it for less that five bucks on BN via download here.
In an excellent and entertaining article in
ESPN the Magazine about the divorce between Dodgers owner Frank McCourt and his wife Jamie, the whole circus is broken down
by Molly Knight----Link.
I'm not getting into a who's right,
who's wrong, ill-informed analysis of the relationship between Frank and Jamie McCourt; if you tore apart the personal lives
of anyone and everyone, I'm quite sure that a large part of what they do and how they behave would be considered strange.
To me, part of the vitriol directed at the McCourts is based on their ostentatious spending; their Beverly Hillbillies, fish-out-of-water
"weirdness", which in the context of the world in general and Hollywood in particular, shouldn't be considered weirdness
at all.
In short, they're getting
divorced; they have a lot of "stuff" that they co-own, some of which is very lucrative and prestigious to own (Um,
the Dodgers? I'd like to own the Dodgers); they're battling it out in court. It will be resolved somehow, some way.
Here's my question regarding my focus, team affairs:
when an owner is so in debt; when he's secured the number of loans to buy the team and then has used the team value to acquire
even more cash to buy other things, why is the team payroll such a factor?
By that I mean when marriages come apart as the Moores' did when they owned the Padres and as the McCourts'
is currently, is there that great a difference between a team payroll being say $110 million $80 million; $60 million; and
$40 million?
I realize that I'm throwing
around these numbers as if they're meaningless, but in the grand scale of things and taking into account the amount of money
owed to the banks and creditors, it is relatively meaningless.
To put it into simple terms, if you own something that's in dispute between you and another party,
and that something is worth $1000, you're not going to fret on $80-$120 of that $1000. The Dodgers are worth far more than
the club payroll whether it's $90 million or $120 million. So how much is the slashing of player salaries at the big league
level going to help?
I've never
quite understood the logic behind the drastic sell-offs that have occurred when owners are having personal and financial difficulties.
It happened with the Marlins under Wayne Huizenga after they won the World Series; the Padres several times with several owners;
and now the Dodgers are said to be planning a payroll slash after this year.
There have been owners in sports who literally haven't been wealthy while they owned their clubs----Art
Modell of the Cleveland Browns for example----but what people fail to understand is that much of so-called wealth in today's
world is actually access to credit; we're not talking people with Warren Buffett liquid money; we're talking people who own
something upon which they can borrow more and acquire other things. It's more about negotiating with banks than it
is anything else.
Did the Marlins
detonating their championship team after 1997 really mean all that much financially to Wayne Huizenga with his empire? Of
course not.
If you owe someone
$1000, then what's the difference if you add a negligible amount to the debt?
I would think that it would be better for an owner to have a competitive team on the field in order
to sell it. You're not going to get as much for a team in disarray as you would for an organization that has its house in
order on and off the field; and it's becoming increasingly evident that even the best-run clubs have little inter-organizational
battles over credit and control. Wouldn't post-season revenue for a team be just as valuable as tearing it down to the bare
bones?
As for the McCourts themselves, they're despised for the aforementioned
extravagance, but in my mind, they've been better owners of the Dodgers than News Corp was----they've certainly had more success.
They've paid for players; they've wasted money in many cases like Jason Schmidt; they paid for the most recognizable manager
in Joe Torre; and they've made the playoffs in 2004, 2006, 2008 and 2009; plus they're not out of contention in the National
League this year despite all the distractions. With a little luck here and there, they could easily have won a championship
or two in those playoff years.
Jerry Jones, owner of the Dallas Cowboys, was also seen as a classless hick who purchased the club and used the success----that
few expected given his wild statements and meddling----to buy his way into power and Texas high society; he's won three Super
Bowls and the team was a financial disaster when he took over. Look at them now.
It's part of doing business that these things happen. The McCourts' assets will
eventually be sifted and divided; then things will move forward for the team and the owners. Life will go on.
Paraphrased memories of Ralph Houk:
I vaguely remember Ralph Houk as the Red Sox manager
in the early 80s, but I do have a recollection of what Graig Nettles said about him in his biography, Balls.
To paraphrase from memory (my recollection for these
things is pretty good), Nettles and the players revered Houk and loved playing for him. In what was a clear violation of tampering
charges, Houk said to Nettles while Nettles was playing for the Indians that he wanted him for the Yankees; when Nettles became
a Yankee, he was thrilled to finally have a manager who understood how players thought and treated them accordingly.
If a player challenged Houk due to playing time
or whatever, Houk would close the office door and challenge said player to a fight. Houk was George Steinbrenner's first manager
when he purchased the team and harassed the veteran manager with phone calls and suggestions; but Houk also appreciated the
way money was not an object to Steinbrenner.
Houk took over the Tigers and managed them for five years; then the Red Sox for four. He was a "baseball guy"
who'd been a player, a manager, a GM and a scout and dealt with all the types of lunacy one could imagine; part of his success
was a breadth of understanding of all aspects of the game----something that is sorely missing today.
He lived to 90 and maintained his lucidity and usefulness; to me, that's
playing with house money. He also survived managing for George Steinbrenner and left before he could get fired. I can't tell
whether he deserves more credit for the longevity or for not being among the fired rabble in the wreckage left behind by the
Boss as casualties of his ownership.
Just like everything else, it's a toss-up as to which is more impressive.
The coin might land on its edge. That'd be fitting.
Viewer Mail 7.22.2010:
Max
Stevens writes RE the Mets:
I agree with your take on the Mets. Things will
have gone a lot better than I envisioned if they finish the season over .500. What do you think is Jerry Manuel's threshold
as far as keeping his job next year? Do they have to make the playoffs for him to come back? I don't particularly
like Manuel as a manager - letting Reyes play in Puerto Rico after he tweaked his oblique during BP was about as dumb as it
gets in my book - but, in a way, doesn't it make sense for Manuel to come back next year for the last year before all those
big contracts are gone?
I can't blame Manuel for many things with this team
including Jose Reyes. The front office is notoriously paranoid after the implication of medical malfeasance and they're taking
a hands-on approach with the players----especially the more valuable ones like Reyes. It wasn't left up to Manuel.
It's going to depend on perception and how the club
finishes the season with Manuel's possible return. If they end the season respectably and miss the playoffs----go 85-77 for
example----and the young players develop, then there's a good chance Manuel is back. He does some odd things, but the odd
things he does aren't covered up by talent as have the odd maneuvers made by the likes of Joe Girardi, Joe Torre and Charlie
Manuel.
Many times, the only way to judge
a manager is to say, "well, it worked, didn't it?" even if it was tactically ludicrous.
No matter what happens the rest of the way, the Mets have refurbished
their images sufficiently to attract marquee players or those with no-trade clauses. Granted, given the hatchet job perpetrated
on the Mets by the media, Richard (The Night Stalker) Ramirez had a better image for much of the winter. The development of
the youngsters is a large part in the idea that it's not that bad in Flushing.
If I had to guess right now, I'd say that the Mets will have a new manager next
year. They could go after any number of available names. Bob Melvin is already in the organization and maximized his talent
with the Diamondbacks; Eric Wedge and Fredi Gonzalez are out there and respected; then there are the big guns like Bobby Valentine
and maybe Joe Torre.
Put it this
way, if Manuel wants to keep his job, he'd better win some games.
I'm
not sure about Piniella. In fact, I think he'll be as retired as Valentine and Showalter.... just waiting for the next offer
he can't refuse.
As for Torre, he didn't do anything special as the Redbirds skipper in the early 90s. In fact,
those were some of the worst years of baseball I've ever seen in the 'Lou.
Piniella's rep has taken a beating in recent years. Like I said in my earlier response about the Mets, it's a matter
of perception with managers and Piniella has always had his own unique way of running a game----when it worked, he was a big-time
manager in part because of his wild personality and hot temper; but now that it's not working and he's mellowed to the point
where his commitment is questioned. I think this is it for him.
Buck Showalter's still young and is a "manager"; he's not a booth guy. Bobby Valentine
is an "unfinished business" type who is eventually going to surface somewhere on the field.
That Cardinals team wasn't particularly good and Torre's
magic worked with Gregg Jefferies. In the end, it comes down to talent. There are managers who maximize what they have and
rightfully deserve to be called "better" than others like Tony La Russa and Valentine; but that doesn't necessarily
translate into on-field success and hardware that can be referenced as validation. Torre's people skills and calm are his
main attributes and they can't be discounted; treating it as something other than that is a misunderstanding of what goes
into winning and why.
Now the question is...will Torre manage the Cubs next
season?
The Cubs have a stat zombie named Ari Kaplan in the front office now;
I cannot see Jim Hendry coming back as GM and with the Piniella speculation out of the way, there's no way they're going to
move forward with this current group and try to crank it up again. They're going to clean house and if they don't a full blown
teardown, they will have a re-tooling. Torre won't want to deal with that.
I'll tell you where he could end up on a 2-year deal if he still wants to manage----the Mets. And I
bet his wife would be dead-set against it.
Ryne Sandberg seems to
be the popular choice right now for Cubs skipper even though here in NY Girardi's name got thrown in. I say Sweet Lou, Torre,
Showalter and Valentine are all managing next year. Question is where? Jerry Manuel will probably be unemployed in 2011. Is
Sweet Lou in a NY state of mind? It really is time for Mets fans to start thinking who they want their 2011 manager to be.
Torre and the Cubs would be weird.
The Cubs fans are a sentimental lot and Sandberg would
be a good choice for the fans. He's worked his way up through the minors managing as well, so it's not as if they'd be hiring
a Hall of Fame player to placate the fans and said player doesn't have a clue how to manage. He'd be respected by his players
for his accomplishments and be given a lot of leeway by the media.
If I had to guess now about 2011, I'd
say Manuel's not back as Mets manager; Valentine is managing the Marlins; Showalter the Orioles; and Piniella and Torre are
both sitting out with Torre more willing to listen to an offer than Piniella. The Mets-Piniella thing made sense in 2003.
Not now.
My book is still available on Amazon, I-Universe and Barnes and Noble.com. It's available for download as an E-book
here. You can also now get it for less that five bucks on BN via download here.
Is it possible to "jump the shark" more
than once?
Or twice?
Or three times?
Or ten times?
I'd had enough of Tim McCarver in the year 2000, but he's still somehow the number one analyst on the
FOX Game of the Week; still accorded credibility for what he was rather than what he is----someone who's stayed around far
too long and needs to be put out to pasture for his (and the viewing audience's) own good.
Whereas he once took to the offense in his commentary by using what
was known as "first guessing" and suggesting what a manager or club should do before the fact----something that
was innovative at the time----he's now crossed the boundary to being offensive.
It's not simply his stupid comparison of the Yankees treatment of Joe
Torre to Stalinist Russia and Nazi Germany that was ridiculous, but the suggestion that the Yankees hesitating to include
images and mentions of Torre in the franchise's recent run of excellence was, in a way, worse because it's being twisted to
suit McCarver's argument.
Tim McCarver
is close friends with Joe Torre; he does have something of a leg to stand on when he suggests that the Yankees don't appreciate
the work Torre did as much as they should; but to think that Torre and only Torre could have managed that team to the championships
they won is ludicrous.
To say that
a manager was helped along by the great players he managed is not in any way denigrating the work he did. Torre is on record
as the manager of those teams----teams that won World Series titles in 1996, 1998, 1999 and 2000; but is it crazy to say that
there are plenty of managers who could just as easily have gone along for the ride? Who would have won as well?
The Yankees of the late 1990s were not a creation
of Joe Torre; if anyone deserves the credit for building that team, it's Gene Michael. How often is Michael mentioned by the
casual fan as the catalyst for drafting, signing, acquiring and holding onto the foundation of those teams----Derek Jeter,
Andy Pettitte, Paul O'Neill, Bernie Williams, David Cone and Mariano Rivera?
Torre was always extremely calculating in subtly twisting his image from what
it was before he donned pinstripes to what it was as his tenure wore on. He was a competent big league manager who'd
made the playoffs once (and got swept in 1982 with the Braves); he knew how to handle the media; could control the clubhouse;
and made the right player moves most of the time.
In short, he was a journeyman; a guy you could find relatively easily----and replace relatively easily. We're not talking
Whitey Herzog, Billy Martin, Tony La Russa, Bobby Valentine in terms of being a strategist here; and this isn't a knock against
Torre. Every manager has his strengths and weaknesses and there's no shame in that. But to suggest he's anything more than
what he was then and is now is the real essence of airbrushing history.
That Yankees team had great players. Torre's teams didn't panic in the playoffs as many of the failed
Braves teams did during their long run of dominance of the National League from 1991-2005. Was that a byproduct of Torre's
outward calm? Probably. He deserves the credit for the 1996 title more than any other; he was able to keep George Steinbrenner
at bay and seamlessly incorporate the players that were brought in mid-season. The Yankees had been too tightly wound under
Buck Showalter because the manager was tightly wound; they were calm and cool under Torre because the manager was calm and
cool.
He was the right man at the
right time. Sometimes it breaks like that.
After that, once they were established and won year-after-year, it became a case of diminishing returns for the club
and their manager. After the first title, which no one expected, the goal was the same every year----World Series or bust,
and they pulled it off in three of the following four years and almost a won a fourth. Torre made himself very, very wealthy;
added to his persona of the Sinatra of the baseball world; wrote books on his management style; became a sought-after and
well-compensated public speaker; and achieved legendary status.
Could he have done that had he not gotten fired by the Cardinals in 1995? With a different team
that wasn't going to provide him the talent that the Yankees did? I don't know any person with a baseline knowledge of baseball
that would say yes.
As things
wore on, it chafed everyone with the Yankees----even the Torre allies----that it was perceived that Torre and only Torre was
the main impetus for the Yankees run. Steinbrenner was always agitated that he paid Torre so much money and it was conveniently
forgotten that, in Steinbrenner's words, Torre was saved from the "scrapheap".
Steinbrenner was right.
Torre might not have gotten another managing job had it not been for the Yankees. Torre only reluctantly
left the broadcast booth to take the Cardinals job in 1990 after Herzog resigned and it was partially because of his history
with the Cardinals that he did it. It's very possible that had Torre returned to the broadcast booth in 1996, he might've
turned his back on managing. He was an excellent broadcaster.
The reputation has fed into itself and yielded success even after he left the Yankees. "Torre
will find a way to get us into the playoffs"----and he has. The Dodgers have made the playoffs in his three seasons after
Torre reached the post-season every year he managed the Yankees. Was the Yankees annual failure in the years after the last
title in 2000 the responsibility of Torre? Only if he gets credit for the wins. If they're put into context, he deserves a
share of the credit and a share of the blame for everything, but not all of it.
Do the Yankees have a legitimate gripe with Torre after the split?
It was at first mutual and friendly enough, but Torre must have been silently chortling at the growing pains of his Yankees
successor, Joe Girardi, as he was marching his Dodgers into the playoffs in 2007; it must have validated him in some way to
be able to say, "hey look, the first year without me, they didn't make the playoffs".
And he's not wrong.
But do the Yankees have a right to be annoyed that Torre had his name attached to The Yankees Years, written with Tom Verducci (mostly written by Tom Verducci)? That he aired dirty
laundry from inside the clubhouse? Did Torre need the money? Did he need to get the last word in?
I said at the time of Torre's departure from the Yankees that he played
his hand perfectly. He got out of an unwinnable situation with the Yankees; he got another job immediately in a great situation
with a baseball-loving town and star-studded crowd that would treat him as a conquering hero; and he made a lot of money with
his managing contract and endorsements. Did he have to write the book too and stain his legacy by angering the Yankees hierarchy?
Was it necessary?
Joe Torre, for all
his charm and crafted likability, is very smooth----smooth to the point of being slick and bordering on sleazy. McCarver glosses
over these facts about his friend; ignores the notion that the Yankees do have reason to be upset at their former manager
for his actions after the fact; that they were the ones who helped him achieve his current status and Hall of Fame future.
So if McCarver stands by his opinion while apologizing for his analogy, he's still being slanted "in his view" (one
of his favorite and most irritating sayings).
In a way, that's worse than the analogy itself because it's not even close to being true when examined by an objective
observer, which McCarver certainly is not.
Speaking
of managers...
Lou Piniella
announced that he's retiring after the season in the first step of the rebuilding of the Cubs. It's hard to believe he would've
been back anyway no matter what happened. If the Cubs pull off a miracle (although it wouldn't be that much of a miracle if
they somehow climbed into playoff position in the horrific National League), he'll still depart after the year.
With Piniella, I don't get the impression that he's
leaving the Cubs and will be willing to listen to another offer if it comes along. I think he's had enough.
So what's his legacy?
Piniella was a good manager whose players respected him and, for the most
part, played the game the right way. Dealing with George Steinbrenner in the late 80s as a manager and GM, he cut his managerial
teeth in an impossible atmosphere. Winning a World Series with a pretty good, but not great Reds team, he proved himself;
he helped save baseball in Seattle with the Mariners and had that club in contention almost every year he was there. After
spending three lost and financially lucrative years with the Devil Rays, he took over the Cubs seriously underestimating the
number of things that go wrong for the Cubs regardless of the payroll and talent level.
Are the Cubs in better shape now than when Piniella took over?
No.
Had they won that elusive championship or a pennant, their current straits might be palatable; but
they didn't. Saddled with immobile contracts for the likes of Carlos Zambrano and Alfonso Soriano, whoever the new manager
(and presumably new GM) are, they've got a lot of work to do. Piniella led the Cubs to the playoffs in his first two years
at the helm and didn't win a playoff game in either year. Part of that was due to strategic mistakes on his part (yanking
Carlos Zambrano in game 1 of the NLDS in 2007; starting Ryan Dempster in game 1 of the NLDS in 2008); then things fell apart
in 2009 and led to their current nightmare.
One thing I have to wonder regarding Piniella is whether he regrets taking the Devil Rays and Cubs job in the first
place; if he looks back and thinks he should've sat out and held out, waiting for the Yankees job to open up. He would've
been the obvious choice to replace Torre every year he was managing in Tampa; and by the time Torre was relieved of his duties,
Steinbrenner wasn't at his decisive, bloviating best to overrule his baseball people and hire Piniella.
The more cautious and Machiavellian Yankees GM Brian Cashman knew
what his life would've been like with Piniella as manager----that he would've been marginalized and easily lost any power
struggle or public debate with the popular manager. He didn't want Piniella and with good reason. But Piniella presumably
still would've been able to angle his way into the job if he really wanted to.
We'll never know what would've happened.
One has to believe that Piniella now
understands what it's like to manage the Cubs; and that it would've been easier and he would've been more successful wearing
Yankee pinstripes to end his career than presiding over the Cubs and sullying his reputation as he has in the past 3 1/2 years.
My book is still available on Amazon, I-Universe and Barnes and Noble.com. It's available for download as an E-book
here. You can also now get it for less that five bucks on BN via download here.
There's no excuse for the Mets----who fancy themselves
as contenders (and they are in the parity-laden National League)----to go into Arizona and absorb a 13-2 beating by a team
that's waiting for a lost season to mercifully end.
No excuse.
That said, there's
a big picture here and that big picture often depends on perception.
Mets fans are angry now, but the anger is different from the hapless resignation that permeated the
club fan base before the season started; and the hit squads that were out to get anyone and everyone somehow involved with
the Mets have been quieted by the combination of the club's solid----though sporadic and inconsistent----good play and that
the farm system is producing youngsters that will clearly be part of the Mets future.
I'll say right now, on July 20th, that barring another late-season collapse,
if the Mets end the season with a win total in the mid-80s and miss the playoffs in favor of a team other than the Phillies,
their fans will be quietly satisfied that the entire house didn't come crashing down. Of course, if that happens, I think
it likely that there will be a new manager be it Bob Melvin, Eric Wedge, Fredi Gonzalez or someone else; but the team will
be in solid position with expiring contracts after 2011 to bring in what they need for 2011----pitching.
Could the same thing be said for teams
that were the darlings of the "experts" before the season started?
Look at the Diamondbacks. They're in absolute turmoil with an interim GM; an interim manager; a poorly
constructed team; and few answers on the horizon.
What about the Mariners? GM Jack Zduriencik has been stripped of the "genius" title; the team is terrible
on the field and they have few players that other teams would actually want. This to me is the definition of a bad club----even
the Pirates have a bunch of players that teams would want; but the Mariners? Who do they have? The few that are desirable----Felix
Hernandez and Franklin Gutierrez---aren't getting moved; and the others who might have some use are either too pricey (Ichiro
Suzuki; Chone Figgins); or are having such terrible years, they can get them and try to straighten them out (Ryan Rowland-Smith).
Are the Orioles as bad as their record? No. No one
is this bad (except maybe the Pirates). The Orioles are a case of a bunch of young players who've taken steps back (Adam Jones),
or failed to take the step forward; they've had free agent acquisitions that made sense and haven't worked. If and when Buck
Showalter takes over as manager, he'll get credit for the team turning around in 2011 (possibly to a .500 record), but in
reality, it's a natural progression of events. Everything that went wrong in 2010 can't go wrong again.
There are many teams who had high expectations coming into the season;
expectations that aren't being achieved. Teams like the Twins have a chance to right the ship, but after going for it this
year with Orlando Hudson and Jim Thome; and keeping Joe Mauer with the long-term contract extension (and watching him struggle----for
him), they're straddling the line they straddle every year----the same line that has kept them in contention regardless of
big name player departures; the line that was based on sound fundamentals and playing the "Twins way" leading to
wins.
Looking at their rosters
in the past two seasons, there was no reason to expect the Twins to get themselves to within one game of the playoffs in 2008,
and into the playoffs in 2009; but there they were. Now, they had very high expectations despite the loss of Joe Nathan
and they're on shaky ground. So if the Twins wind up with the same record as they had in 2008-2009 and, say, lose out to the
White Sox or Tigers in the AL Central race, will it be considered the same heroic effort on their part as it was in past years?
Or will it be a disappointment?
The
Phillies are an interesting case in point. Many thought they'd win 100 games. That won't happen. They're still in contention
for a playoff spot in part because of the aforementioned National League and that they have players who will not quit; I don't
count them out; but they're exhibiting the same lethargy that's befallen many a team that was expected to repeatedly dominate.
Injuries and those flaws have put them in their current predicament.
You see it in various forms with the up-and-down seasons from the Dodgers (club turmoil); the Marlins
(possible overestimation of talent and a deviation from what's made them good); and the Athletics (the continued feeding and
circular nature of the Moneyball myth).
Then you have the teams from whom not much was expected aside from possible incremental improvement. The Padres are rolling
toward the playoffs and instead of trading Adrian Gonzalez, they're looking to add; and the Reds are battling for a playoff
spot.
In reality, there are situations
where misjudgment is due to the media and the panic that's become prevalent on a daily basis because of the accessibility
and speed of information and its accompanying reaction. It's the job of the true analysts----someone who has an understanding
of the game----who have to sift through what's on the surface and what's underneath.
Losing perspective based on a short-term burst of crash is the enemy of accuracy.
Viewer Mail 7.20.2010:
Jeff (Acting Boss) at Red State Blue State writes RE Oliver Perez and yesterday's posting:
Cuttin'
off Ollie!
Radioactive wasteland!
J.D. Drew themed pj's!
What a post! A lil somethin' for
everyone today. I dig it.
Sometimes I dunno what comes over me. If only I could
gather and sell it....or repeat it.
This is my third time trying
to leave a comment. What's up? Anyhow, I agree with Jeff. A bravuro performance today in this post! I don't follow the Mets
and hardly know who Perez is, but after reading your post even I want him gone.
Other people told me they were having issues logging on, that it was registered as an "unsafe site"; it's
only unsafe for those who aren't on their game when coming after me.
You're better off not knowing Oliver Perez, Jane. Trust me. It'd be better for everyone involved---including
Perez----if he wasn't so talented; then it could be chalked up to a lack of ability, but he's lefty and has dominating stuff
when he's right. I still think there will be one year that he puts it all together; it won't be as a Met though.
Another compliment on yesterday's posting? I can try
to retrace my steps and re-dowhatever it was that I did right, but it'd probably lead me to walking off a roof; or into a
train; or a bus; or down a well...haphazard anarchy backed up by caffeine is the way to go.
Joe writes RE his J.D. Drew pajamas:
I only get to wear my Drew pajamas like five times a week though. Always
some mysterious hole or fray I have to take care of the other two days.
I gather taping "RED SOX" or BOS-TON" across the front of the Joe Mauer pajamas doesn't have the same effect.
I have this girl from the Coors Light ads to occupy
my mind; Joe has J.D. Drew. To each his own. And am I the only one who's aggravated that that girl would be with
that guy? Even in a commercial?
Anonymous writes RE Jayson Werth:
Werth
has had ONE injury to speak of (anything else was muscles & over fast) that happened when he was w/the Dodgers. Interestingly
it was caused by AJ Burnett who hit & broke his left wrist with a pitch. Dodger doctors misdiagnosed and, therefore, mistreated
underlying ligament damage. Due only to his own tenacity Werth found his own doctor at the Mayo Clinic who fixed it. He has
never had "rage issues". He's had ONE incident & that fan was a moron. To make any more of that is - well -
just New York of you. And he is not now, nor has he ever done anything with Jenn Utley. Jenn is good friends with Julia Werth,
Jayson's wife. The two couples are friends. The rumor was posted only on the internet by someone not even pretending about
lying to start whatever trouble they could. Hard to believe anyone w/an IQ above 40 would believe it.
Well "Anonymous", you bring up a fair point regarding Werth's injuries. The wrist issue was
a result of a hit-by-pitch and the Dodgers misdiagnosing it; he's been predominately healthy aside from an oblique problem;
perhaps he's found his groove as a durable, everyday player in that respect and will stay on the field.
Aside from that, I don't know where you're getting
your information regarding what I said, but it certainly wasn't here where you read the words "rage issues"; nor
was I the one who suggested anything was going on between Werth and Chase Utley's wife. How do you know of the accuracy or
inaccuracy of the rumor? Is it absurd to think that an affair between players and a teammates' wife could occur? It's happened
before and will happen again...and again....and again. In the same sense, I don't see how you could know that the fan with
whom Werth had a confrontation is a "moron".
Werth has been known to be curt with reporters. If someone is asking me stupid questions about my beard or some other
silliness, I would be irritable as well; but his snide comments during the Ryan Madson interview last week were not in Werth's
realm. Why did Werth feel the need to interject other than to be a jerk? Madson allowed a homer and was answering questions
about the homer; where did Werth come in?
New York of me? I haven't said word one about the Phillies in a partisan nature all year long. I made my call of the Phillies
stumbling this year in my book and have no intention of discussing said predictions until the season is over. If I have anything
to say regarding the Werth-Jennifer Utley rumors, it would only be in a baseball sense. Off the field, it's none of my business.
If it's true, I don't know what
the club could do about it; it's a personal matter and while the team was winning early in the year, it was wise to let it
slide and hope for the best; now it's an issue and it's public, they're slumping; they have to get Werth out of there because
it's going to explode. Period.
How you
would know about the personal lives of the Phillies players and their wives is a mystery to me, just like you are since you
refuse to leave a name.
(Mariners) What makes his resume even worse is ownership having been agreeable with payroll. They really
are a good ownership group but can't seem to make a good hire. Why more people aren't screaming about the bad job he's doing?
I say it's Seattle itself. The divorce capital and depression rate there has that part of the country un-plugged. No one talks
about Seattle. To most of this country Seattle is like the 4th Marx Brother... at least since Sweet Lou last managed there.
Ollie? Ugh. Good grief!
They've supported the team in Seattle remarkably well
since the playoff run in 1995 that saved baseball for the city.
I do think that ownership has stepped in and interfered with the GMs they've hired. Did Bill Bavasi
really want Ichiro at the cost of the player dictating who his manager would be as seemed to occur when Mike Hargrove
resigned days before Ichiro's contract extension was announced? Did Zduriencik really want to bring Ken Griffey Jr.
back?
Amid all of that, the absence of
criticism stems from a selfish, agenda-driven attempt by the stat-obsessed to protect one of their "own". Zduriencik
runs the club the way they want to see a club run and it remains to be seen whether or not it's going to work; but because
they're invested so heavily----theoretically and financially (stat-based books bring in a lot of money)----they're going to avoid commenting on his mistakes as they would if they were made by the likes of Bavasi, Omar Minaya or Dayton
Moore.
If they were honest about
it, I wouldn't have such an issue or squawk as loudly as I do, but they're sort of skating over it and hoping no one notices
or comments and that only makes me scream louder.
My book is still available on Amazon, I-Universe and Barnes and Noble.com. It's available for download as an E-book
here. You can also now get it for less that five bucks on BN via download here.
Keeping Oliver Perez could cost the Mets more than
paying him to leave:
I've always been a fan of talent and I believe that most anyone and anything (within reason) is salvageable. Getting use from
an individual----even for one game, one at bat, one pitch----makes it worthwhile to keep them around as long as the negatives
don't outweigh the potential positives.
The negatives with Oliver Perez have grown so monstrous that it's time for the Mets to cut the cord and release him, eating
the remaining money (whatever he's still owed for this year, plus $12 million next year) and move on.
I completely understand the reluctance to simply dump him. The money
is the biggest motivating factor in Perez still being a member of the organization, but presumably there are people like me
who believe that Perez's flashes of abilities have him viable to try and rebuild him to some form of competitiveness. Then
there are others who are worried about another Mets mistake of dumping a player and seeing him blossom elsewhere; but what
they're not realizing is that every organization has players who they misjudged and gave away for nothing. Whether
they're competent or not, it happens everywhere.
The Athletics under Billy Beane dumped Ryan Ludwick and Aaron Harang. As I mentioned yesterday, the Orioles, Blue Jays
and Dodgers all gave up on Jayson Werth. Casey Blake bounced from the Blue Jays to the Twins to the Orioles and back to the
Twins before getting his shot with the Indians. The Red Sox tried Joel Pineiro as a closer before trading him to the Cardinals
for a nondescript minor leaguer.
It happens to the best and the worst and is a cost of doing business.
What also has to be realized is that the change-of-scenery and different approach from various teams,
managers and coaches has a lot to do with how a player performs. The Red Sox have a very competent coaching staff, especially
with their pitchers, but if you cornered John Farrell, I bet he'd admit he wouldn't have been able to rebuild Pineiro the
way Dave Duncan did.
It's just
fact.
Sometimes players connect
with coaches; perhaps it's technique; perhaps it's the confidence boost from knowing someone of Duncan's stature feels as
though he can fix whatever problem there is----but it's been historically accurate. Few people remember the pitchers that
Duncan and La Russa couldn't fix like Rick Ankiel, but they exist as well----in fact, Duncan and La Russa had a hand in the
ruination of Ankiel by starting him in the opening game of the 2000 NLDS; and Perez's control problems, while not on the scope
of those experienced by Ankiel, are in the same ballpark.
The Mets manager and coaching staff don't want Perez; the players don't want Perez; the front office don't want Perez;
and the fans? Do I need to say it?
It's
enough. The club has mucked around with explaining away Perez's stints on the disabled list with knee issues; he's gone to
the minor leagues under a different pretense than the Mets initially wanted and Perez was able to save some phantom "face"
by not being demoted; he was on a "rehab" assignment, and the results have not been positive. He's got to come back
soon and apparently he will----unless the Mets dump him.
Logically, not only are they not getting a return on their investment for Perez,
but he's hurting the team to boot! Wouldn't it be cheaper in the long run if they dump him now and don't run the risk of him
entering a game and blowing it up to see the team miss the playoffs by one game at the end of the season? Do they want to
look back and say they shouldn't have let Perez cost them one more possible win than he already has in 2010?
Someone would pick Perez up under similar reasoning
used when eating the samples of unknown mystery foods in supermarkets----hey, it's free! But are the Mets, with all they've
seen from Perez in his time with the club truly concerned that he's going to go to the Cardinals or Brewers and become baseline
serviceable? Really? And if he does, so what? The entire organization will be better off without Perez if his ghost remains
every time he receives a paycheck.
Swallow the money.
Move on.
I can't argue with this:
The Padres are giving manager Bud Black a 3-year contract
extension----MLB.com Story.
I don't think he's a particularly
adept strategic manager (he relies too heavily on the imaginary book and does as he's told by upper management), but the Padres
are playing excellent ball and play hard for their manager; they seem to like him.
For the most part, Black----a former pitching coach----handles the pitching
staff very well and does a fine job managing the workload and deployment of his bullpen. He still does odd things with his
offense as if he doesn't trust his baseball experience and would prefer to live by the numbers so he has an excuse to the
reporters and his bosses.
One glaring
example of this was on June 1st against the Mets when the Padres were rallying in the bottom of the ninth inning against Francisco Rodriguez and Black chose to let Chris
Denorfia bat with the winning run at the plate and Matt Stairs on the bench; Stairs has never gotten a hit off of K-Rod, but
so what? I'd have sent up Stairs and am pretty sure he would've come through with a hit or, at the very least, worked a walk.
Strategy is only one (sometimes small)
part of managing. How often do we see managers who either don't know what they're doing or do things to make it look like
they have a plan in place and somehow see those decisions work?
Jim Tracy, it can be argued, is the best strategic manager in baseball, but was fired twice. Once
with the Dodgers when fissures between field personnel and upper management became factional and unworkable; the second time
with the Pirates, who are, well, the Pirates.
The Padres are playing terrific ball; Black handles the media and the clubhouse well. He has his faults, but there's
no reason not to give him a reward for the good things he's done.
The silence is laughable:
I hate to keep harping on this, but will until I get a response.
It's ridiculous to me that Mariners GM Jack Zduriencik was labeled a "genius" for one
year on the job in which he did a lot of "stuff" and his team essentially self-corrected from an underachieving
and disaster-laden 2008 season into an 85-win 2009. Before the season, it was said that the Mets missed out on a a "Truly
Amazin' Baseball Exec" by none other than....Joel Sherman----NY Post column, Feb. 1, 2010.
Yes.
It's "amazin".
It's "amazin" that no one is criticizing Zduriencik for a team that can only be labeled
as a radioactive wasteland. That the deal Zduriencik made for Russell Branyan made absolutely no sense whatsoever given the
club's current circumstances; that the team is in essentially the same position they were when Zduriencik took over, albeit
with a lower payroll.
I have no
clue what the Mariners are going to look like in three years; they might be a championship caliber club; they might be in
the market for a new GM because the "genius" turned out to be a false prophecy and his supporters hypnotized members
of a cult.
That's the point. The "experts"
tear into one entity because of perceived errors and support another with no basis in fact; no success to speak of aside from
believing what they believe and looking like they know what they're doing----and then reality is ignored as it happens. This
is not reporting; it's not the presentation of beliefs and acceptance of mistakes; it's self-serving arrogance and weak premises
due to a lack of self-confidence and honesty.
Is anyone going to look at the Mariners and say, "Y'know what? This guy's done a bad job here,"? Analyzing
the work based on the first half of 2010 is no different from anointing Zduriencik as a genius or chastising other teams for
passing up on him with only one out-of-context year in the rear-view mirror.
Actually, it is different.
It's more factually accurate.
Viewer Mail 7.19.2010:
AndyD
writes RE Jayson Werth and his behaviors costing him money:
I'm not sure. It's a very
good question. No doubt Werth is a quality player but sometimes he stops himself from going the next step.
Taking his injury-history, behavior and age into account, a team is taking
a risk giving Werth a similar contract as to what Jason Bay got with the Mets (4-years, $66 million). Bay's been a major disappointment,
but at least he's been healthy and hasn't been the jerk as you might get with Werth if he has the same struggles as Bay.
Werth seems to be counting on the Yankees being
after him and they will be...after Cliff Lee and probably Carl Crawford. He's a fallback option who may be on the market deep
into the winter and then have to take a shorter-term deal for less money with a team for whom he really doesn't want to play.
I've always wanted to like
Jayson Werth, but he makes it really, really difficult. The attitude, the hair (seriously, what's with the Phillies and awful
hair?), the grotesque beard, banging Utley's wife (any truth to that? who knows)...
Your assessment seems accurate...
I expect that rage to get him hurt one of these days. And that would be a shame.
Did you see the movie Overnight about a bartender named Troy Duffy who got a movie deal and screwed the entire thing up with his ranting and arrogance? I
get the similar impression from Werth as I got from Duffy----they're more interested in gloating over success to those who
they perceive to have "wronged" them rather than the success itself. All that does is give some validation and attention
to those that you want to get away from in the first place. Who cares what they think?
Somehow Duffy got the sequel to that mediocre (at best) film----The Boondock
Saints----made; whether or not he's actually made any money is the question; and why anyone would want to work with him after
the way he behaved is a bigger question, money or not.
I disagree on Torre. I think he's a lifer. Sure he's
got a younger wife and a kid, but if a team comes along with a nice package, I say he takes it.
Maybe you're right and he'd be willing to listen as a mid-season replacement for someone if he did
leave the Dodgers and take some time off. The thing with Torre is that----unlike Bobby Cox----he enjoys being out in the public
and receiving the Frank Sinatra treatment; he wouldn't be bored to death in LA; he'd have broadcasting opportunities to make
more money (which we know he loves). Another aspect is that he can't be inducted into the Hall of Fame and receive all the
accolades (and money) he'd get from that honor. If he "retired" after this year----even if it's a Bill Parcells-style
retirement----he'd enter the Hall of Fame fast.
If he's back next year, it's hard to see it with the Dodgers and will he want to move again? There's always the Mets, but
would he want to come back to New York and deal with the outside distractions? I can't see it. It's always a possibility though.
Joe writes RE Adrian Gonzalez
and the Red Sox:
How did I not listen? You didn't hear Beltre's name
did you? Meaning I was referring to after the season, and understood that is what you were talking about as well. And I know
who is coming off the books. The point is, Gonzalez will cost a ton of prospects, and if he is going to DH is it worth it?
If you simply wait one more year, you can have him via free agency -- if no one signs him to an extension. There is a lot
more risk than you seem to let on. He is FAR from free. Prospects PLUS having to overpay him for a few years at the end of
a Texeira like contract.
Let me rephrase: you listen, but you don't hear.
The Red Sox covet Gonzalez; and if they want him,
they'd better hope he gets traded to a team that's: A) going to let him leave after 2011; and B) is willing to ante up the
prospects to rent him for a year.
As much as they try to hang onto their prospects, the Red Sox are a win-now team; and if they're going to win next year, they're
going to have to get a bat to replace David Ortiz. Gonzalez, to me, is close to a guaranteed investment and would be there
for the long term. Kevin Youkilis can play the outfield for a year, DH here and there and play some third base while they
keep Adrian Beltre and then let him leave as well.
Speaking of Beltre, with the year he's having and the position he plays, do you really think Beltre is going to exercise a
player option for $5 million when he can probably double that on the market? For a year at least? The Red Sox would gladly
accept his 2010 season for what it is, let him leave and move Youkilis to third in favor of Gonzalez in 2011.
Regardless of statistical popularity, the Red Sox
fling money at their issues in winters immediately following seasons in which they miss the playoffs, an eventuality that's
looking increasingly likely now. They're going after Gonzalez whether you like it or not.
And I'm willing to bet you hope they keep J.D. Drew after next year so
you don't have to change your wallpaper and buy new, non-Drew-themed pajamas. Go back to Spider-Man, Joe. Go back to Spider-Man.
My book is still available on Amazon, I-Universe and Barnes and Noble.com. It's available for download as an E-book here. You can also now get it for less that five bucks on BN via download here.
How much money is Jayson Werth's behavior costing
him?
On the surface,
you'd think that when he's making the rounds as a free agent this winter, it won't matter that Jayson Werth has behaved like
an obnoxious and arrogant jerk for much of this season. His behavior hasn't been prickly along the lines of Jeff Kent where
it's just the way he is, accept it and move on----Werth's been abusive to fans and his reputation has never been particularly
good with reporters to begin with.
There are players who take advantage of an opportunity they received somewhat late in their careers and appreciate that they've
fulfilled their potential, accepting the good fortune with professionalism and humility. Casey Blake and Cody Ross are two
examples of players who could only be classified as journeyman in their 20s who grabbed a chance to play and ran with it.
Then there are players like Werth
who use their burgeoning stardom as a chance to exact some form of revenge to settle a vendetta against those that they perceive
to have wronged them.
Having become
one of the more productive players in baseball, solid defensively and with speed, Werth is going to get paid by someone; but
I get the impression that his long road into his current circumstances has burned him. Part of that may be fueling him----some
players need anger to perform----but it's manifesting itself in ways that are going to put him in a poor light.
The Orioles drafted Werth in the first round
of the 1997 draft as a catcher (while Pat Gillick was the GM); he was traded to the Blue Jays for John Bale in 2000; the Blue
Jays traded him to the Dodgers for Jason Frasor in 2004; he put up 16 homers that year and injuries to his wrist hampered
him in 2005 and he missed all of 2006. The Dodgers non-tendered him after that year and Gillick signed him to join the Phillies.
After being a part-timer in 2007, Werth became a starter
and imperative cog in 2008 during the Phillies championship run; by 2009, he blossomed into a full-blown star with 36 homers
in the regular season, plus another 7 in the post-season. Now he's approaching free agency and his behavior is becoming more
pronounced in a negative sense as he snapped at a fan who interfered with Werth's attempt to catch a foul ball in a game against
the Reds----link.
Werth's reaction was understandable
in the heat of the moment, but after realizing what he'd done, wouldn't it have made sense to go to the fan and his son and
give them a couple of baseballs before the next inning? Just to do something nice as a peace offering?
The other night, he made some snide comments ("Nice interview, guys.")
to reporters as they were speaking to reliever Ryan Madson after Madson allowed a go-ahead homer to Aramis Ramirez in a loss
to the Cubs.
These are reactions and
statements that are unnecessary in every sense.
As good a player as Werth has become, these incidents do not go unnoticed by teams who might be interested
in Werth's services after the season. Certain teams do not deal with players who are seen to be unfriendly to the fans and
difficult with the media.
The Yankees
and Angels could use Werth and may vie for him now in a trade and after the season as a free agent----but neither team deals
with bad actors. For every team like the White Sox that don't care about a player's personality or checkered history, there
are five teams who don't want to pay a player a load of money for the privilege to do damage control after a blow-up. Werth's
actions aren't on a level with Albert Belle or Elijah Dukes----nowhere close----but if a team like the Yankees or Angels bow
out because they don't want to deal with him and his baggage, he's costing himself dollars.
Does Werth have a legitimate gripe with the teams that dumped him? In
his mind and in reality, he probably does. The Blue Jays could've given him more of a chance to play given his minor league
performance; the Dodgers misdiagnosed his injuries and dumped him; but he needs to realize that this vengeance is: A) not
having any effect on the teams who did him wrong----they don't care in anything more than an "oh well" way to a
player they got rid of 5-10 years ago; and B) only reverberating with and affecting one person and his future----that person
is Jayson Werth.
Kerry Wood's back in
his office:
In a nightmarish
season, a truth that few are willing admit has come to pass----the Indians are lucky that Kerry Wood needs to go on the disabled
list with a blister on his finger.
Much like the Mets received a bolt from the blue when they were spared from paying the remainder of Mo Vaughn's contract when
his knee problems ended his career in 2003, the Indians are saved from the mere possibility of Wood reaching the required
number of games finished (55) for his 2011 contract at $11 million to kick in.
There was no chance for Wood to reach that number anyway given how terrible the
Indians are; that they're looking to cut costs; that Wood himself has been horrific; and he'd only finished 18 games at the
time he went back on the DL, but it does make things easier for the Indians.
Wood's going to be a free agent at the end of the year and he's an arm I'd look at as a low-cost flier
to move back into the starting rotation. He's always hurt, but he seemed to prefer starting; he's not a reliable reliever----plus
he gets hurt repeatedly regardless of his role. If he can deliver 25 starts and 150 innings at the back of a rotation on an
incentive-laden contract, why not?
End
of the line for Joe Torre?
Joe Torre has always been one of those managers who was always saying he's going to take it year-to-year, but never had any
intention of retiring; but now it's starting to look like it's the end of the line and if he leaves the Dodgers, that'll be
it.
A combination of factors are
leading me to this conclusion. He's sounding as if he's preparing himself for the inevitable with statements that he's going
to wait until late in the season before coming to his decision; the Dodgers situation in ownership and on the field is tenuous;
and he may want to "git while the gittin's good" as his reputation is still intact and he doesn't hang around into
his golden years because he doesn't know what else to do with himself only to preside over a collapsing club and reputation
as Connie Mack did.
Torre's turning
70 today and his wife----who's much younger than him---and his teenage daughter presumably want him at home while he's still
able to participate in their lives.
Torre has vacillated on his future dozens of times, but his managerial career has gone far better lately than it did early
when he was considered a "journeyman" manager who was competent, but nothing special. He's been lucky and he's been
good. He's made a lot of money and he's going to be a Hall of Famer as a manager. He was a borderline Hall of Famer
as a player as well and once he retires who knows how his popularity in baseball will influence the Veteran's Committee to
judge his playing career and possibly induct him as a player. That'd be a coup for
Torre to get voted in as both a player and manager.
The Dodgers may make a run to the playoffs as the season moves along, but more and more 2010 appears to be Torre's
final year managing in the big leagues and his tone indicates he's coming to grips with that reality----that this is it----and
I think it is.
It's not the crime, it's
the coverup:
Will they
never learn?
Yesterday, A.J. Burnett
slammed his hands into a clubhouse door after allowing 3 runs in two innings to the Rays----ESPN Story.
Of course he hurt himself; of
course he lied about it; of course he tried to pitch; and of course he had to come out of the game.
I totally understand the angry reaction for a bad performance and doing
something stupid out of frustration; but to turn around and lie to the manager by saying he slipped going down the stairs?
And to lie to a guy as smart as Joe Girardi? Did he really think that Girardi was going to buy that story? This isn't Fredo
Corleone he's dealing with; I'd bet cash that Girardi knew immediately what happened, but let Burnett start the third inning
because it was unlikely he'd hurt his arm trying to pitch with cut hands and that it would've been a nuisance and a losing
proposition to have to go to the bullpen that early----and it was.
I'm sure many managers and bosses think along the same lines that I do: Do....not....lie....to....me.
I can deal with pretty much anything----I
might surprise with my calm reaction to even the most aggravating situations----but do....not....lie....to....me; because
I will find out the truth one way or the other and once that happens and the scope of the falsehoods are revealed,
my reaction is going to be magnified by 1000% and said reaction going to be that percentage worse than it would've been had
I been told the truth in the first place.
I think you predicted in your book that the White Sox
would win the division and maybe more (can't remember). Are you planning to watch "The Club," the reality show about
the team on MLB Network?
The World Series. I picked the White Sox to win the
World Series.
I've found it to be unwise
to freak out over long-term predictions in the short-term to gloat or lament, so I'm holding fire. My predictions----for the
most part----are doing quite well overall.
I never watch the MLB Network. Ever. Dunno if that's: A) a reflection on me; B) a reflection on them or C) a combination
of the two.
I'll say C.
Joe
writes RE Adrian Gonzalez and the Red Sox:
Where are the Red Sox going to put Gonzalez? They are most likely not going to DH him because his glove has value.
And they have to be certain that Youk can make the shift to third. As someone once said, "Players generally don't move
UP the defensive spectrum." He will cost a boatload of prospects, cost a ton to resign, and there isn't necessarily a
place for him after the year. Now, Youkilis may be fine at third, but the Red Sox know better than anyone if he can play the
position well enough, regularly, at this stage in his career.
Do you not want Adrian
Gonzalez, Joe?
I don't get the
point of your repeated rants against your team getting one of the best hitters in baseball.
The Red Sox aren't getting Gonzalez now because the Padres aren't
trading him while they're in first place or in playoff position. It would be after the season when a trade would be made and
it's looking increasingly unlikely that the Red Sox are making the playoffs this year given the difficulty of the division
and their injuries; they've hung in heroically considering everything against them in 2010.
David Ortiz, Mike Lowell and Victor Martinez are coming off the books
after this year; I think they're going to trade Jonathan Papelbon after this season; J.D. Drew's gone after next year. Gonzalez
is only making $5.5 million in 2011 after which his new contract----with whoever---will begin. Dustin Pedroia; Kevin Youkilis;
and Jon Lester are all locked up at reasonable prices.
What do you want?
You talked about me running a team the other day and your "assessment" of such an eventuality; if you were
placed in charge of a team, I can't even calculate the level of gore you'd leave in your wake because you...just...don't....listen.
On another note, if you'd like to discuss
my Cy Young/MVP picks from yesteryear, leave the comment here----I'm not responding to hit-and-run Twitter comments on my
sites.
Yeah, I cut and paste the same thing in every
posting. Big whoop. Wanna fight about it?
My book is still available on Amazon, I-Universe and Barnes and Noble.com. It's available here for download as an E-book. You can also now get it for less that five bucks on BN via download
here.
When and if he hits free agency after the 2011
season, Adrian Gonzalez is said to be seeking an 8-year contract. Presumably, the money will be somewhere in the vicinity
of what Joe Mauer got from the Twins (8-years, $184 million) and Mark Teixeira from the Yankees (8-years, $180 million). One
disadvantage that Gonzalez will have is that some of the bigger financial guns will have first base filled and aren't going
to be involved in the bidding.
The Yankees
have Teixeira; the Mets have Ike Davis; and the Phillies have Ryan Howard. That would leave the Angels; the Red Sox; the Cubs;
the Mariners; the Orioles; maybe the Giants; and, depending on the circumstances with the McCourt divorce (and whether they
sell the team), the Dodgers.
At
his age (he'll be 30 in 2012), Gonzalez is a relatively solid investment for an 8-year contract; the best bet would be for
him to go to the American League where he could potentially DH for the latter years when he'll be in his mid-to-late-30s.
Teams pursuing him will be
pleased to know that while Gonzalez wants to get paid, but he is not represented by Scott Boras; there are other
options set to be available such as Prince Fielder and Lance Berkman; and they won't be competing with the lurking Yankees
and their financial might. Gonzalez has been historically durable (he plays just about every single day); he's a Gold Glove
fielder; he's a good guy; and taken out of the cavernous Petco Park, he'd be a Triple Crown threat.
Another option teams will have with Gonzalez is that the Padres are going
to be willing to trade him after the season. Obviously the Padres didn't think they'd be in their current position of first
place in the NL West, and it makes no sense to trade Gonzalez now. The National League is such a mess that if the Padres slump
and fall from first place, they'll still be in Wild Card contention for the whole season; and with their pitching----especially
that bullpen----they're a definite threat in the playoffs. They're not trading Gonzalez now; but after the season,
I do believe he's going to get traded.
Both the Angels and Red Sox covet Gonzalez; and if he's traded----even as a rental for one year----more teams will be involved
in the bidding. The Padres can get a bounty of prospects rather than the two first round picks for losing him as a free agent;
Gonzalez can go to a locale in which he'd be able to put up massive offensive numbers raising his price further for free agency,
or he could stay with the team that acquired him via trade by signing long term.
My best guess right now is that the Gonzalez pursuit as a free agent will come
down to the Red Sox and Angels and that he'll end up with the Red Sox. He might wind up there after the season in a trade
and getting him will make the Red Sox failed pursuit of Teixeira seem like a distant and retrospectively lucky memory because
Gonzalez is two years younger and is----overall----a better player.
I can't watch the Pirates anymore:
What make the above statement more glaring and sad is that I don't watch the Pirates.
Looking at the boxscores, their results, their record
and their roster is more than enough to lead me to say, as a matter of mercy, that MLB must step in and do something to save
this dying franchise.
When I say "save"
I don't mean installing one of their own as they did with team president Frank Coonelly, whose main function was to implement
MLB-instituted payroll constraints and has made the team worse than it was before.*
*Are you with
me in thinking that making the Pirates worse was impossible? You learn something new every day; and what I learned was to
never underestimate the power of ineptitude to make anything worse.
I've gone on before about
the rampant hideousness of the current Pirates hierarchy from Coonelly to GM Neal Huntington to manager John Russell; there's
no need to do it again. But in glancing at the standings this morning, I saw that the Pirates have lost 7 straight games.
It's as if I remember that the Pirates exist, check their status and they're in the middle of a long losing streak; probably
because they're always in the middle of a long losing streak.
They're horribly run and the fans don't care----nor should they. The Pirates don't deserve fan support.
They have some young and ultra-talented players who are being poisoned by the atmosphere of hopelessness surrounding the organization.
What chance do Andrew McCutchen and Pedro Alvarez have aside from waiting for their service time to accrue so that they can
be traded to a team that cares? To a team with an idea of what they're doing?
MLB inexplicably stepped in with one of the best run teams in baseball----the Marlins----last winter
and forced them to spend more money. (Incidentally, the Marlins would've been better off, as I predicted, continuing to do
things as the Marlins do them by trading Dan Uggla and keeping the fresh blood and "anyone can be traded at anytime"
aura about the club that's made them what they are.)
Why is MLB sitting by and watching as a bad organization gets progressively worse?
I'd suggest that the Pirates are becoming irrelevant, but they haven't been
relevant for nearly 20 years.
Someone
has to be placed in charge of the organization.
Sandy Alderson's gotten credit for things with which he had little influence. The Athletics of the 1980s were a Tony La Russa/Dave
Duncan creation built because they had a great manager and pitching coach and a high payroll. Alderson received accolades
for the Moneyball Athletics when he didn't build the team, nor did he implement the theories in the book that did work. And he demolished a Padres team that had been pretty good when he arrived. With Alderson, I get the
impression that he's someone who takes after-the-fact credit----"Oh, Microsoft? Yeah, I suggested that idea to Bill Gates."----and
while I disagree with his strategies and attitudes, Alderson is someone who would be ten steps up from what's currently in
place with the Pirates. He's been an MLB hatchet man before and, at the very least, he's got an idea of how to run a team.
I'm imploring MLB to step in and do something with
the Pirates. They're an embarrassment and something has to be done. Now.
Your assessment of the Mets' defeat last night at the
hands of Lincecum is the perfect example of the cliched expression, "Sometimes you just have to tip your cap." Nothing
you can do when you're up against a guy at the top of his game.
Our assessments and commentary
have been antiquated by the Mets' output (or lack thereof) against Barry Zito. You don't hit, you don't win. Opposing teams
had better hope the Giants' lack of offense keeps them out of the playoffs because if they get in, they have the starting
pitching and the gutty closer in Brian Wilson to turn out a team's lights.
In Alan Schwarz's "The
Numbers Game", he writes Bill James as being apologetic for the crazy stat zombie culture he was responsible in creating.
I mean, the dude can be obnoxious, yes. But I feel like he's not really a stat zombie per se. I feel like he gets
it -- that it's more than just numbers, but that numbers can be useful tools when combined with a deep knowledge of the game
on the field.
I recall reading something to that effect in The Mind of Bill James by
Scott Gray. I'm paraphrasing from memory, but James said he increasingly ran into followers of his work who he didn't even
like; that his intentions have been bastardized and he's being blamed for it.
Joe (Stat Zombie staggering on thin ice with the Prince) also adds regarding
Bill James:
James has admitted that scouts do like 90 percent of
the work in bringing players in. But he's been pretty adamant that statistics at the Major League level sum up a player very
well.
Maybe I should give James a break. It's not hard to be misinterpreted
when others are taking your statements and twisting them to suit their purposes. Nor is it hard to be misinterpreted with
the written word.
The times I've
seen him interviewed, he's come off a bit better than he does in print; the book I mentioned earlier portrays James 1000%
better (it's an admittedly "subjective" number) than Moneyball or any of his acolytes represent him.
Some of his recent writing, like the essay on
steroids, has been absolute garbage; I unloaded on that almost exactly a year ago----link. But you guys are right. I'll lay off James. For now. Until he says something other ridiculous thing.
Joe is the "Morrie" from Goodfellas
of my Family. Readers should take that however they take it.
Incidentally Joe, you should thank Jeff. You really should.
My book is still available on Amazon, I-Universe and Barnes and Noble.com. It's available for download as an E-book
here. You can also now get it for less that five bucks on BN via download here.
Why didn't Roy Halladay start for the Phillies
last night?
He pitched on Saturday
before the All Star break. Thursday should've been his scheduled day to pitch; but Jamie Moyer started for the Phillies and
got rocked by the Cubs in a 12-6 loss.
Why?
In fact, Halladay isn't scheduled
to pitch until Sunday night!
Are
the Phillies so invested in keeping their lower-tier pitchers on turn that they're going to sacrifice an extra start from
one of the best pitchers in baseball? For what? It'd be one thing if Halladay was injury-prone and needed the extra rest to
keep him healthy; or if he was on an innings/pitch limit as Phil Hughes is for the Yankees; then it would make sense to hold
him back, but to start Moyer and Joe Blanton in the first two games after the break instead of Halladay?
In web-searching for a possible nagging injury that hindered Halladay
or some other logical reason for this decision, I came across this from MLB.com.
And the quotes from Phillies manager
Charlie Manuel are, um, strange:
"So many games he's gone into the eighth inning
throwing 116, 120 pitches," said manager Charlie Manuel. "He's had seven complete games. That's way more than anybody
else. They were talking about [Ubaldo] Jimenez finishing three at the All-Star break."
"He's pitched a lot," Manuel said. "If you give him a one-turn blow, he'll probably make
that up on the off-days as we go down the line."
What?!?
He's gone into the eighth inning throwing 116,
120 pitches because Manuel left him in the games to pitch!!!
Whose fault is it that Halladay has been worked so hard? Is Manuel making the call as to whether
Halladay stays in the game with a high pitch count or throws a complete game or not? Halladay is very demanding and proud;
he wants to stay in the games, but the manager is the one in charge and needs to look at the big picture even if the player
disagrees with him.
The Phillies
bullpen has been so shaky that it's logical for Halladay to be left in close games to finish what he starts----he wants to
do it; can do it; and there's no one in the Phillies bullpen that Manuel can really trust. But check his Gamelogs. Did Halladay need to throw 118 pitches to complete a 10-0 win over the Mets on May 1st? 119 pitches five days later in going
seven innings with a 5-run lead over the Cardinals?
Those were two games in which he could've been rested a bit for the good of the team and it was Manuel who left Halladay in
the games. It's a managerial nuance that cannot be discounted in the running of a club and how one decision affects all other
decisions; it's not a matter of one game since Manuel has used Halladay's workload as a basis for the extra rest.
The only sensible explanation I can formulate
is if Halladay does have some nagging ache that the Phillies are keeping quiet; something that won't require a missed start
or a DL stint, but spurred them to take a cautionary approach and give him a few extra days. Aside from that, it's absurd.
Halladay is a horse. He's old school and wants
the ball as much as possible; more importantly, the Phillies are in a position where they're likely going to need Halladay
to pitch on short rest late in the season if they want to make the playoffs.
Halladay should've pitched the first game back from the break.
Other pitching choices:
There are certain circumstances where it makes sense to use starters
from the back-end of the rotation to begin the second half even if the aces are on normal rest.
The Mets for example started R.A. Dickey rather than Jon Niese or
Mike Pelfrey. Niese has put himself in the position where he could start the first game of a series and be considered close
to top-tier; Pelfrey struggled toward the end of the first half and appears to need the extra rest. Dickey has pitched very
well this year; plus Mets manager Jerry Manuel likes the idea of having a knuckleballer start the first game of a series to
subsequently mess up the opposition's timing when normal pitchers enter the game.
And the Mets were facing Tim Lincecum.
Most managers would never admit this, but there are games that they
look at the pitching matchups and know----barring anything unforeseen----that they're probably going to lose. One famous incident
(apropos with the death of George Steinbrenner on Tuesday) was before game 2 of the 1996 World Series when the Boss stormed
into Joe Torre's office and exclaimed (I'm paraphrasing from reading and memory), "This is a must win!"
Knowing they were facing Greg Maddux at the top
of his game, Torre replied, "Tell 'ya what Geoge, we're probably gonna lose tonight too."
Torre added that Atlanta was his town, that the Yankees would win
all three games there and end the series at home. It was amazing that he was: A) right; and B) had the audacity to say it
to a guy who might've fired him during the World Series at the utterance of such a
defeatist statement.
The 2010 Lincecum
hasn't been the dominant Lincecum to which we've grown accustomed, but he's still capable of shutting down even the most potent
lineup and he did so with the Mets despite the return of Carlos Beltran. Dickey pitched well, but sometimes you have to tip
your cap to the opposing pitcher and move forward. Part of that is taking into account the likelihood of losing and make a
sacrifice by throwing one of the background soldiers out front and hoping for the best.
Lincecum was dominant and it wouldn't have made much difference who was
pitching for the Mets because they would've lost anyway.
Angels 8-Mariners 3:
Every time Joel Pineiro pitches another good game, I will say the following (pretty much what I said this past winter, although
with a slight alteration): "The Mets should've signed Joel Pineiro."
Back then, I said, "The Mets should sign Joel Pineiro."
But they didn't, hence the change in tenses.
Genius!!!!
Let's put the Mariners 2010 train wreck into perspective, shall we?
While current GM Jack Zduriencik was referred
to as a "genius" with a frequency that made one think he could balance the country's budget, send a rocketship to
Mars and teach Sarah Palin that the word is pronounced "nuclear" rather than "nucular" while simultaneously
turning the Mariners into contenders, it hasn't worked out that way.
Do the stat zombies get a do-over from their objective reality? Can they backtrack on the allusions
of brilliance that rained down on Zduriencik when he acquired Cliff Lee and improved a club that won a surprising 85 games
in 2009 after losing 101 in 2008?
No.
But, they're not looking for
a do-over; rather than stating the obvious----that Zduriencik isn't a genius----they're ignoring the disaster in Seattle.
You do realize that their record,
35-54, is identical to what it was at this same juncture in 2008, right?
The only difference seems to be that the GM in 2008 was Bill Bavasi, who was reviled by the stats-obsessed;
and now it Zduriencik, who's one of their poster children, someone who "gets it".
Look at the similarities----they're striking.
The 2008 Mariners made a flashy trade for a big time left-handed
starting pitcher in Erik Bedard.
The 2010 Mariners traded for Cliff Lee.
The 2008 Mariners signed Carlos Silva to a long term, big money contract and he was atrocious.
The 2010 Mariners signed Chone Figgins to a long-term, big money
contract and he's been atrocious.
Injuries sabotaged the 2008 Mariners as J.J. Putz got hurt early in the year.
Injuries to Jack Wilson and the terrible pitching from Ryan Rowland-Smith and Ian Snell left the
2010 Mariners woefully short in background personnel after Lee and Felix Hernandez.
The 2008 Mariners were 13th in runs scored; the 2010 Mariners are 14th
in runs scored.
The biggest difference
between the two clubs is payroll and perception. The 2008 team payroll was $117 million; the 2010 payroll is $91 million.
The money is not irrelevant, but where's the criticism for Zduriencik?
Even before he was seen as double-dealing in the latest Cliff Lee trade machinations and supposedly
did a number on the Yankees----who thought they had a deal in place for Lee before Zduriencik spun around and traded him to
the Rangers----there were questions about what he was trying to do.
The Lee acquisition from the Phillies was a no-brainer; trading for Milton Bradley to get Silva's
contract off the books was a worthwhile gamble; but Figgins? Re-signing Ken Griffey Jr? Re-acquiring Russell Branyan a few
weeks ago with the team hopelessly out of contention?
It's nothing personal against Zduriencik. I've repeated these themes regularly, but it's only because I'm waiting for the
savaging of the work Zduriencik has done to emerge from other sources----especially the stat zombies, whose objective reality
stops when it calls into question the decisions of one of their own.
Sounds subjective to me, but people think I'm psychotic.
Viewer Mail 7.16.2010:
Max Stevens writes RE the media and the stat zombies:
I was recently toying with the idea of subscribing to Baseball Digest and Baseball America. I used
to get the Digest when I was a kid growing up in New York in the mid 70s.
Do you look at Baseball Digest, Baseball America, Sporting News, etc., or are they completely outdated
sources at this point?
I share at least some of your derision for the sabermetric
crowd. I was recently scolded on a NY Mets blog for not backing up a comment with "evidence based research."
Whatever. Once it becomes about nothing other than mathematical formulas, I check out. However, I have a healthy
appreciation for Bill James and his methods as one of numerous complementary modes of thought that can enhance our understanding
of things.
What role do stats and data play in your understanding
of the game?
I've canceled all my subscriptions to sports magazines.
I used to get Baseball Digest as well, but the weeklies are dying not just in sports, but in every subject because the access
to information is there at the touch of a button and it's mostly free. There was research and thought behind the stuff that
was published in the magazines because it was checked and re-checked before it went out to the public, but corners have to
be cut to fight the losing battle with the web.
It's a dual-edged sword now with the rapid-fire news and opinion rampant with websites, blogs and especially Twitter and Facebook.
People end up publishing things in a rush because they want to be the "first" to get it out there, but many times
the hastiness leads to assertions that end up being wrong; other times they say things they regret.
In one sense, it's a negative that the supposedly "credible"
media has their facade torn away, a positive that we see that they're just as knee-jerk and reactionary as the rest of us----and
in many cases, far more stupid.
Regarding the stat zombies, I'm not surprised they attacked you with their call for "proof". Unable to formulate
an independent thought because they have neither the experience nor breadth of baseball knowledge to go with their gut, they
prefer to have an explainable reason for what they believe. It's insecurity more than anything else. I have respect for what
Bill James has done, but stats are a tool, not the final arbiter and James himself is incredibly obnoxious.
If a manager doesn't go against the percentages
when his experience-based baseball knowledge is telling him that it's the correct move; when he does the safe thing due to
orders from above or fear of consequences, then he's not a manager----he's a puppet; and I don't want a puppet managing my
team at crunch time.
I'd be very interested to see what Showalter could do
as manager of the O's. He's a very smart guy.
I can tell you right
now, they'd be a .500 team possibly by next year; and contending by 2012. Then, given his history, he'd wear out his welcome
by 2014 and the Orioles would bring in an empty suit, emptyheaded manager because Showalter was too tightly wound to take
them to the next level. It's happened everywhere he's been and there's no reason to think the Orioles would be any different.
Jeff
(Acting Boss) at Red State Blue State writes RE Yunel Escobar and Bobby Cox:
I bet
Bobby Cox threw a kegger once he knew Yunel was out the door.
Huzzah!
For an old-school manager like Bobby Cox to have to watch and endure Escobar and the prevalent brain lock/selfish ambivalence
that he exhibited, it's no wonder he wanted him gone. With the warriors Cox managed like Chipper Jones and John Smoltz, he
could no longer stand the sight of Escobar and I'm sure every veteran in the Braves clubhouse was right behind the manager
in wanting to shove Escobar out the door (or off a bridge), talent or not.
Gabriel (Acting Underboss) writes RE Escobar, Alex Anthopolous and the Blue
Jays:
I don't like the trade, but I've learned that Anthopolous
knows what he's doing, so let's give him (and Escobar) the benefit of doubt. I think his line of thinking is: get Escobar,
if he works, trade him when Hechavarria is ready, if not, trade or release him when Hechavarria is ready.
It's
the most interesting trade so far, though.
This is a no-lose proposition. They were never going
to get a better return on Alex Gonzalez; the Blue Jays are not contenders; and passing on this offer would've been insanity.
I believe in talent as long as the player isn't causing off-field trouble; and even then I'm willing to take a chance on a
player like Elijah Dukes; perhaps that's a frailty on my part. There's always a chance that Escobar will get the message----admittedly, at this point, it's hit or miss just like the Mets with Jeff Francoeur; but the talent is absolutely, positively worth it considering what they gave up to get him.
My book is still available on Amazon, I-Universe and Barnes and Noble.com. It's available for download as an E-book
here. You can also now get it for less that five bucks on BN via download here.
The Silence Of The Prince----Monsters Of The First Half, Day 3
"Oh Clarice, your problem is you need to get
more fun out of life."
The death of George Steinbrenner and the inconvenience of the actual playing of the All Star Game interfered with my reflections
on the first half of the season, conducted in three parts. Here's Day 3, although it's actually Day 4.
You get what I mean.
Someone who "gets it":
It's trendy for any organizational boss to be lauded as "getting it" if he happens to agree
with a certain method of running his club. What "it" exactly is has yet to be explained. According to the stat zombies,
anyone who ignores subjective (and important) aspects of building his club and concentrates on numbers above all else, "gets
it".
It's not just relegated
to the zombies however----everyone does it. Why there's a conscious choice to surround oneself with people who agree on everything
is beyond me. Dissent and disagreement are the building blocks to moving forward. Rubber stamping a maneuver based on a supposed
scientific and numerical formula is easy and explainable and a detriment to doing what's right.
As for someone who I say "gets it", I'm talking about Blue Jays
GM Alex Anthopolous.
Here's my version
of someone who "gets it" not because I agree with everything he does----in Anthopoulos's case, I don't; I would've
replaced manager Cito Gaston with someone younger and more suitable for the long term----but because the GM is making decisions
that are viable in theory and he has no fear of being criticized by any baseball faction.
When he replaced J.P. Ricciardi as Blue Jays GM, no one seemed to
know which direction Anthopolous was going to take. Was he an acolyte of Ricciardi, Billy Beane and by extension Bill James
and the catalysts of the stat zombie movement? Would he follow the riverboat gambler and gut feel instincts of Omar Minaya,
for whom he worked with the Expos before joining the Blue Jays?
Or would he choose to run his club based on the circumstances as he saw them and not due to a template
from which he would not deviate even if it meant heading straight over the cliff at 100 mph?
He's chosen the third option and the latest trade he pulled off is evidence
of that.
Yesterday, the Blue Jays traded
shortstop Alex Gonzalez and minor league lefty Tim Collins and shortstop Tyler Pastronicky to the Braves for shortstop Yunel
Escobar and lefty Jo-Jo Reyes.
This exemplifies
the types of decisions that Anthopolous has made in his time as Blue Jays GM. Under the gun of having to trade Roy
Halladay, he somehow accumulated a bounty in prospects from the Phillies and Athletics. He's loaded the organization up with
pitching and didn't take a hot start from his club to mean that they were actual contenders and do anything stupid to tilt
at windmills and fight a losing battle. In the AL East, there was no chance for the Blue Jays to maintain their position with
the big shots in the division, the Yankees, the Rays and Red Sox; Anthopolous let the team play and they've predictably fallen
back to mediocrity.
Now, he went
for talent rather than production and reputation in trading for Escobar.
Yunel Escobar has MVP ability, but he's a player who managers loathe because he makes so many fundamental
mistakes and goes beyond the scope of being referred to as lackadaisical----he acts like he doesn't care. The Blue Jays got
him for a player in Gonzalez who was having his career power year and wasn't going to part of a Blue Jays revival when it
happens----and it will happen under Anthopolous.
Jo-Jo Reyes has never been any good as a starter, but he's lefty; maybe he'll have some use out of the bullpen based
on nothing more than being lefty.
The left side of the Blue Jays infield is young, ultra-talented and in Escobar's case, super-cheap; both can drive
a manager homicide, suicide or both. Third baseman Edwin Encarnacion is 27 and combined with Escobar is either going to create
a slick fielding, productive hitting duo for the Blue Jays future, or both will be dispatched as players who were absolutely
worth a roll of the dice, but didn't work.
If this offer was presented to me, I'd have done the exact same thing as Anthopolous did, Escobar is going to be 28;
there's every chance that he's never going to get any better than this in his attitude or performance, but he might and considering
what they gave up to get him, this was a no-brainer.
Even if it doesn't work.
The turnaround of the Braves:
This team looked dead early in the year.
With Bobby Cox on the way out the door, the players were staggering around in a slumber. They made heinous mental mistakes
and when they fell behind packed up their bats to go home.
But they turned things around. Led by Troy Glaus's unexpected hot streak and the bewildering slump
by the Phillies, the Braves vaulted into first place and with a top-to-bottom pitching staff that's hard to match anywhere
in baseball, they're as a good a choice as any to emerge from the parity-laden National League.
The trade for Alex Gonzalez is a go-for-it deal.
They were getting absolutely nothing from Escobar on the field and off
the field, the other players and especially manager Cox had seen and heard enough from him. There are players in baseball
who are "strangleworthy". Lastings Milledge is one; and so is Escobar. Teams have a choice when they're in contention:
they can ride out the storm with players like Escobar and hope at some point the talent kicks in and the player learns how
to behave correctly, or the club can throw their hands up in the air and go for it now.
This trade is somewhat similar to the one the Braves made last year in
getting rid of Jeff Francoeur as they sent him to the Mets for Ryan Church. Church wasn't any good and did almost nothing
for the Braves, but Francoeur's time to figure it out came to an end and they dumped him----a mistake in my opinion because
the club was just as much at fault for Francoeur's issues as the player himself.
With Escobar, it was enough. The pennant the Braves want to win is in 2010 and if
Gonzalez helps them achieve that and Escobar fulfills his potential in Toronto, it was still worth it.
I like Alex Gonzalez as a player; I thought the Red Sox made a mistake
in replacing him with Julio Lugo after 2006. Despite his low on base percentage, he has pop; fields every ball he can get
to (although his range isn't what it once was); and has performed in the clutch during post-season games as he did with the
championship Marlins in 2003. Most importantly, he'll play the game correctly, something that Escobar either wouldn't or was
incapable of doing. Gonzalez is a cheap upgrade for this year and probably next; the Braves are better today with Gonzalez
than they were a few days ago with Escobar.
Considering the circumstances on both sides, this is a win-win deal for all, no matter what happens.
If
they ever hire him, can Buck Showalter turn around the Orioles?
Since Davey Johnson,
the Orioles have eschewed the big name manager. With the exception of Mike Hargrove, they've chosen to go with the long-time
coach/minor league manager who had a solid resume, but few discernible differences from one to the other.
The succession of names----Ray Miller, Lee Mazzilli, Sam Perlozzo and
Dave Trembley----were interchangeable in their results and managing skills. Now they're functioning with Juan Samuel and playing
much better than they did under Trembley (they could scarcely have played worse), but hiring Buck Showalter would accord the
Orioles instant credibility and he would turn them around.
Although they've taken five steps back this year, there's plenty of talent in Baltimore and they need
the discipline and strategic acumen that Showalter would provide. The question is who'd be running things and does team president
Andy MacPhail want Showalter?
As
adverse as he is to spending big money going back to his Twins days, I can't imagine that MacPhail would want to pay Showalter
what he's going to demand; nor do I think the two would be able to co-exist long-term. It would be clear that any disagreement
would be settled by owner Peter Angelos; given the way Angelos allowed MacPhail to do things his way and that the team has
descended into a disaster, Showalter would get the final word.
I can't blame MacPhail for the way things went this year. He didn't spend ridiculous amounts of money
for his club to run before it could walk and the players he brought in----Miguel Tejada, Kevin Millwood, even Garrett Atkins
and Mike Gonzalez----made sense on and off the field. I thought they'd take a leap forward, but they haven't. It hasn't worked.
I still hold onto the idea that the Orioles should've replaced Trembley (with a Showalter-type) this past winter; but they
didn't. They're where they are; they're what they are.
It's because of the perceived failure that I can't blame Angelos if he dictates to MacPhail that he
must hire Showalter if he wants to keep his job. The meddlesome Angelos has kept his hands off the organization in letting
MacPhail do what he felt was right in rebuilding; the talent is improved, but the team's still losing.
There are many woulda, shoulda, couldas with
the Orioles, but hiring Showalter is the best thing they could do right now for the organization. The question is whether
or not both Showalter and MacPhail will be there when things finally get better. Showalter will be; MacPhail might not.
Viewer Mail 7.15.2010:
Max Stevens writes RE the Angels:
Earlier this week you wrote about how the Angels can still make a run at the AL West. I don't know
if you like to engage in discussion about potential trades, but it seems to me that the Angels can put a real scare into the
Texas Rangers if they acquire Adam Dunn. I think this would be a medium-risk, high-reward move for the Halos. How about a
trade that sends Mike Napoli and a pitching prospect to Washington for Dunn? Would the Nats do this?
I'll talk hypothetical trades even though most of them don't make sense and are used to feed the circular
world of mutual advantage (see Olney, Buster and his idiotic "rumor" of Ryan Howard for Albert Pujols).
Dunn would be a fit for the Angels as a basher
in the middle of the lineup, but he doesn't really make sense for what they do, especially defensively. The DH role is blocked
by Matsui and Dunn is a statue at first base. I would think the Angels would prefer to get someone like (as was mentioned
on a couple of outlets today) Derrek Lee. They certainly won't give up the bounty it's going to take to get Prince Fielder;
and the Angels won't deal with Scott Boras after the way the Mark Teixeira negotiations went sour.
I can't see why the Nationals would want Mike Napoli, plus Mike Scioscia
loves him. That said, I couldn't see why they were so invested in making themselves shinier than they are with expansion team-type
signings of Adam Kennedy and Jason Marquis. The Ivan Rodriguez signing was sensible in that they needed a veteran catcher
to steward the young, flighty pitchers Scott Olsen and Tyler Clippard; and especially Stephen Strasburg.
It's hard to gauge what the Nats are doing. One minute they're looking
at Roy Oswalt and being discussed as buyers at the deadline; then they're said to be entertaining offers for Dunn. As the
Mariners have proven under Jack Zduriencik, it's very, very hard to do both simultaneously.
I don't see the Angels going crazy to get a bat and dealing their top
prospects. It's not what they do. When they acquired Scott Kazmir last year and Teixeira the year before, in retrospect, they
didn't give up much of anything. They're not going to betray that for an Adam Dunn.
The Angels might go after Jayson Werth and figure out where to position everyone
later. In fact, they might trade for Werth with an idea on keeping him long term.
Joe writes RE Ubaldo Jimenez and stat zombieism:
Lack of understanding? I'd say your logic is flawed, but there isn't any
logic in there. In your alternate universe, guys like 2008 Brad Lidge somehow are more worthy than Chase Utley -- as I believe
you thought Lidge could win the MVP. But I guess the only way you could ever learn that your thinking is incorrect, is to
build a team and then watch it fail. But we know that isn't going to happen. If we didn't have "pitcher wins" as
a stat, we would be more knowledgeable baseball fans.
I don't recall Prince making his statement based on "pitcher wins".
It's not about the wins.
It's about Ubaldo carrying his team, being the best all around pitcher in the NL right now. In baseball, that sorta thing
is REALLY REALLY REALLY important, y'know, carrying a team, igniting a team, leading a team.
Free your mind, man.
Free your mind.
I find it to be a disturbing betrayal of the tenets
you supposedly live by when you resort to overt disrespect for another's views by making comments the type you made in response
to me, Joe. When you have no argument, you turn to the old standby of ridicule.
Although we disagree, I expected better from you.
The only conclusion I can reach is that you're afraid. Afraid because
you intrinsically know what would happen if I were ever given a team to run; know that if given the resources practically
and financially to do it right, I'd have a title contender in three years----even the Pirates.
I'm pleased that you have my future so carefully mapped out and calculated
as well as you calculate your precious numbers. Sadly, you have no idea what I can or will do in the future.
Somewhere in your numerically-infected, stat zombie
decayed brain there remains a semblance of truth. Presumably that's why you still choose to read me. But if you're so diametrically
opposed to what I say and feel there's no basis behind it, why bother? Why not stick to the Dave Camerons; the Rob Neyers;
the Michael Lewises; the Bill James acolytes and their narrow views of the world? Wallow in the condescending pomposity therein;
a world where everyone agrees and chooses to heap abuse down on those who dare to challenge them rather than engage in a substantive
debate. Shake your collective heads at the Neanderthals such as myself and begin a new enlightened society with your so-called
"revolution" that's been so successful with the Athletics; the Blue Jays; the Dodgers; and the Padres----all who
collapsed under the weight of Moneyball and stats above all else.
Now that, to me, is a failure worth watching. And you'd have a front row seat to observe the carnage.
When I saw the name Dave LaPoint, I cracked up. Guys
like that were part of Steinbrenner's legacy too, along with Whitson, but he did have other attributes, as you point out.
Most Yankee fans don't want to recall the days of LaPoint and Andy Hawkins, but they should be remembered
because there were days that players treated the Yankees as if they were the Pirates of today----a place you went because
you had little choice and wanted to get paid.
I'd gladly take the seven championships since Steinbrenner took over the team----he rebuilt an organization that was rancid
from the inside out. Would any other owner have been able to turn it around to that degree? I don't think so.
George may be many things
to me as a Baseball fan and not all of them good. But as a MAN of this city I appreciated every second he walked our city
streets. Because! ~ Because the guy had guts and that's what you needed here. Yankee Stadium lay center mass of every blight
that comes with urban decay and ruin (in the late 70's). George never blinked. George never flinched. George engaged in a
game of chicken, allied with the willing against everything wrong in this city back in the day....fought the long fight....and
in the end, won.
I can't imagine that he ever would've moved the Yankees
out of New York, but that was part of the beauty of his irrationality----no one knew what he was going to do next. He was
a bully, but he eventually won and made himself a fortune; lunacy and business savvy aren't all that far apart; he hopped
over one line to the other, but you cannot argue with the results no matter how he achieved them.
My book is still available on Amazon, I-Universe and Barnes and Noble.com. It's available for download as an E-book
here. You can also now get it for less that five bucks on BN via download here.
George Steinbrenner's Unappreciated, Underreported Attributes
There was a heart in
there....somewhere:
Because he acquired such a reputation as a raving lunatic capable of coming unhinged at any moment;
a micro-manager interfering in every aspect of the running of his club, many times to its detriment; an abusive and bullying
force never hesitating to humiliate underlings for no reason whatsoever; twice suspended from baseball; and a reviled character
in many circles for his self-serving behaviors, it's easily glossed over what a kind and generous person George Steinbrenner
could be; how his sense of humor was nuanced and that he was willing to laugh at himself in a self-deprecating way----within
reason.
Of course he was a capricious and behaved haphazardly; yes, the staunch military conservative Steinbrenner often did the quintessential
"liberal" thing by helping players like Steve Howe, Darryl Strawberry, Dwight Gooden and his perpetual quick-fix
manager, Billy Martin----even when they repeatedly screwed up and the argument could be made that they didn't deserve any
more chances; but there was a kindness underneath the bluster and abuse that should be more prominently displayed in his epitaph.
Some have taken the death
of George Steinbrenner as a means of bashing the Yankees, which is ludicrous. Regardless of which team you root for, it's
impossible to deny Steinbrenner's impact on the game of baseball. It wasn't his business savvy that was the main factor in
the Yankees success on and off the field during his tenure, but that he wanted to win.
That was the only end in which he had interest.
Winning.
If that meant overpaying
for a player in terms of trade chips or money? So be it. Naturally that led to the rampant stupidity that continually ravaged
the Yankees farm system of players----Fred McGriff, Jay Buhner, Doug Drabek, Willie McGee (these are off the top of my head)-----who
he traded in fits of pique or for players whose names he knew. It led to paying the likes of Ed Whitson, Dave LaPoint and
Pascual Perez loads of money and getting almost nothing in return.
But it wasn't done in the interest of anything aside from trying to win.
Desperation leads to mistakes and oftentimes that's what happened with the moves Steinbrenner forced his baseball people to
make.
There
was a method to the madness. There are intelligent people who don't believe that power should be concentrated and emanate
from one source. Because no one ever knew who was making the decisions for the Yankees, in a strange way, they always knew
who was making the decisions for the Yankees-----George Steinbrenner. Since there was a factional separation between the people
with Steinbrenner in his home base of Tampa and those around the team in New York, it was a survival of the fittest contest
to see who was going to end up winning the battles.
It always appeared that Steinbrenner was enamored with the last person he'd spoken
to. Whether it was any of the GMs, managers, coaches, players or fans that he came across, hired, fired, hired, fired, hired
and fired again; or if it was talk radio, a newspaper or some fan suggestion he came across, he'd implement what seemed clever
at the time with no foresight to consider whether or not it would work in the short or long-term.
The Yankees of the 80s were an annual
underachiever due to the revolving door of personnel. Had Steinbrenner not been suspended in the early 90s, the Yankees might
not have become the dynasty that they did.
Or they might've.
While it's obvious that the club was poorly run and shambolic in the 80s; and the
90s Yankees teams won the AL East every year that they won the World Series, who's to say how much influence the Wild Card
would've had on those 80s Yankees teams, which were, by and large, always in or around 2nd place in their division until they
collapsed totally in 1989-1990?
Much like the star-studded and young Mets teams of the 80s missed the playoffs every year but
two, and would've won at least 2 more championships had there been a Wild Card, the Yankees would also have made the post-season
with the extra spot available. Despite the Scotch-taped together nature of the club construction and that they never made
the playoffs, they were good enough and would absolutely have made the playoffs in at least three of the years from 1983-1988.
The one
thing that could never be said about Steinbrenner was that he didn't care; and many owners don't care enough to do what Steinberenner
did to help his team win. Their interests begin and end with the bottom line, but for Steinbrenner, profit came after winning.
The two went hand-in-hand. If the team wins, the money will be there. It's a simplistic way of management, but it's difficult
to argue with its accuracy.
Everyone wants to be part of a recognizable winner. That's why there are so many Yankees fans around the world; that's why
people support the Notre Dame football team; the Dallas Cowboys and the Los Angeles Lakers----they're famous and they've won.
The sense
of humor and kindness I alluded to earlier were ancillary aspects of his bigger-than-life personality. There was the credit
card commercial in which he wound up nightclubbing with Derek Jeter; there was the hilarious (and Steinbrenner-approved) portrayal
on Seinfeld in which he was caricatured as a tyrannical, deranged maniac (as he wanted to be perceived); and there
was a hosting gig on Saturday Night Live in which he was: shown napping before the show, dreaming about a Yankee team that
consisted of George as GM; George as manager; George as coach; and George as every player on the field. In that same show,
he also played a supermarket owner who tried to explain to his employees how ridiculous it was to hire and fire people again-and-again
without warning or justification.
The generosity was evident in the charities he supported, the thousands of kids whose college educations
were financed by George Steinbrenner (detailed in Bill Madden's book, Steinbrenner: The Last Lion of Baseball).
One particular story I remember that I read in Sports Illustrated as a small mention was from around 1990 (I'm paraphrasing
the story from memory) and he was in Tampa; he drove by a broken down school bus that had been transporting camp kids. He
stopped, bought hamburgers and milk for the children and paid for an air conditioned bus to take them the rest the way.
Much of the insanity
was feeding the reputation of the Steinbrenner monster. He was seen as an irrational nutcase capable of doing and saying anything
at any moment because it was true; but the reputation and circus-like atmosphere around the Yankees also drew attention to
the team and to himself, made him famous and rich beyond all measure. He had to maintain that veneer for it to keep
building. It also helps that much of his reputation was based in fact.
In the end, he ceded control of the club to his sons and the Yankees are
still a sports/financial powerhouse unlike any other because of George Steinbrenner. That can't be changed regardless of the
things he did----awful and humane.
When the debate comes up as to whether Steinbrenner is a Hall of Famer, I don't have the words to express
my confusion at the very question. He belongs in the Hall of Fame because of what he built, what he added to the game----positively
and negatively----and that the word "Fame" is in the title of the Hall.
Has there ever been an owner more famous than George
Steinbrenner?
No.
And there never will be.
National
League 3-American League 1:
The National League has the home field advantage in the World Series.
And that's all I have to say about the All
Star Game.
I tried to read that ESPN "About" thing and my eyes just glazed over. What were
they even trying to say?
They seem to be trying to say how they formulate the morass that is what they do (whatever that
is); and judging from your reaction to the ESPN Rumor Central "About", it looks like they pretty much nailed
it. They don't know what they're talking about and we don't know what they're talking about either. When you think
about it, it's skilfully written since they got their point across.
ESPN has been Chris-Bermafied; the network sucks now.
Has for a while.
I remember the good old days... with the exception of Bob Ley... the good guys are all gone now, on to better things.
I have the MLB Network now. I have the NFL Network. The NHL Network. WTF do I need ESPN for?
Even when the Berman shtick was at its height,
they still did some good work with Ley and Chris Myers. You're bringing me back to the days when even MTV had some decent
programming rather than the endless reality shows that make no sense whatsoever. Even in the early days of The Real World
when it wasn't just would-be models drinking and screwing, it was compelling.
You would think that with all the various networks
under ESPN's control, they'd put one up that has honest work and opinion rather than self-aggrandizing "personality"
promotion.
Joe writes RE Ubaldo Jimenez:
Throw Ubaldo on the Pirates
then? Will that solve your very flawed logic? Because then he won't win 25 games. And his team won't make the playoffs. And
even if he pitches exactly the same, he won't be worthy because the Pirates supporting cast is terrible. PITCHER WINS don't
mean <crap>!
First, go cuss somewhere else. I'm being linked by sites that require a little editing for content on my part. You
wanna cuss? Start your own site up again and do it there.
As for your "argument" regarding Jimenez, you can do that with
any player and achieve the same out-of-context result. Put Kevin Youkilis on the Astros and he'd walk 180 times and drive
in 75 runs because they never have anyone on base in front of him.
Until you put the game into its proper perspective and lose the adherence
to stats above anything else, you're never going to truly be a credible voice.
The influence one player can have on the rest of
the team is not to be discounted. When Orel Hershiser went out to the mound during that historic run in 1988, don't you think
his Dodgers teammates----on a mediocre team----said to themselves, "we're gonna win today"?
Don't you think there's a different
attitude with the Yankees when Mariano Rivera takes the ball in the 9th inning? That the attitude translates into a more relaxed
feeling and provides comfort to play at their best knowing that one little mistake won't open the floodgates to a loss?
One of the reasons I
picked Brad Lidge as my NL Cy Young Award winner in 2008 wasn't simply because of his dominance all year long, but because
the Phillies would not have made the playoffs without him. The stat zombie idea that "anyone" can rack up the saves
in the regular season is accurate, but had anyone else been the Phillies' closer in 2008 and they been just a bit worse than
Lidge and blown 3-4 games, the Phillies would've been on the outside looking in.
These things cannot be discounted in the grand scheme.
Where would the Marlins be without Josh Johnson? They'd be a few games worse than they are right now. Their bullpen has been
horrible and they haven't hit in opportune moments.
Where would the Rockies be without Jimenez right now? As Jorge De La Rosa, Jason Hammel
and Jeff Francis were all on the disabled list and Aaron Cook was terrible, it was Jimenez who kept the team afloat until
they got their people back. Now look where they are.
You ignore these points because they don't pop out of a calculator, but your lack
of understanding doesn't make them irrelevant or suggest that they don't exist. Until you start to free your mind of these restrictions,
I can't help you.
My book is still available
on Amazon, I-Universe and Barnes and Noble.com. It's available for download as an E-book
here. You can also now get it for less that five bucks on BN via download here.
First Half Atrocities, The Committer Of Evil Acts----Day 2
An All Star break recap unlike any other, day 2:
The title refers to the comment the unreadable
Ken Davidoff made to me after I pointed out how strikingly similar Joel (Cliff Lee is heading to the Yankees...by way of Texas?)
Sherman's posting regarding the Astros possible trading partners for Roy Oswalt was to mine----Posting May 25th, 2010.
You can judge for yourself, but I let
it go after people I respect said it wasn't plagiarism.
Davidoff said that I committed "awful acts".
Yes.
I'm the epitome of evil.
I'm on the run.
And for the record,
I have no problem with Davidoff's writing; he's unreadable because he writes for Newsday which, by definition, is unreadable
because no one reads it.
But more
on the media later.
For now, it's time
for more stuff from the outer limits of my head.
The "strategy" of the Nationals:
Baseball isn't football or hockey in which a team repeatedly gets number one picks in the draft and
automatically can guarantee they'll be contenders within three or so years if they know what they're doing at all and even
if they don't know what they're doing it happens by accident of circumstance.
The Rays have been built largely through the draft, with luck and some smart trades. It's conveniently
forgotten by those ready to anoint Andrew Friedman as baseball's "best" GM that a large chunk of the Rays' foundation
was in place when the new management team arrived.
The Nationals have Stephen Strasburg and just drafted Bryce Harper----a prospect who is inviting barely concealed
lust among everyone who's seen him. It remains to be seen whether he'll be Joe Mauer or Danny Goodwin. Apart from that, they
have some talent in the organization and a few good players at the big league level, but nothing that explains the way the
front office seemed to be pushing the envelope to contend this year.
Dumping Elijah Dukes and creating a more positive and professional atmosphere under manager Jim
Riggleman was a step in the right direction, but they've fallen to their talent level as a heavy workload for their relatively
strong bullpen and a short starting rotation has cost them. Early in the year, when they were playing very well, I thought
that it was possible that they could hang around in the playoff race in the weak National League; and if the emergence of
Strasburg created a jolt of electricity throughout the club, who knows where that would take them?
But they've stumbled.
The lineup, like the pitching staff, has useful pieces; but on the whole, it's not
very good. Slightly more talented than an expansion team, the Nats were misjudged badly as many "experts" suggested
they were better than the Mets.
Well, they're not.
The problem
teams that are not deep isn't that they lack talent; it's that many times the games they do win have to be treated as playoff
games in which the best relievers are used far longer than they would be for a team with more personnel from which to choose.
The Nats got off to a good start because they were overusing their reliable relievers Tyler Clippard and Matt Capps----their
workload has been extensive; and Livan Hernandez did an above-and-beyond the call of keeping the club in games as they waited
for Strasburg. But when Strasburg arrived, Clippard and Capps already looked gassed.
Again Riggleman was faced with a dilemma akin to the one he had in 1998 with
the Cubs----and that Dusty Baker had with the Cubs in 2003-----development or winning?
It's a fine line on which to walk and with the aggressiveness the Nats were
showing in signing Jason Marquis and checking in on Roy Oswalt, it was clear that they wanted to win now. It's a dual-sided
coin. If it works, they're going to run the risk of burning out assets as Riggleman did in his abuse of Kerry Wood in 1998;
the Cubs won the Wild Card, but Wood blew out his elbow the next year. Baker ran Wood and Mark Prior out to the mound, let
them pitch deeply into games because he had no choice if he wanted to win and came within one game of the World Series. Both
got hurt.
There's no blame to be
doled, it's fact. It just "is".
Now the Nats are considering trading Adam Dunn. Strangely, there's also been talk that they might move Nyjer Morgan;
wasn't everyone in love with Morgan last year for his defense and speed? And to do what? To play Roger Bernadina in center
field? Good luck there.
If I were
the Nats, I'd strongly advise that they abandon any false hopes of contention in 2010, trade Dunn and explore a deal for the
horribly underrated Josh Willingham (I've loved the way he hits back to when he was with the Marlins; in a clutch spot, he
was scarier than Hanley Ramirez to me.)
This team has the building blocks to be pretty good quickly, but the fans aren't coming to the games unless Strasburg
is pitching, so to keep Dunn and Willingham to win 75 games instead of 69 makes no sense in any context aside from a vanity
play, and it's a mistake.
Managerial beheadings:
The managers that have
been fired deserved their fate for the most part.
Dave Trembley worked his way up to the big leagues having never played professional baseball, but was overmatched and
the Orioles weren't any good at any time during his tenure.
The Royals' Trey Hillman had a sterling resume and couldn't handle the job strategically or practically.
The firing of Fredi Gonzalez was unfair on the surface
after the good work he did with the Marlins, but he's going to land on his feet somewhere----the Braves?----after the season.
A.J. Hinch of the Diamondbacks is highly intelligent
and has the makings to be a good manager, but his hiring was a disaster that wound up costing GM Josh Byrnes his job as well.
What's more interesting than the managers and GM who
did get fired is the list of managers who were on the firing line, but survived, so far...
The revelation of Rangers manager Ron Washington's failed drug test and
his admission that he used cocaine last year made him a dead man walking...to everyone but the Rangers. Washington is a survivor;
that can't be discounted; nor can the fact that his players play hard for him. Now, the Rangers are in first place,
have Cliff Lee and are a good bet to make the playoffs.
Dusty Baker is in the last year of his contract and it was put up or get out time with the Reds. Expectations were
high and the club has hovered around first place all year long. The Cardinals are vulnerable and if the Reds maintain, Baker
won't just survive, he might win Manager of the Year.
It's not his fault, but I have no idea how Ken Macha is still managing the Brewers. They've played poorly and, barring
a miraculous turnaround, Macha's not going to be back after the season. Doesn't it make sense to install Willie Randolph as
manager sooner rather than later?
Jerry
Manuel of the Mets still has people calling for his job, but the team has surpassed any and all expectations (except mine)
as they've vaulted themselves into contention and incorporated a segment of the farm system that's better than the analysts
thought.
The Pirates John Russell....oh
never mind. I'm not wasting energy talking about the Pirates.
The media wall:
With the World Cup having just ended (and Paul the Octopus even more accurate in his predictions than
Paul the Prince), I can't help but envision a pasty, poorly-dressed, unimaginative and embittered group forming a wall of
protection much like the "wall" in soccer to shield one of their own as current events play themselves out.
I'm of course referring to the media.
What I find strange isn't the way they protect their
own, but that they protect their own to the extreme lengths that they do. Even when they're wrong, there's a shield that goes
up based on the dying nature of their jobs. They have no answers; their game reports are all they can provide and their analysis----or
what they call analysis----comes increasingly under scrutiny.
It's all the same. Invisible sources; canned trade "rumors" that emanated in someone's
imagination or was strategically placed to convenience all sides; and nonsensically roundabout blather that would be better
uttered by Sarah Palin.
Such has been
the case over the weekend as the aforementioned Joel Sherman has had his work justified and vigorously defended regarding
the Cliff Lee to the Yankees mess. While it was in the middle of happening, everyone from Jon Heyman to Ken Davidoff to anyone
else who's buddies with Sherman lauded his investigative skills in getting the story before it happened.
And that's the problem.
It hadn't happened.
They can twist words and add caveats to imply that the failure was due to shifty and unethical tactics
on the part of the Mariners and a deal that was agreed upon was shattered when a better one came along; but the fact is that
the trade wasn't completed even as the reporters acted as if it was.
Here's MLBTradeRumors.com and their love fest for Sherman's spin doctoring on how the deal he had at
the "goal line" and whose paper----the New York Post----had the words "Yankees to get Lee" at the top
of the page reporting the story----link----fell apart.
The relevant sentence,
in my mind, was:
Sherman also gets into the failed Yankees-Lee deal like only he can.
Please.
Before
the deal collapsed; and while Sherman was being treated like the Woodward and Bernstein of the sports world, I preached
counsel----wisely----knowing how these things sometimes go.
Lo and behold, the Yankees didn't get Lee.
Did the Mariners act unethically? Who knows? There don't seem to be any ironclad rules that have to
be adhered to when making trades and the idea that the Yankees are going to try to influence other teams not to do business
with the Mariners is ridiculous. It's not ridiculous that they might try, but to think a team who needs something from the
Mariners is going to care what the Yankees say in relation to whether or not to do a deal in lunacy. In fact, if they did
screw the Yankees, I'd think more teams would be willing to do business with the Mariners because of that.
Then you get to ESPN.
I was looking at their Rumor Central yesterday----always good for a chuckle----read
the About section and literally burst out laughing. It goes as follows:
Rumor Central is a collaboration
-- an aggregation built upon constant tips and analysis from ESPN’s internal sources and numerous external sources and
links from all over the web. We will debunk, debate, acknowledge the possibilities, connect the dots and speculate logically.
We are listening for everything and filling the gray area -- the news before the news. Because until it’s confirmed,
it’s just a rumor.
What?!?
This is the stupidest "About" I've ever read...or written.
"Constant tips and analysis"? "External
sources"? "Connect the dots"? "Speculate logically"?
Do you read some of the "analysis" that ESPN presents? Aside from Jayson Stark and Jerry
Crasnick is there anyone there worthwhile? Who presents their case with conviction rather than a selfish agenda?
The only dots ESPN connects are the ones that are
going to drive up traffic and ratings for their web of networks. Was the Ryan Howard for Albert Pujols "rumor" actually
analyzed before Buster Olney went on ESPN News and discussed it like it had a chance of happening in any world anywhere in
the universe?
It's all a selfish endeavor
based on nothing other than creating a buzz----the content is irrelevant; and you're the victim if you buy into it.
They can erect all the walls they want;
protect their nether-regions and their faces; but truth will win out. And it is not on their side.
Viewer Mail 7.13.2010:
Joe writes RE Ubaldo Jimenez, Josh Johnson, Roy
Halladay and the NL Cy Young Award race:
Ubaldo Jimenez? Josh Johnson and maybe even Halladay have been better.
In
my imaginiation, I felt my hands closing tightly around Joe's throat, but he actually has an argument for Johnson, not really
for Halladay. Their numbers are similar in everything aside from wins; but in the broad sense, I don't see how you can deny
the "first-half" award to Jimenez.
He's struggled a little bit lately, but while the Rockies were dealing with injuries and a shaky bullpen, he singlehandedly
kept their heads above water with two separate, long scoreless inning streaks. Overall, you also have to look at what he's
done for the team. Plus Jimenez goes deeper into games than Johnson does even though Johnson's been pushed lately in his pitch
counts.
The Marlins are staggering
along and the Rockies are a playoff contender. If Jimenez wins 25 games, they can't deny him the CYA even if Johnson's close
or better in certain categories.
You're right about Joba - he's only 24 and has never
really been given the time and innings he needs. And his meteoric rise in 2007 probably hurt him in terms of expectations.
I don't know what to say about him at this point except that I cringe when he comes in with a one run lead.
He's been misused since college and as much as the Yankees have tried to shield him, they might be
better off doing the "Rays thing" and being a little more self-interested on the field rather than trying to keep
him healthy at the cost of winning.
The bottom line with his job as a set-up man is that they don't have anyone else, so it's Joba or bust. This is where they
are. They have to move forward one way or the other.
Hard
for me to feel sorry for Joba -- considering how much of a child he is -- but I agree that the NY media machine has been a
bit harsh.
I'm super charged for the Rangers. I really hope they go to the playoffs. Their fans are great folks
that deserve some good news after all these years.
It's amazing how they prop a player like Chamberlain
up when he's doing well and use him as a pincushion when it suits them.
The Rangers have to keep an eye on the Angels; despite any contrary views on the Angels' shortcomings, they find a way to contend and loiter until they can attack; and aside from Vladimir Guerrero and now
Cliff Lee, the Rangers are very young and inexperienced in big games.
My book is still available on Amazon, I-Universe and Barnes and Noble.com. It's available for download as an E-book
here. You can also now get it for less that five bucks on BN via download here.
I'm well aware that the "word" in the
title of this posting is misspelled. It's my homage to Chris "Mad Dog" Russo----he used to be on the radio----when
he, I think, tried to use the word juxtaposition and it came out, "juxtapux".
Close enough I guess. For Russo.
Be that as it may, you'll see the dullards presenting their "first half
award winners" and whatever else their addled minds are capable of formulating. The creativity is sorely lacking except
when they're presenting their "rumors" about and stories detailing "very nearly completed" trades and
transactions that never happen.
First
half awards are boring and everyone who knows anything will have the same "winners". Ubaldo Jimenez as NL Cy Young
Award winner? NO KIDDING!!!!
Let's just
see what pops out of my cabeza as to the stuff actually worth talking about from the first half of the season.
The fall and rise of the White Sox:
Indicative of the crisis-a-day
nature of the way stories are reported in a reactionary and panic-stricken fashion, the White Sox were said to be on the verge
of cleaning house of every veteran and their longtime manager Ozzie Guillen. The rift between Guillen and GM Kenny Williams
had grown so vast that the two could no longer co-exist; and because the team was playing so poorly after they were expected
to contend, it appeared to be the end of the road for the duo.
That lasted until the White Sox started playing up to their capabilities.
Had they been in the American League East, there would've been reason
for Williams to throw his hands up in the air and start making deals for 2011 and beyond; but they're not; they're in the
AL Central. The Twins haven't played up to their expectations; the Tigers are up-and-down; and the White Sox were never "dead".
The decision to toss a season isn't to be taken lightly
and judged based on two months of poor play, rampant underachievement and infighting; putting the situation into context,
the White Sox were 9 1/2 games out of first place on June 9th, but considering the way they'd played (they were 25-33 at the
time) and that they had the talent to go on a good run and climb back into contention in a division in which no other team
had taken command, it was silly to blow the whole thing up.
The one thing they were missing throughout the year was one big power bat and it turned out that they
got it from within when Carlos Quentin stayed healthy and started hitting the ball out of the park. The team conveniently
got hot once they had another productive bat in their lineup along with Paul Konerko.
For most teams, the confluence of issues would've required a change in the manager's
office and something drastic to be done with a veteran player or ten; but the White Sox have always played better when everyone
is at each other's throats. I wouldn't recommend it for almost any other organization, but it's what's worked for them year-after-year.
Some teams are swallowed up by
controversy; others use it as fuel.
The White Sox are the latter.
Carl....Pavano(?)
Carl Pavano has rejuvenated
his career.
Even Yankee fans----who have
every right to spit venom at Carl (American Idle) Pavano----have to admit that he's pitched well for the Twins this season.
His stuff is nowhere near what it was when the Yankees signed him, but he's become efficient, poised and successful for the
Twins.
The cynic will suggest that
Pavano is kicking it in gear just in time to get himself another big contract as a free agent this winter, but barring the
perennial "one stupid owner", I can't see anyone giving him more than a 2-year contract after the disaster he was
with the Yankees; two seasons of health and success don't overtake the four lost years he spent in pinstripes (on the disabled
list), and out of pinstripes (on the beach).
He's shown tenacity in games that, by all rights, shouldn't have been as easy as they were. Pavano pitched back-to-back
complete games in Philadelphia and New York as the Twins made their tour of the NL East; and he's only pitched fewer than
6 innings in two starts this season.
With the way their team was constructed around a powerful lineup, a deep bullpen and serviceable, strike-throwing starting
pitchers, the last thing you would've thought before the season that it would be Carl Pavano who functioned as the
anchor to the starting rotation.
But that's exactly what he's been.
The Angels template:
Scott Kazmir was allowed to remain in the game on Saturday despite having surrendered 8 runs in the third inning; he
subsequently gave up another 5 in the fifth.
That's 13 earned runs.
Kazmir's
been awful and it's getting to the point where we don't have to say that he's "been" awful; it's almost okay to
say he "is" awful----as a starter anyway.
But this isn't about Kazmir.
It's about the Angels.
On paper and with
the way they've played, the Angels don't have any right to be in the position they currently occupy----4 1/2 games out of
first place. Functioning with a horrible back-end of the starting rotation; a shaky bullpen; and injuries that could only
be described as so ridiculous that they heretofore only happened to the Mets (Kendry Morales was lost for the season jumping
on home plate after a game-winning homer), Mike Scioscia applies his plan and keeps his team above water and hovering until
they can strike.
It's as if the
Angels ignore results to get what they want out of their players. By that I mean they intend to get a certain number of innings
and pitches from the likes of Kazmir and Joe Saunders and are going to get those pitches and innings from them one way or
the other; and if that means blowing their ERAs up into the stratosphere and watching them take a brutal beating, so be it;
the individual numbers are secondary to what the team needs.
The appearances of the relievers are doled out very evenly and there's never a knee-jerk demotion
based on the last outing. Sometimes this leads to an over-exaggeration of loyalty and sticking to the game-plan (as they did
when they refused to alter their strategy to account for the increased power they had in their lineup when they acquired Mark
Teixeira in 2008), but for the most part, the Angels way of doing things----slow and steady wins the race----works.
It helps that the fans trust the architects of the
club that they know what they're doing and the pressure is limited in the insistence that they "do" something. Success
gives leeway; but the Angels wouldn't be affected one way or the other by outside influences.
The Rangers are looking like a sure bet to pull away in the AL West now
that they acquired Cliff Lee, but the Angels have a tendency to loiter around and put a scare into the teams in front of them
regardless of how streaky and weak they've looked throughout the year.
Their final four games of the regular season are in Texas against the Rangers. Don't be surprised to
see them terrify entire Rangers organization as they walk into Texas three or four games out of first place after making a
late, desperate run back to within range of stealing the division.
It's what they do.
Yankees fans are revolting...
...against Joba Chamberlain.
I'm
not going to defend Chamberlain's performance; truth be told, he's not the most likable guy in the world with the fist pumping
after meaningless strikeouts and his other theatrics, but the media and fans are being notoriously unfair with him as he struggles
in the role of set-up man.
A large segment
of the baseball-watching public (myself included) felt he belonged in the bullpen. The Yankees were split on the matter themselves
from the front office all the way through the clubhouse. Now, he's a reliever, he's not doing well and is being savaged.
It's not fair.
I've gone on about how the Yankees have misused him and that the innings/pitch
limits/babying have hindered his development; but he's in the bullpen now; he's been in the bullpen all year long without
even the suggestion that he'll start in 2010; and because he hasn't been the Category 5 hurricane he was in 2007, he's seen
as a "failure".
He's still
only 24; he still has to learn his craft; and it's still unclear as to where his long term future lies. The argument to make
him a starter is far more acceptable now that he's been mediocre (at best) as a reliever.
I'd love to hear GM Brian Cashman's take on the idea that the club would've
been a thousand times better off had Chamberlain not made that nuclear splash he did in 2007; had he stayed in the minors
and not been placed into the savior position complete with the mythical aura; Roger Clemens-build; 100-mph fastball; Joba
Rules and everything that went along with the emergence of a phenom.
It's turned into a curse and the worst part of it all is that the midges in Cleveland cost the club
the one thing that would've made the whole Joba mess worthwhile----a World Series win.
Here's a thought----since the Yankees missed out on Cliff Lee, would the
Diamondbacks be interested in a deal centered around Chamberlain for Dan Haren? Think about it. It'd be pure entertainment
to see Chamberlain and Ian Kennedy reunited in Arizona. Would a similar package of minor league prospects as they offered
for Lee----and Chamberlain----be enough to get Haren?
Haren is locked up long-term at a very reasonable rate (a guaranteed $29 million through 2012); plus Haren's two years
younger than Cliff Lee. Rather than chasing Lee this winter, they can have Haren and go after Carl Crawford.
Chamberlain is in limbo now. A trade is not something
to dismiss out of hand because I don't believe Chamberlain to be untouchable as a chip anymore.
Now
that Lee is safely out of the way till the winter, there's a little relief on my part. I've been so consumed with the Mets
transitioning to the younglings I really didn't want to see any of them go.
Who knows...maybe the Wilpons can come up with enough money by December to buy Cliff Lee. But I'm happy
with these kids and I want to see the Mets continue working them in and phasing out the old.
My relief stems from another domino being knocked down to prevent the Mets doing something stupid. As I said yesterday,
Omar Minaya has been more savvy a trader than people give him credit for; because he fractures the English language and isn't
a stat zombie, a large number of critics take that as a means to eviscerate him. In essence, they signed Santana as a free
agent because they gave up absolutely nothing in terms of players to get him. I'm sure the Twins will tell you now that they'd
have been better off hanging onto Santana for 2008 and taking the compensatory draft picks after he left.
There's a certain pride that comes from having players
your own organization found and developed coming to the big leagues and having success; that was one of the more endearing
aspects of the Yankees dynasty in the 90s; and the Phillies were built largely through the farm system. The Mets have the
basis for a perennial contender now----and a reasonably priced one to boot.
Joe writes RE John Lackey:
For the same reason I won't criticize Jason Bay for Slugging .424 thus far, we shouldn't criticize the
Lackey signing yet. It's been HALF A SEASON. I admit he's been bad, as I don't even care about win/loss record. But he could
have a good second half and up with solid numbers by seasons end. Or, he could post good numbers in year 2, or , 3, or 4....You
get my point. Too early to criticize the contract.
What I find fascinating
about you Joe, is that I'll say ten positive things about the Red Sox and you latch onto the one negative (and accurate) thing
at which to pick.
Bay hasn't hit,
but I'm getting the idea that he's going through a similar adjustment period to Citi Field as David Wright did and will revert
to his normal production in 2011; that doesn't help much now, but he's playing solid defense and adding other unappreciated
aspects to his game like speed to help a bit while he's slumping. Perhaps Carlos Beltran's return will spur a hot streak for
Bay.
With Lackey, he's always been more
than the sum of his parts. With stuff that isn't dominant, he's willed his way into wins assisted by the earlier mentioned
Angels' way of doing things. Lackey was seen by other teams that might have been interested in his services as way overpriced. The Yankees paid A.J. Burnett off his career year with the Blue Jays and because his
stuff is among the best in baseball; the same cannot, nor could it ever, be said about Lackey.
The Red Sox can afford to pay it and he's stayed healthy and gobbled
innings; but he has not been good in any way other than that.
What would concern me if I were a Red Sox fan is that the Angels value starting pitching above all
else and didn't feel their own player----a post-season horse like Lackey for a team that's in the post-season hunt every year----wasn't
worth the money to keep.
With Lee getting lit up last night by the O's, I don't
feel quite as bad about not getting him. What I feel bad about is JOBA!
It will be very interesting to see how Lee responds to the friendly confines and hitter's haven that is Rangers Ballpark.
He's never pitched particularly well there----link----and even with his rep as the Stone Cold Killer and success in the bandbox in Philadelphia, it's not something to ignore
based on recent greatness.
You
can chalk up his bad first start to the overwhelming 36 hours he'd just spent expecting to be a Yankee and then winding up
in Texas, but the numbers are what they are and have to be looked at before thinking he's automatically going to do well where
other pitchers have failed.
My book is still available on Amazon, I-Universe and Barnes and Noble.com. It's available for download as an E-book
here. You can also now get it for less that five bucks on BN via download here.
One of the more laughable aspects of the Yankees
failed pursuit of Cliff Lee----aside from Joel Sherman's reporting----is the way they're privately complaining that they feel
"used" by the Mariners in the negotiations.
Yah.
The Yankees,
who adopted the Larry Lucchino lament that they're an "Evil Empire" as a term of endearment and have made a practice
of cold, corporate brutality to achieve their ends think that the lowly Mariners "used" them to get what they really
wanted in the first place from the Texas Rangers?
Really?
It's not simply that the
Yankees are fuming that they were misled by the Mariners and their GM Jack Zduriencik, but they're making this clear----quietly----to
reporters who are peppering their stories with the "used" aspect.
How quickly they forget.
In this New York Times article by Tyler Kepner, it's discussed how the club thought they had a deal with the Mariners only to have the absence of finality and semantics
sabotage the whole thing as the Mariners spun and sent Lee to the Rangers. Mentioned is the infamous George Steinbrenner lunch
with David Wells in which he convinced the big lefty----one of his favorites----to shun the Arizona Diamondbacks, with whom
he had a handshake agreement, to return to the Yankees.
On this subject, I was thinking about the deal the club was discussing with the Cubs in 2000 that would've
brought them Sammy Sosa. In this NY Times article (Written by Buster Olney if you can believe that!! He was credible then. If you can believe THAT!!!) it appears as if the
trade had a pretty good chance of happening.
The talks dragged on with people on both sides of the fence advocating the trade or saying that it was exactly the opposite
type of move that made those Yankees teams what they were----a cohesive unit devoid of that one diva-like superstar who cared
about himself and his numbers more than he did winning.
It was a little over a week later, when Brian Cashman contacted Indians GM Mark Shapiro to acquire
a mailing address to send a World Series ring to former Yankees coach Gary Tuck, that the small inquiry led to the Yankees
acquiring David Justice. Without Justice's blazing hot streak immediately upon joining the Yankees, they might not have won
the 2000 World Series.
Trade talks come
and go.
They fall apart over the smallest
details; and yes, teams use one another to get what they really want from someone else. It's part of doing business.
For the Yankees to feel used it perfectly understandable
because, in fact, they probably were used; but the Yankees of today, run by Brian Cashman and the more cautious and
unsentimental Hal Steinbrenner, don't let personal feelings, fan entreaties or criticism interfere with the championship goal.
Even in the days of George Steinbrenner at his most irrational, there was a warmth-of-heart in some of his actions. He liked
Wells personally and wanted him back; he continually tried to help Darryl Strawberry and Dwight Gooden and always had a fatherly
affinity to former players, coaches, managers and executives in need.
Had the Boss still been in charge of the club, would Hideki Matsui have been allowed to leave after
his virtuoso performance in the 2009 post-season? Would he have let Johnny Damon leave?
Of course not.
This is not a criticism of Cashman for the decision to replace Matusi with Nick Johnson even though
Johnson has been a disaster. He didn't cost that much and the theory made sense to bring in a cheaper DH who'd come on a short-term
deal and would be easily replaceable by a rotating group of starters and bench players if his injury-prone history cropped
up again. Johnson got hurt.
Subterfuge
and ulterior motives are part of the "obvious process" that Cashman often references as he does his job. The Yankees----of
all teams----should know and accept that the collapse of the trade for Lee was always a possibility until the deal was official.
The Mets restraint with Cliff Lee was wise:
If the Mariners were asking for Ike Davis and/or Jonathon
Niese as the basis of a deal for Cliff Lee, then the Mets were wise to pass. If they were getting Lee long-term, then maybe,
maybe it would've been more a more viable thought, but for a rental that was going to cost the players and over $100 million?
No way.
Because of their history
of making deals that were ill-thought-out in pursuit of iffy ends (the Scott Kazmir trade chief among them, although Kazmir
isn't that good and it turns out that Rick Peterson was right about him in questioning his long-term future), there was always
a chance that the Mets were going to panic and do something desperate and stupid; so it's a positive for the club's future
that Lee was traded to the Rangers and isn't on the market as the deadline approaches.
It's a win-win for the Mets. Lee wasn't traded to their competitors in
the NL playoff race and they didn't gut the organization to get him. Plus, he'll still be out there for anyone and everyone
with the financial might to go after him after the season. I see the guarantee that he'll automatically go to the Yankees
after the season to be absurd. Other teams----the Angels, Mets, Red Sox----have the money to get him and all will check in
to see what it's going to take.
Even
as they became a punching bag going back to the spate of injuries they demolished their 2009 season----many of which were
not the fault of the medical staff and front office----there was still a strong foundation in place with Davis, Niese, Mike
Pelfrey, Ruben Tejada and Jenrry Mejia. It's also easily forgotten that both David Wright and Jose Reyes are only 27. The
Mets have a strong basis for long-term contention and a lot of money coming off the books after 2011 as Carlos Beltran, Oliver
Perez and Luis Castillo will be gone.
They'll have to re-sign Reyes, but there will be money to spend for that and to bring in some big names that may come available
(both Dan Uggla and Mark Buehrle are two names that jump out and fill potential holes).
The breathing room the club has gotten by their solid play in 2010 (even with
their recent slump) and the emergence of the youngsters puts them in a good position to make smart acquisitions and hold onto
their assets for personal use rather than to bring in short-term veterans who may or may not help; may or may not stay.
GM Omar Minaya is safe now not just because of his
contract, but because the club is healthier than the attackers in the media suggested or, in some cases hoped to be in order
advance their own candidates to run the club.
If the team ends the season with 86 or so wins and misses the playoffs, I think it's 50/50 that manager Jerry Manuel
will be back; in fact, I'd expect Bob Melvin to be managing the club next year if that happens.
Be that as it may, the Mets have been getting lucky lately----a luck that
was bound to happen after the 2009 nightmare.
Things are better in Flushing than anyone could possibly have thought and is another prime example of why piling on
is for the weak and lazy who permeate the "credible" media. They've moved their cottage industry to the Diamondbacks
and Cubs; but it's a transferable entity that doesn't take much work or ability. They're qualified for that at least.
Speaking of the media...
The love affair a chunk of the reporters----on ESPN
specifically----have with the Red Sox is evident in the way the club has gotten a pass for the injuries that have befallen
them. Many are not their fault----just like with the Mets of 2009----and they've overcome them to play mostly excellent baseball
after a slow start because of the depth in their organization that Theo Epstein and his people have built.
Is it the medical staff's fault that Josh Beckett has been on the disabled
list for months with a back injury? No. But imagine if it was the Mets who had a player languishing on the DL and is only
now about ready to begin his minor league rehab assignment.
Then you have the hellish signings of the likes of John Lackey and Daisuke Matsuzaka; that they're
relying on journeymen like Scott Atchison out of the bullpen and you see they're just as guilty as other teams who haven't
had the troops or money to cover for their mistakes.
And don't you dare point to Lackey's 9-5 record as a basis for him being "good"; he's been horrible
for most of the year. They're paying $18 million for these Gamelogs. Lackey's going to end with a record of about 16-9 this year, but if he were on a weaker team, that would be reversed. He's
been plain bad.
I was wrong
about both Adrian Beltre and David Ortiz----they've been fantastic; Marco Scutaro has been the serviceable Marco Scutaro at
the plate and he's been average defensively (at best). The team's done a wonderful job of overcoming injuries, but there hasn't
been the attacking aspect that the likes of the Mets, Diamondbacks and Cubs have engendered because: A) they don't have the
recent run of success; and B) they don't have a poster-child for the stat zombies running their teams.
I have great respect for both Theo Epstein and the Red Sox, but is it
a crime to criticize them when they deserve it?
If it is, I'm doing it anyway.
The protectionism and twisting of facts to suit oneself is a shaky way to assess if its basis comes from personality
and not reality, but it's par for the course today. Sadly.
Viewer Mail 7.11.2010:
Max
Stevens writes RE the Mets:
Before the 2010 season started, I read several stories
in the MSM suggesting that Bernie Madoff had fleeced the Wilpons out of several hundred million dollars, and that this unfortunate
turn of events would limit the capacity for the Mets FO to add salary now and in the future.
Even if they were willing to part with prospects for, say, Roy Oswalt, they'd still probably have to
pick up the remainder of the guy's contract. Granted the contract is prorated, but we're talking about a team that,
from what I hear, wants to make sure they don't have to pick up Alex Cora's relatively tiny vesting clause for appearing in
x number of games. This is not just an issue for this season but the future as well. If the Mets can't add free
agents in the coming years because the Wilpons are financially boxed in, then don't they have an obligation to sell the team
to an ownership group that can afford to run a major league franchise in the biggest media market in the country?
I'm not buying the assertion that the Mets don't have the money to bring in a big contract via trade.
The Cora deal may just be to get rid of Alex Cora and his salary for a cheaper alternative. They still have a payroll of $126
million----if a team can't compete with that, they've got more problems that just Bernie Madoff.
If the Astros truly want to move Oswalt, they're going to have a choice:
eat a chunk of the money to get better prospects; or give Oswalt up for a package of hit-or-miss youngsters to get the trading
team to take the full contract. Omar Minaya has been fairly criticized for some of his deals, but he showed a masterful bit
of patience and predatory instincts when he got Johan Santana for what's turned out to be nothing and resisted calls to add
Mike Pelfrey to the deal.
I mentioned
earlier the foundation of youth and the money coming off the books. They'll be competitive and pick and choose the big names
they pursue until after 2011; the NL is weak and they have a good chance of a playoff spot both this year and next year...then
they can spend to improve markedly.
The
Wilpons aren't selling the team and I don't believe they're boxed in.
I
hear you on Sherman and I assumed the deal was done, given the language in the reporting. That said, he wasn't the only one
reporting the story. Today's NYT confirms that the deal was just about done and the Mariners hit up other teams afterwards,
essentially to say, "Last call, everybody." And the Rangers threw in their prized piece. Cashman, apparently, feels
"used." But the truth is, you're right when you say that a deal isn't a deal until both teams confirm it is.
We all know by now that a deal isn't done until it's DONE! I've made it a practice to disbelieve
everything until I see the player standing in front of the team logo holding his new uniform and blinking at the popping flashbulbs.
It's part of the job for these things to happen, as
I said earlier; for Cashman and the Yankees to complain about it now is a little out of line.
I'm not going to harp on Sherman, but even he----as much of a cheap
shot artist and questionable voice he is on baseball----had to know that the whole thing had a chance of coming apart at a
moment's notice; that explains the cautious language (and adjustments) he made in his tone as the day went on. If he wants
to take credit for the scoop and being the first one to report it, he has to take the hits for being wrong.
If Cashman feels used, he should also know it comes with the territory.
I accuse myself of minimizing what Cashman does sometimes because of the Yankee check-book he has at his disposal, but getting
used and played like a fiddle is a dynamic he has to contend with to a much greater degree than other GM's do. I enjoyed
hearing the deal fell apart like wet toilet paper. As well as the 1st place Rangers are playing they are still an organization
with more problems than a math book. They should count their lucky stars Nolan Ryan is giving that team direction. Nice to
see another team trying to be a player...like the Brewers did with C.C. I just have to question their motivations because
of the unsettled ownership. I want to know what they're really thinking. I'd like to think this is Ryan taking the Texas Bull
by the horns.
He does know it comes with the territory because he's engaged in it himself.
I have the same respect for Cashman
as I do for Epstein, but it's easier to cover mistakes with money----it's a fact.
The Rangers have been excellently run by Ryan and GM Jon Daniels in the
last few years. I used to unleash on Daniels for making one of the worst trades in baseball history when he sent Adrian Gonzalez
and Chris Young to the Padres for Adam Eaton and Akinori Otsuka, but he's more than made up for it with his savvy drafting
and trading. Even with the financial issues, the Rangers are young enough and loaded enough to make going for it now with
Lee a smart gamble.
My book is still available on Amazon, I-Universe and Barnes and Noble.com. It's available for download as an E-book
here. You can also now get it for less that five bucks on BN via download here.
Now, you will experience the full power of the Dark
Side...
Years ago,
I would watch the afternoon junk such as Geraldo. Host Geraldo Rivera would have as a guest Mike Walker of the National Enquirer
who would sit by on the end of the panel with a telephone set up right next to him in case any "breaking news" hit
while the taping was underway. Occasionally, you'd see Walker talking into the phone in an animated fashion while the show
was rolling as if he was receiving the latest on whatever. (I mostly remember Geraldo and his schlock during the O.J. Simpson
trial.)
This was before everyone
had a cell phone and the ones people did have looked something like the apparatus
that Joan Cusack had attached to her head in Sixteen Candles.
Of course the phone was probably a prop to advance the myth of "up-to-the-minute" reporting,
but it was part of the show----designed to make it seem like the heroic individual reporter has access to that which the masses
simply don't; that they're working hard to garner inside stuff to enlighten, educate and entertain.
I couldn't help but think of the florid silliness of "breaking news"
as Joel Sherman of the New York Post ran with a story implying that the Yankees were getting Cliff Lee and then sat by impotently
as the deal "on the verge of completion" fell apart as quickly as it supposedly came together.
Reading between the lines of Sherman's piece, you
see that he was parsing to protect himself but came as close as one could possibly come to announcing the deal before the
fact.
It's like "almost"
having sex. Halfway there is still there.
His tweets on Twitter and article in the Post sure made it seem like the deal was done. The entire sports world was rocked
by the pending trade...until it collapsed.
Here are the Tweets from the intrepid Joel Sherman, aka @Joelsherman1:
Heard late
last nite $Yankees are on verge of acquiring Cliff Lee and got this story http://bit.ly/943qTt into final edition of paper (cont)
#Yankees love Lee, were hanging on outside and heard ystdy that #Mariners like their package and talks intensified, more coming in 3UP
And in the Post, the main bit is the title at the top of the page,
not the content that was altered during the day from looking "definite", to looking "definitely maybe"...until
it blew up.
The title at the top of the
page on this link is: "Yankees to trade for Mariners pitcher Cliff Lee".
That's the beauty of the Internet. It's always there. For good measure I saved
the screenshot.
Does the phrase, "Yankees
to trade for Mariners pitcher Cliff Lee" sound as if a deal is done to you?
And these "reporters" and faux baseball experts wonder why the newspaper
is dying? It's not due to the increasingly rapid dissemination of information, it's that the information they provide is so
easily rendered as inaccurate almost immediately upon them presenting it.
Does Sherman have any credibility left? Gone are the days when it took effort to go back and see what
someone said and wrote months and even years previously. Now, it's all there for the checking; and if you want to judge someone's
aptitude, all you need is a little bit of patience and the right keywords and it's there for the asking.
Not only are they wrong, but they're irresponsible.
Because there's always an out with the carefully chosen language of "not yet done"; or "close"; or "goal
line"; or "verge", that doesn't cloud the allusion of fact.
Can you imagine the reaction if a lowly blogger wrote something like this? If it
was delivered as a done deal to a public desperate for crumbs regarding the best pitcher on the market, Cliff Lee? A pitcher
who could mean the difference between a club finishing at .500 or making the playoffs and possibly winning the World Series?
A blogger would be hammered in a similar fashion as
the infamous "J-Rod", Jared Morris was when he asked the very fair and reasonable question of whether Raul Ibanez's
first half success as a member of the Phillies in 2009 could be attributed to PEDs. He didn't accuse Ibanez of anything untoward;
all he did was ask a question; but he was attacked in print and on television and was overwhelmed by the attention he received,
coming off as furtive, frightened and unable to eloquently express and defend himself verbally.
Scoffed and dismissed because he's not a "reporter", it
was easy to attack him because he was "just a blogger".
What about Sherman? Since it was a longtime baseball reporter and columnist that broke the story,
this was automatically treated as if it had legs; that it was real. Was it real at the time? Was Sherman's cautiously twisted
verbiage accurate? Technically, it probably was. Did the Post, Sherman, the Yankees and Mariners want this out in the open
to achieve their own ends? Of course. But the public that was so taken in by the finality of the deal that they hustled out
and purchased the New York Post; logged onto various websites; discussed and cited the articles again and again and were the
willing participants in the propaganda designed to create a buzz.
The irresponsibility with Sherman is in fact far worse than it would be with any blogger because Sherman
has access to the executives in question; he's doing more than speculating; he's getting the story from people supposedly
in the middle of the talks----or so we're told. Much like the silly Ryan Howard for Albert Pujols "rumor" that was
floated earlier this year, is it possible that the talk was an entity unto itself? A black hole feeding on the destruction
in its wake and growing exponentially until it was out of control?
It's an astounding bit of manipulation how the teams fed the details of the negotiations to Sherman;
Sherman reported it as if it were fact; the Post ran the story; Sherman's brethren within the media picked up on it; the fans
grew giddy or enraged at the prospect of Lee winding up with the Yankees; and it expanded...until it collapsed under its own
weight of inaccuracy.
Truth has become
secondary (and that's being generous) to baseline realities of money and perception. You're---YOU----are being treated as
a fool; one whose emotions and interpretive abilities are twisted by those who have a stake not in the accuracy of what's
reported, but the post-reporting behavior of those reading it by buying, linking, discussing and reacting.
Do you want to continue to be treated as a fool? As a sheep who bows
to the whims of those with a forum and supposed connections to gather information and credibility to make it seem real?
But how can you be credible if you're always wrong?
I have no agenda.
I know nothing of compromise for what I believe.
Nor do I have fear or restraint.
I could make stuff up; suggest I have an insider who doesn't really exist;
prop up the attention I receive; maybe sell a book or two; but it would be seen as an outsider trying to "troll";
the equivalent of screaming fire in a crowded theater. It's not hard to do. But I won't undermine myself and cross personal
boundaries as a means to an end.
The
accuracy or inaccuracy of Sherman's reporting is irrelevant. The real reasoning behind the story is more important than the
story itself.
The Post,
Sherman and his ilk are using you.
Will you continue to be used?
Will
you?
Oh, and then----as an afterthought----Cliff
Lee was traded to the Rangers:
Who knows if the Yankees thought they had a deal with the Mariners for Cliff Lee and whether all that remained was to dot
the "i's" and cross the "t's"?
It seems to me that this was all part of business and an orchestrated series of leaks by everyone involved to achieve their
own goals.
For their part in the drama,
the Mariners season is shot and the only saving grace they had was to get more for Lee than they gave up to the Phillies to
get him and if that meant using the exuberance (to put it mildly) of a New York tabloid to create panic among other interested
clubs? So be it. It's part of the landscape. For the Yankees to now claim that they were misled by way of cover for a deal
that fell apart is how the trading game is played.
It's like high school (or Twitter).
Everyone's whispering and gossiping and telling the biggest yenta----the person they know will run and cluck like
a hen before verification (see Sherman, Joel)----and get what they want. I have no interest in Sherman's after-the-fact self-preservation
as he justifies his "reporting" with breakneck backpedaling.
The Rangers jumped in and sweetened their offer for Lee and got him----just
as the Mariners wanted. The Yankees, who didn't need Cliff Lee now, are safe in the knowledge that they'll be one of the big
players for his services in the off-season. Evidently I was wrong in my belief that they'd prefer to spend for Carl Crawford
rather than Lee this winter----or perhaps they'll go for both, well within their rights and financial might to do so. The
Mariners went elsewhere for what they thought was a better package.
The deal goes as follows from this story on ESPN.com (yeah, the web is my source; then I analyze on my own without going off on a tangent before the fact; I'm not ashamed):
The Rangers in a weak division; they have the power bats to score plenty of
runs and a relatively deep bullpen; their starting rotation was serviceable enough----even with the injury to Rich Harden----to
hang on and win the division, but with Lee they automatically make themselves a legitimate threat to win the pennant. Most
importantly, even though the ownership flux makes Lee an absolute rental, they had the prospects to do the deal based on the
wealth of talent in the organization without gutting the system. They bolstered the bullpen with the hard-throwing Lowe.
Smoak is a beloved prospect who hasn't yet found his
groove in the big leagues; Beavan is 21, stands 6'7" and has shown ridiculously good control in the minors with few homers
allowed. Lueke is 25-year-old reliever; he stands 6'5" and has massive strikeout numbers. Lawson is a 25-year-old second
baseman and outfielder with speed, on base ability and some pop.
The Rangers have shown themselves to be savvy drafters under Jon Daniels and the draft picks they'll
get for Lee after he leaves are reasonable compensation to account for what they gave the Mariners.
Although the suggestion that Jack Zduriencik was a
"genius" is nonsense, he's still a good judge of talent in both scouting and with numbers; he loaded up on players
that are close to big league ready for a player he didn't need and had to trade. Getting the deal done early ends the feeding
frenzy; if he had it in his mind that he wanted at least four players for Lee, then he did his job.
Now we can stop with the Lee speculation. He's been traded. Finally.
Nolan Ryan was a vicious, mean competitor who wouldn't
hesitate to fire a fastball under the chin----or behind----any and all hitters who dared do anything to invite his wrath.
The Stone Cold Killer, Cliff Lee,
is Nolan Ryan's kinda guy.
My book is still available on Amazon, I-Universe and Barnes and Noble.com. It's available for download as an E-book
here. You can also now get it for less that five bucks on BN via download here.
Among the infinite Cliff Lee rumors came one
from Peter Gammons suggesting the Rays, Brewers and Mariners were discussing a deal with Lee going to the Rays; B.J. Upton
to the Brewers; and a load of stuff from the Brewers and Rays systems to the Mariners.
Or something like that.
I'm not bothering to look for the actual rumor because, like most Lee rumors, they're tiresome
and based on nothing more than the invisible "source" that could be anyone or anything from a human to a tree to
a figment of the rumor-monger's imagination in order to create something out of nothing.
My fictional account of Mariners GM Jack Zduriencik trading Lee to the Hiroshima Carp for a ton of Kobe beef was more entertaining than anything
that's purported to be "real".
Be that as it may, the interesting and unsurprising name being tossed about in trade talks is Upton.
After his latest transgression of indifference in jogging after a ball
hit over his head in a game against the Diamondbacks and subsequent dugout confrontation with Evan Longoria, it's obvious
that the Rays have had enough of him and are eschewing the logic of not dumping a superior talent like Upton when his value
is at its lowest. The organization has had it and I can't blame them. The near fistfight with Longoria is another blot on
Upton's rap sheet to go along with his failure to hustle multiple times. He's been benched for it, but isn't hearing the message.
You can bet that the public disturbances
aren't the only incidents with Upton, so the Rays would love to be rid of him based on behavior alone; then when adding in
his terrible production on the field and I wonder why any team would want him to begin with.
This is no longer just a slump. Upton's been awful for a year-and-a-half
now; he's lazy; he's petulant; and he's not hitting. Despite his age----26; and his affordability----he won't be a free agent
until after 2012, he's not a player you want in the clubhouse and right now, he's not a player you want on the field either.
This isn't any old-school rant against a young player
who's rebelling against authority; nor is it a liberal rant of "understanding". I'm more than willing to take a
chance on a player who's acted poorly and may just need a change-of-scenery----I'm the guy who continues to suggest teams
with strong core leadership take a chance on Elijah Dukes! But Upton's different.
With Dukes, there was an excuse----a difficult upbringing to say the least; and
a lack of impulse control that's led to violent, criminal outbursts----but the talent was there and it made him worth a shot
on a zero-tolerance basis; plus he wouldn't cost anything.
B.J. Upton's different. He grew up in a solid home and his brother Justin has been a model citizen
with the Diamondbacks as he blossoms into a star.
B.J. has that ability as well. He's a five-tool talent, but he's wasting it because he won't listen; because he doesn't
get it.
I'd certainly take Upton if
I was getting him for little-to-nothing; but for a team that's looking to improve on the fly? I would not bring B.J.
Upton into my clubhouse until I saw a noticeable change in attitude. I could put up with the slumping on the field; or the
off-field stuff; but I couldn't and wouldn't deal with both.
Right now, he's radioactive.
And I wouldn't touch him.
Speaking of
the Rays, is there a method to the madness?
The Rays front office----Stuart Sternberg, Matt Siverman and Andrew Friedman----have learned their lessons well with
their accumulation of wealth in the financial industry, and that lesson is the value of maximizing assets, exhausting them
and letting them go.
Matt Garza had
thrown 84 pitches in 3 innings in his start against the Red Sox, and got rocked; he was used, curiously, to get the save in
the same series in a 6-4 Rays win two days later.
Yes, he only threw 20 pitches in the relief appearance; and yes, it was probably his throw day anyway; but in today's
game pitchers----especially young ones----being used in such a way is unheard of; and this is the second time this season
that the Rays have done this with one of their starters pitching in relief in circumstances other than desperation. In the
wild "Vuvuzela" marred game in Miami against the Marlins, James Shields pitched an inning in relief two days after
having thrown 82 pitches against the Braves.
On one level, you can chalk this up to the Rays doing things slightly differently. Perhaps rather than having their
starters throw on the side two days after their starts and if they haven't thrown an inordinate number of pitches, it's logical
to use them in a game if they're needed. They won both games. On another level, you have to wonder if the Rays front office
is using cold and brutal reasoning in deploying their arms.
Given their financial constraints, are the Rays----within reason----squeezing every ounce of use from
the likes of Garza and Shields since they know they're not going to be able to keep them once free agency hits?
It's a fine line as they're not abusing the pitchers
by having them thrown 130-140 pitches in a start; and I agree with the strategy they're using----the Rays have proven to be
highly innovative trying new things, and I'm a big fan of some of the things they do----but it may not be a matter of tweaking
throw days by using the pitchers out of the bullpen for a certain number of pitches. It might be a grand plan disguised by
logic. And I like it.
I may as well weigh
in on LeBron James:
I
haven't followed basketball for about 20 years and even then, it was only in a general way, but since the hot topic is LeBron
James's decision to sign with the Miami Heat and the widespread vitriol he's receiving, I may as well jump in and say my piece.
What I don't understand is why James
is being savaged so completely for taking advantage of his situation. Like the jilted lover, the Cavaliers and Knicks are
reacting with a combination of hurt and rage as if they're saying, "why don't you want me?" like a whiny former
flame; and "I hate you anyway" as if they were better off without him while the true emotions are evident.
Mike Francesa has been going on one of his increasingly
prevalent freakout sessions as he did when he insisted, insisted, insisted to the point of loony bin-committable derangement
that Joba Chamberlain needed to be a relief pitcher. I agreed with Chamberlain's motion and stuff being suited to the bullpen,
but he hasn't been particularly good at it, so maybe I was wrong. (Don't ever expect Francesa to admit he was wrong about
anything).
The most bizarre bit came
in the letter that Cavaliers owner Dan Gilbert posted on the club website excoriating James. The letter can be read here----link.
Is the letter meant to make James
regret leaving?
When he was at
the top of his game in tyrannical irrationality, George Steinbrenner never came up with anything akin to the letter Gilbert
published. I remember Steinbrenner apologizing to the city of New York for losing the World Series in 1981; and ripping Rod
Carew for Carew choosing to join the Angels instead of the Yankees as a free agent, but nothing like this.
For an owner to say such things is totally out of
line. No one's saying that Gilbert and the Cavaliers have to be aboveboard and wish James well on his departure, but to use
words like "deserted"; "narcissistic"; "cowardly betrayal"; and referencing a "Cleveland
curse" is beyond the scope of even the most psychotic and egomaniacal owner.
One would assume that Gilbert is going to hear from the NBA about this.
In the end, I don't get it.
Was LeBron James supposed to stay
in Cleveland when he knew that he was unlikely to compete for a championship? Was he supposed to go to New York if he truly
wanted to play in Miami?
I don't know
whether it's going to work for him with the Heat; but it was his right to do as he saw fit for himself and if that meant signing
with Miami, so be it. The vitriolic attacks stem from jealousy; vindictiveness; and selfishness.
LeBron James was put in this position because of his talent and the hype
that surrounded it from his days as a high-schooler. He capitalized on it. He shouldn't apologize; nor should he be under
attack for exercising his rights to go where he wanted to go.
It just so happened to be Miami, but it could easily have been Cleveland or New York and the response
would've been similar----except emanating from a different venue.
Viewer Mail 7.9.2010:
Jeff
(Acting Boss) at Red State Blue State writes RE Jake Peavy and the stat zombies:
The look on Peavy's face when the muscle tore made me wince. That couldn't have felt good.
I also wanted
to -- S#@*()_F_#$@)*_F&&Q) -- sorry, I'll have to finish this comment later.
Gotta take care of some zombies.
I'm wondering if Peavy was pitching through the pain knowing that it was potentially serious and if
the combination of toughness, his salary and desire to compete kept him on the mound when he shouldn't have been. I also wonder
if----had he shut it down----this could've been avoided.
And I know you'll handle the zombies and make them pay for the big mistake they made. Attacking me? Okay. Attacking
members of my Family? Not okay.
Do what
must be done. Do not hesitate, show no mercy...
Max Stevens writes RE me:
I
discovered your blog through BBTF. I really appreciate your obvious passion for baseball and the intelligence of your
analysis. It's good to know that there's somebody out there who loves the game as much as I do. Keep up the great
work!
Thanks for the kind words, Max. Welcome aboard!
I'm sure people think I only publish comments/emails that tell me how
terrific I am, but it's not the case----I'll respond to anyone and everyone about most everything if they come up with something
worth responding to.
It just rarely
happens. Nobody wants to scrap. It's a shame.
N. writes RE Billy Beane:
Paul,
I read you with regularity and much appreciate your wit and wisdom. Especially when it comes to your consistent hammering
of the Billy Beane Moneyball fraud. My one quibble (as I have mentioned to you before) is that you haven't pointed out
the role steroids played in the Moneyball fraud: 1) that the A's roster was highly juiced and 2) that the
entire strategy of taking walks and hitting homers to the exclusion of everything else (i.e smallball) only works with the
27 yankees or with a lineup of juicers. 3) that Beane knew about the juicing and that he himself possibly juiced.
anyway, please keep up the good work...
Thanks for the support.
I understand your point, but I can't be unfair
and rip the Athletics for PED use (Jason Giambi admitted it) and give a pass to the likes of Mike Piazza, Roger Clemens, David
Ortiz, et al. for their own participation in having taken advantage of baseball turning a blind eye and even encouraging the
practice by winking, nodding and turning their heads to give themselves some form of plausible deniability.
It wasn't just the stat zombie teams that were using
PEDs; it was everyone. That's on baseball itself and not the Athletics. Beane knew about it of course, but what could
he, Steve Phillips, Brian Cashman or any other GM have done about it? If baseball was letting it go, they had little recourse
and jobs on the line. I would've done the same thing and shrugged.
I can't possibly know if Beane was using anything and, truth be told, as I've stated before, if taken
under a doctor's supervision and used properly, I don't think PEDs are dangerous nor are they necessarily a bad thing for
general health.
The
problem with the stat zombies is that you're talking English. It does not compute with them. Break your page down into algorithms
or a series of zeroes and ones and then they may start to understand the genius.
Peavy ~ sheesh! There goes our
best pitcher in the Baseball Classic.
The zombies comprehend what I'm saying, but you're
right, it doesn't compute and they neither like it nor do they have a response; therefore it's easier to attack me rather
than comment and run the risk of getting into a debate that they'll lose. I would think that they'd want to get into
it with me to prove their point. Sadly, I'm wrong.
And math ain't my thing anyway.
Peavy's a case of extremes----he went all-out and has the major injury to show for it.
I admire Peavy. There was no compromise in his motion and he's gone out
the way he came in.
My book is still available on Amazon, I-Universe and Barnes and Noble.com. It's available for download as an E-book
here. You can also now get it for less that five bucks on BN via download here.
Anyone with a basic knowledge of human anatomy
and pitching mechanics could've seen that this was eventually going to happen to Jake Peavy. The one thing that surprises
me is that it took this long.
White Sox
starter Peavy tore the latissimus dorsi muscle right off the bone and is expected to miss the rest of the season----ESPN Story.
Every year, I've said that Peavy
is an arm injury waiting to happen; and every year----while he's had a few problems that have led to stays on the disabled
list, many not related to his pitching arm----he's gotten himself out to the mound with a consistent durability. But it's
finally happened and it should come as a shock to no one.
Peavy's motion can only be described as borderline catastrophic. It's all arm; all everything; all the time. The human
arm is not meant to coil and whip the way it does with a pitcher using perfect mechanics; and when a pitcher is exhibiting
such violence 120 times every fifth day, something's got to give. In this case, it was Peavy's back.
There's a certain amount of respect to be given to one who goes all
out, all the time and has no fear of consequences or injury; Peavy did it while still pitching 200+ innings a year in three
straight years from 2005-2007; he made at least 27 starts from 2003 through 2008. He's taken the ball whenever asked, sometimes
when he probably shouldn't have done so, as was the case with this injury; he felt pain in his shoulder going back weeks.
The muscle was being stretched
to its limit and it was only a matter of time before it finally ripped.
Criticism can be doled out on the contract that the Padres gave Peavy considering his motion (after
this season, he's owed a guaranteed $37 million); and that the White Sox traded for him last season while he was already on
the disabled list with an ankle injury knowing he had that money coming to him.
It's all 20/20 hindsight.
Just as a pitcher using proper mechanics cannot be guaranteed to stay healthy, a pitcher with poor
mechanics isn't guaranteed to get hurt. For every Nolan Ryan who lasted forever with textbook cleanliness of motion, there's
a Steve Karsay who was always hurt. For every Peavy or Sam Militello (a former Yankees über-prospect), there's
a Sid Fernandez, whose motion was grotesque and had problems with his waistline and not his arm.
I can't sit here and say, "I was right" because I said something
all the time and eventually it happened. Peavy had proven me wrong time-and-time again.
His body couldn't take the pounding anymore and it finally gave way.
The amount of traffic generated from
the link to BBTF is great; and the comment section? Well, it's nowhere near as vicious toward me as it was when I was first
linked, but it's always the same story. There are a few reactions to the posting itself; then the discussion delves into subjects
that had nothing to do with what I said in the first place; sprinkled in are attacks perpetrated on the person who posted
the link; then they go after each other.
Like I said----ZOMBIES!!!!
I'm not quite
sure why they even bother to veer the conversation into those directions on a site dedicated to baseball. Isn't randomness
what Twitter is for?
Be that as
it may, I'll make this clear once and for all:
The hard core stat zombies
denigrate anyone who dares disagree with them; argues with them; or has a position and the audacity and ability to express
it cogently and publicly. They don't realize that stifling debate is not the same as winning a so-called revolution. In fact,
it only makes things worse as fewer people take them seriously and listen when they have something valuable to contribute.
People read and follow me because they
know they're getting the truth as I see it; a truth whose agenda is the end unto itself. What I mean by that is I have no
interest in winning any "revolution". I don't want to see every baseball front office inhabited by refugees from
a Star Trek convention; nor do I want it to consist of a load of elderly men who look and act like Bob Feller stomping around
and grousing about the "destruction" of the game through use of stats.
The absurdity of the first comment on the BBTF site, basically saying that Beane
didn't write the book, is indicative of the way the stat zombie twists the argument to suit his purposes trying to save his
disintegrating strategy.
No, Billy
Beane didn't write Moneyball.
Michael
Lewis wrote Moneyball.
But the idea behind
the book was to tell the story of a well-thought-out and brilliantly executed attempt to make the most of limited dollars
and take the overt lack of interest fans in Oakland have in the Athletics to try a new tack and put into practice the ideas
that Bill James and his brethren formulated by calculating and discovering underappreciated attributes through use of stats.
Expertly crafted and assisted by impeccable
timing and circumstances, the book was a massive success; but that doesn't mean it's real. Beane had an ownership that was
willing to let him do what he wanted; a fan base that was barely paying attention and didn't care if it worked or not; the
information to implement his plan; and the practical success to lead to a lovestruck and opportunistic writer who had the
skills and talent to morph the story into fantasy on a level with The Hobbit.
What stuns me is that there's still talk about a Moneyball movie. A movie based
on what?!?! How's the thing going to end? Do they just conclude it in 2006 when Beane's
"magic" was still working? Or are they going to discuss the years since in which the A's have never won more than
76 games?
If Beane didn't
catch on to what Lewis was doing while the writer was skulking around the A's operation, then you can forget the idea that
he's a genius, he's an absolute moron.
In a new twist on the way Beane's recent failures are justified, it's said that his mining for undervalued talent was exhausted
as more-and-more teams gathered the same information and used similar techniques----backed up by money----to beat Beane at
his own game. That may be true. But a genius----as Beane was repeatedly called----figures out how to be ahead of the curve.
He hasn't done that.
Instead of finding creative ways to maintain competitiveness, he's
living off his reputation from Moneyball. It's a vicious circle that is contracting
rapidly and the only survivors are those who have an investment in the "revolution" continuing.
"Billy Beane" in quotes is a brand rather than Billy Beane, the
human being who's a moderately competent baseball executive. That book and the need to have it "work" is now shielding
him from justifiable blame. It was the lack of funds and intelligent spending that made Beane; it's the lack of funds that
are giving him a pass as his team is, at best, mediocre; as he's made a series of decisions in recent years that would likely
have gotten another GM fired or warranted savagery from stat zombies and old-school thinkers alike.
The absence of money is a reason for failure,
but that doesn't excuse desperate stupidity. Coco Crisp was desperate stupidity; Ben Sheets was desperate stupidity, and these
were just two of the "big" moves he made in this past off-season. In recent years, he's been as guilty as the decried
Royals GM Dayton Moore in flinging things at the wall trying to save his reputation and job. And they're not working.
The haphazardness is amazing. When he dumped both
Art Howe and Ken Macha as manager, it was as if they were the ones at fault for the A's post-season meltdowns; but Bob Geren----Beane's
"best" friend----has survived under the specious and subjective protection of being Beane's friend. Any other manager
would've been fired just because; and that's not to blame Geren for the way the A's have struggled under his stewardship----the
team's not very good----but why the ambiguity?
The zombies who refuse to confront me directly and prefer to comment on other sites are showing their true colors.
More interested in hitting and running----the operative word being "running"----they refuse to engage in a
substantive debate for fear of losing; of not having a response; of dealing with someone who has the conviction to stand up
to them without fear of monolithic ridicule. It's as if they know they can't win, so they stay safe and use tactics that can
only be described as gutless.
Self-important
enough to portray themselves as "experts" because they can read a stat sheet and are gaining some measure of revenge
for their inability to physically play a game, the same detriments that hindered them as they failed to achieve any on-field
success (if they tried to play at all) are evident in the way they conduct themselves in a back-and-forth discussion----they
run. With neither the in-the-trenches experience to have a breadth of knowledge about the game, nor do they possess the interpretive
proficiency to judge anything other than a formula.
They hope to stifle debate through piling on; safe within the cocoon of like-minded individuals, they say whatever they want and refuse to get into the muck. I'll discuss anything with anyone, but they refuse to come
at me directly and this is a more telling aspect of their failures than anything I could say.
My book is still available on Amazon, I-Universe and Barnes and Noble.com. It's available for download as an E-book
here. You can also now get it for less that five bucks on BN via download here.
Anyone wants to scrap, I'm here and
I'm ready to rock.
Rumors of a Cliff Lee trade to the Hiroshima Carp
gaining momentum:
Because of his unrepentant love for the expensive and Japanese reared Kobe beef, Mariners GM Jack Zduriencik is rumored to
be discussing a trade which would send Cliff Lee from the Mariners to the Hiroshima Carp for $10 million in cash, plus a metric
ton of Kobe beef.
Reaction from baseball
people ran the gamut between bewilderment and mouth-watering; but for foodies around the world, the response to the rumor
was one of widespread praise for Zduriencik's savvy and taste. One prominent food writer and baseball fan said, "The
amount of money the Mariners can make from selling the beef will more than offset the cost of not trading Lee somewhere in
North America; because of that, this is a potential windfall for the Mariners----the cash plus the beef? It's a steal."
ESPN's Buster Olney, who has presented many of the
various Lee rumors over the past several months, didn't see this coming.
"I didn't see this
coming," Olney said.
For his part, baseball commissioner Bud Selig appeared
rumpled, bewildered and disoriented...then he was told about the trade and stated the following:
"We'll
have to look into this. I'm not sure MLB players can be traded to outside leagues for money and meat."
Selig was non-committal on whether he'd okay the deal. Asked to delineate
the difference between the 2006-2009 version of Carl Pavano and a truckload of beef, Selig grew agitated and was hustled into
the MLB headquarters without further answers to any questions.
It was a silly. The beef has far more use than the Yankees version of Pavano.
Phillies GM Ruben Amaro Jr, who attracted widespread criticism for his
trade of Lee in order to acquire Roy Halladay (the best and most accurate assessment to the trade in its immediate aftermath
can be found here) tilted his head, opened his mouth and drooled, uttering, "Mmmmmm, beeeefffff; ochhhhhhhh...."; he stayed that
way for several moments before saying:
"Don't get me wrong, I love beef; but as an organization
we feel that Roy Halladay will have a greater shelf life----heh, heh, heh----than any perishable food item, despite the innings
he's accumulated. Can you make Philly cheesesteaks with Kobe beef?"
It was the final question asked by Amaro that exponentially added to the number of people outside his office protesting his
questionable decisions. No longer is it baseball fans who are nonplussed by Amaro's team-building "strategy", but
food enthusiasts----so offended by the suggestion that Kobe beef be bastardized by using it in cheesesteak----called for his
immediate ouster.
The Phillies had no
comment.
In stat zombie circles, the trade was met with positivity.
Baseball Prospectus wrote: "Lee was doing
the Mariners no good whatsoever. The trade proposals----specifically the one from the Twins----yielded solid return, but no
one can say what any prospect is going to become despite his minor league production. The Twins offer was substantial, but
nowhere near as substantial as the value and deliciousness of a meal centered around Kobe beef."
Billy Beane refused to comment on the details of another club's dealings
but did say, "All I know is that the next barbecue Jack has? I'm first in line!!! And none of that gas grill crap. Charcoal.
Charcoal is the fuel of the genius."
Lee was somewhat stunned, but after three address changes in one calendar year, he was unflappable as he issued this statement:
"What can I say? I'm not a free agent. They control where I go for the moment and
if they feel trading me for money and meat is the best possible deal they can make for themselves, then that's what they should
do. I'll pitch my heart out for the Carp as I've done everywhere I've been and then I'm going to test free agency at the end
of the year."
The trade is rumored to
be 95% done and while MLB clubs are still calling Zduriencik and gauging the remaining availability of Lee, most have resigned
themselves to the fact that they lost out because all they had to offer were prospects who could potentially play baseball
and didn't have the potential to be a yummy delicacy and lucrative provision for the gourmand.
Yes, the above is fiction.
Yes,
it's better than the fiction you're currently reading on the sites and outlets that supposedly have inside information. Said
commenters and analysts fling things blindly at the wall under the protection of speculation and sweet nothings whispered
by sources that may or may not have verifiable knowledge of the trade talks.
Some of it is simply made up.
I don't want to hear about Cliff Lee anymore.
It's enough.
When he's traded,
tell me. Then I'll comment on it. Until then, the "insiders" can retreat to the location from whence emanates their
"expertise"----inside their own warped and inept minds amid the non-existent knowledge that is exhibited on a daily
basis with their idiocy.
You can't rely
on anybody these days, you gotta do everything yourself...
Johan Santana had one of those Little League games where the star pitcher is also the power hitter,
pitches a complete game and hits a home run.
In the Mets 3-0 win over the Reds, Santana pitched a 3-hit shutout and hit his first big league homer after an epic
12 pitch at bat against Reds starter Matt Maloney.
By all rights, Santana should have 12 wins heading into the All Star break. Because of the games in which he's gotten
blasted off the mound and repeatedly allowed grand slams, he's seen as having "lost" something from his Twins days.
He doesn't dominate as he did with the Twins and his strikeouts are down, but he's still a great pitcher; but that's been
obscured by perceived struggles on the field and the rape allegation from last year that wasn't prosecuted and was only revealed
a few weeks ago.
Santana is still
a top-tier pitcher and he proved it last night with an excellent performance on the mound and at the plate. With the pending
return of Carlos Beltran, Santana finding his game is another good sign for the Mets. He's a second-half pitcher and the brilliance
he displayed last night despite stifling heat in New York, indicates he might be ready to spur a big run for a team that was
left for dead only two months ago, but isn't.
Not by a longshot.
What's wrong
with the Cardinals?
I was asking myself this question before the ninth inning meltdown against the Rockies, so it's not as if I'm piling on now.
How is it possible for a team with a
starting rotation centered around Adam Wainwright and Chris Carpenter and a fine rookie performance from Jaime Garcia; a lineup
with Albert Pujols and Matt Holliday; and a solid bullpen expertly manipulated by Tony La Russa to be only 8 games over .500?
The Cardinals have gone 27-29 since
starting the season 18-9 and it's difficult to pinpoint why.
Slightly top-heavy with stars and fill-in players, the disparity between the Pujols/Holliday/Wainwright/Carpenter
base and the rest of the team hasn't been so pronounced this season that they should be slumping so badly for a such an extended
period. They've gotten 16 homers from Colby Rasmus; 11 from Ryan Ludwick; and the expected production from Pujols and Holliday.
Brendan Ryan is hitting under .200; and Skip Schumaker has been less-than-mediocre at the plate; Yadier Molina looked like
he was blossoming into an all-around star last year, but is hitting .230.
That's no excuse for the Cardinals to be 10th in the National League in runs scored.
The NL Central looked to be a cakewalk for the Cardinals,
but the Reds are proving to be better and more resilient than they appeared before the season started (by me anyway, I missed
them completely). Stuck in an unforeseen dogfight, the biggest problem they have is that you can't look at a glaring weakness
as you can with a team like the Padres and boil everything down to one sentence, "they need a bat"; it's hard to
look at the Cardinals and determine exactly what's wrong aside from a lack of timely hitting, pitching and bullpen failures.
La Russa won his war for power with
the stat zombies in upper management, but the team sleepwalk is giving them ammunition to question the value of his "genius".
I'm a big fan of La Russa, but I can't explain what's wrong with the Cardinals. It's his job and I'm wondering if he knows
himself and if he can fix it in time to save the season if they continue down the road they're on.
I thought Clff Lee was supposedly going to the Twins.
He's going to Hiroshima for a load of beef, Jane. Beef.
Jeff (Acting Boss) at Red State Blue State writes RE Cliff Lee and Dallas Braden:
If Cliff Lee is the prettiest gal at the dance, then the Phillies are the big fat dork in the corner
thinking about World of Warcraft.
As for Braden... he cracks me up. I went to bat for the guy way back when, and
meant it. Now though, I think he'd be better off keeping his mouth shut until he wins another game (it's been a couple months
now).
Lee certainly is the prettiest girl, but if the suitors take a step back,
they might find someone who's as attractive or has other attributes that make them just as much a worthwhile pursuit as Lee.
It'll be interesting to see if anyone walks away from Lee before he's traded and makes
a move on Dan Haren, Roy Oswalt or one of the lesser names in lieu of Lee.
With Braden, he's hurt and is a good
pitcher but this is too much. I don't think he realizes that his comments are now being laughed at and disregarded; and his
immaturity can't be chalked up to being a kid----he's about to turn 27; he needs to grow up already.
My book is still available on Amazon, I-Universe and Barnes and Noble.com. It's available for download as an E-book
here. You can also now get it for less that five bucks on BN via download here.
The appellation of Beane as a "genius"
is so far in the past that the only holdouts are Michael Lewis and those that are so invested in Moneyball being believed
to have "worked" that it's the underdeveloped and conjoined twin of the stat zombies. They're stuck with it and
vice versa.
But I've gone on about
this before. No need to start up again...for now.
No.
What I do intend to say is
that while the destruction of the reputation of the "infallible Billy Beane" was long overdue, he deserves credit
for a few things. One, he is a smart baseball executive and person; two, he's smooth and opportunistic enough to
have taken everything at his disposal to make money for himself and his team and that includes everything inherent with the
demagoguery he exemplifies. While Moneyball was seen as a "true" story----and not the creative non-fiction by a
skillful and agenda-driven writer trying to fit a story neatly into his plot template----Beane deserves credit for grabbing
the hot topic and running with it to maximize its usefulness.
Billy Beane is the Kevin Trudeau of baseball----a snake-oil salesman covering up faux expertise and
falsified miraculous results with a convincing sales pitch that looks great on the surface, but when you actually purchase
and try the product you realize that it neither lives up to its expectations nor does the sales pitch approach accuracy in
any world other than the sociopathic, money-grubbing, end-justifies-the-means world of Trudeau.
For those of you unaware of who Kevin Trudeau is, he's a convicted felon
for credit card fraud (among other things); he's sold memory tapes; self-defense videos; golf instruction videos; promised
wealth, riches and pills to promote health; and then, when the government shut down his operations for repeated violations
grand and small, he shielded himself in cloak of freedom of speech and turned to writing books about the evil "they".
"They" being anyone and
everyone who tried to prevent Trudeau's schemes from robbing more and more people; instead of offering the cures to everything
in the form of a product, he wrote books that blamed the monolithic entities of the pharmaceutical industry and the government.
Filled with specious (at best) information, the books and Trudeau are safely ensconced in the rights the founding fathers
fought for and won; rights that were celebrated two days ago.
He's still at it and while he's under scrutiny, he's slick enough and sleazy enough to always find
a way to stickhandle his way around any obstacle.
Looking past the overt creepiness, it's admirable audacity.
I don't believe Beane to be evil or sociopathic, but in a baseball sense, he's done the same thing
as Trudeau. It takes a chameleon-like talent to have almost no results to speak of in recent years and to see every decision
explode in your face and still receive the same idolatry.
Moneyball was convenient for Beane's ends----power (he's got a piece
of the Athletics ownership); money (he's a corporate titan); and accolades (he remains a "genius" in many circles
as his foibles are glossed over as having been explainable accidents of circumstance).
While his team is meandering around and mired in mediocrity, Beane's operation
still finds somewhat seedy (albeit clever) ways to make a buck. The latest being the T-shirt celebrating Dallas Braden's now-satirical
dust-up with Alex Rodriguez for ARod's foray onto Braden's mound in April----ESPN Story.
If you're asking if I think Beane
is such a micro-manager that he's controlling promotional items such as a timely T-shirt, no, I don't think he is; but nothing
in that organization goes on without Beane's approval and he probably heard the idea and thought it: A) was funny; and B)
would sell a lot of T-shirts.
There's
nothing wrong with it, but it's also indicative of the cheesiness that Beane exhibits. Like Trudeau, he's wrapped in an expensive
suit and an aura of charisma and convincing verbiage; but the results in both cases are what they are----and it's something
to cast a wary glance at before taking seriously.
Regarding Braden, Mr. 209 takes himself waaaayyy too
seriously. In reference to the T-shirts, he said:
"It looks like the A's
are making light of the situation," Braden was quoted saying in Monday's San Francisco Chronicle. "In some ways,
it might keep what happened alive."
What I would suggest to Braden is that he let bygones
be bygones, take the Yankees visit to Oakland to make peace with ARod and get past this. It was interesting and entertaining
at first----in fact, Braden was right about the encroachment and lack of etiquette on the part of ARod----but enough's enough.
Doesn't Braden want to be remembered for his perfect game instead of this? If I were him, I'd want one of the shirts
as a memento. It's funny.
On a final note about the Athletics and in a lukewarm
defense of Beane, there's been ridicule at the performance of his free agent signings from this past winter, notably Ben Sheets
and Coco Crisp. Crisp has played in 12 games and missed almost the entire season with assorted injuries----on the bright side,
he's not costing a fortune for his lack of attendance ($5.25 million); Sheets has been the more criticized signing.
Costing $10 million guaranteed and seen as a gamble
that would have been better-taken by a team that was in contention and wanted to roll the dice that he'd stay healthy, it
was thought to be insanity for a barely average team like the A's, for whom everything would have had to go right for them
to contend, to spend that kind of money on an injury waiting to happen like Sheets. On the surface, his record has validated
the attacks on Beane.
Sheets is 3-8
with an ERA hovering around 5----not good; but if you look at his Gamelogs, he really hasn't pitched badly. His control isn't as pinpoint as it once was, but he's stayed healthy; he's pitching 6-7
innings a game; he's striking out a fair amount of hitters; and he's at least trying to mentor the talented young pitchers
on the Athletics staff. If he was pitching for a better team, Sheets's record would be reversed; in fact, he'd have around
10 wins.
Considering the concerns
about him centered around health, he's gone above-and-beyond what anyone could reasonably have expected when he received that
guaranteed $10 million. In fact, he's earned his pay despite the misleading record.
Enough with the rumors!!!
With the trade deadline approaching, there seems to be a tacit agreement among
all parties----teams, rumor-mongers and "experts"----to discuss ideas that are absurd in theory and practice. I've
had just about enough of hearing deals are "close" and seeing them "fall apart" when they were in reality
figments of someone's imagination or came from a source that had neither the access nor the intelligence to gather and sift
through what was real and what wasn't.
I go back to the "rumor" earlier this season of the Cardinals and Phillies discussing trading Albert Pujols
for Ryan Howard. ESPN used the story to fill time like a giant commercial for their website, TV shows and updates. Buster
Olney reported the story and then functioned as an interviewee during ESPN News as the hostess asked, "So Buster, how
close is this to happening?" as if it existed in some realm aside from Olney's spacious head and non-existent credibility.
I'm not getting into all the rumors to pick them apart,
but one that caught my eye was the implication that the Phillies were scouting Cliff Lee.
Scouting Cliff Lee?!?
First off, has that much changed from when Lee was a member of the Phillies
last season and almost single-handedly won them the World Series? Do they need to scout him to make sure that he's a quality
arm that they could use? What more do they need to see?
Second, as has been stated repeatedly, is Ruben Amaro Jr willing to have his reputation and competence
squeezed in the vice of publicity more than it is now by trying to reacquire Lee after making it a show of trading him to
replenish the Phillies system while simultaneously getting Roy Halladay to replace him and sign long-term to stay?
I wouldn't care what anyone said if Lee was the player
I felt my club needed to win a championship. If it meant being laughed at for contradicting myself in making the deal and
was rewarded with another pennant or World Series, so what? But I find it hard to believe that Amaro would see it that way.
Third, do the Phillies have the prospects to get Lee?
Unless they're truly intent on creating a team that by 2012 is going to win 65 games, they can't gut the system any further;
nor can they trade top prospect Domonic Brown for a rental----and that's exactly what Lee would be because he would not
stay with the Phillies and they wouldn't have the money to keep him even if he was willing to stay.
Finally, starting pitching isn't the Phillies problem.
They've struggled because of injuries; a lack of hitting; and a bad bullpen. The starting pitching hasn't been great behind
Halladay, but it's been good enough that if they'd been the bashers they've been in recent years and put up the scoring numbers
and gotten serviceable work from the bullpen, they'd be at the top of the division.
Precisely how would Cliff Lee help with all that?
It's not happening because it's not doable in any context----logically,
practically or financially.
My book is still available on Amazon, I-Universe and Barnes and Noble.com. It's available for download as an E-book
here. You can also now get it for less that five bucks on BN via download here.
His return penciled in as being on or around
July 15th, Carlos Beltran will function as a big time mid-season acquisition for a team that has a legitimate shot to win
the pennant. That said, there are a few things that need to be understood.
When a team has a switch-hitting power threat like Beltran, he's going to play; the team is going
to have to find a way to keep Angel Pagan in the lineup; and, despite the hatred (and I don't mean dislike, I mean hatred)
he engenders for reasons I can't quite understand, Jeff Francoeur also deserves to play a significant portion of the time.
What to do?
Regarding Beltran, lest anyone think he's going to be able to play every
single day. Considering that the knee surgery appears to be a repair job rather than a total overhaul as Grady Sizemore just
had with micro-fracture surgery, Beltran is not "fixed". The Mets and Beltran are lucky that he didn't need micro-fracture surgery and will be
able to play; but I find it hard to believe he's going to be anywhere close to the 5-tool star he was (and was never fully
appreciated for being) by Mets fans. He's going to be slower; and it's a viable question whether the team would be better
off with Beltran playing right field and leaving Pagan in center.
In a stat zombie world----where loyalty and humanity have little meaning----it would be simple:
Beltran plays right; but Beltran has played 3 career games in right field. It's not as easy as it looks. Plus one of the strengths
the Mets have had is Jeff Francoeur's defense and howitzer arm from right field. Baserunners know and fear Francoeur's laser
precise shotgun and are reluctant to test him in any way unless they know they'll make it and even then, he still
might nail them.
When Beltran returns,
he'll be in center field; and if he has slightly less range than Pagan? So be it.
The Mets should expect Beltran to play probably 5 games a week. In those 5 games,
the best thing for the Mets to do will be to platoon Pagan and Francoeur in right field. Francoeur is batting .359 vs lefties
this season. Pagan is a better left-handed hitter than he is right (.302 avg; .827 OPS); plus both will be in the lineup at
least two other games during the week.
What manager Jerry Manuel will have to do is carefully coordinate the days in which the players play. It will require serious
planning, but it's not all that hard if one looks at the pitching matchups and sees when lefties are starting for the opposition,
who would be a better option off the bench vs the various bullpens, and other factors such as which of the three----Beltran,
Pagan, Francoeur----hammers what pitcher, has trouble with others; who's pitching for the Mets and whether Francouer's arm
and Pagan's greater range will be needed defensively than a limited Beltran is important as well.
Because of Pagan's above-and-beyond the call of duty work in replacing
Beltran, the return will only influence the home run power the Mets lineup has. Beltran is a dual-sided threat to hit the
ball out of the park that Pagan isn't. The Mets lineup will get a significant boost when he comes back even if he's not on
point as soon as he steps onto the field; his mere presence and power makes the lineup deeper and better. No one should expect
Beltran to steal bases with the frequency he once did----in fact, it's not advisable to risk it in meaningless situations;
but what he should do is pick-and-choose his spots to swipe important bases and Jason Bay and Francouer do; and teams aren't
going to be able to dismiss his baserunning completely or he'll be off and running.
If he's at even 80% of his former capacity, the Mets are getting themselves
a superstar to bolster and lengthen the lineup in a myriad of ways; and it doesn't have to be a choice between Beltran, Pagan
or Francoeur, it can be all three. The Mets have been a team-oriented group all year long; and that won't change even if there
are fewer at bats to go around for the three players handling two spots.
The strange doings with Bengie Molina:
On the surface, the Giants trade of Bengie Molina appeared to have been completed with little more
in mind than increasing offense for a run-starved team. Dumping Molina allowed the Giants to insert Buster Posey into the
lineup behind the plate rather than at first base; they can get both Aubrey Huff and Pat Burrell's bats in the lineup and,
offensively, they're automatically better; they got a useful reliever in Chris Ray along with a player to be named later;
but Molina's whining in the past off-season (that's continued in-season) that he wanted to sign with the Mets couldn't
have helped his cause with the Giants to stay.
Molina has always put forth the appearance of a team-oriented, selfless guy, but with the relentless complaining that's
gone on, culminating in the weird (and that's the correct word---"weird") interview with SNY Mets beat reporter
Kevin Burkhardt where Molina went into great detail of his disappointment----Mets Blog, May 8th----you have to wonder whether there was concern that he was going to start pouting and causing trouble if the Giants benched
him in favor of Posey and kept him around as insurance.
The main reason the Giants brought Molina back was to handle the pitching staff. Worried that Posey wasn't ready defensively
to deal with the power fastballers Matt Cain and Tim Lincecum and to nurse Barry Zito through the raindrops, it made sense
to bring Molina back; but his endless moaning about the Mets had to cause head shakes and wonderment as to his mental state
as the season wore on; it could very well be that the adjustment of the lineup and acquisition of Ray were secondary to the
preventative measure of getting rid of Molina before he started causing trouble.
It's not always the Gary Sheffield-type who's outspoken in his unhappiness that
creates the most lockerroom tension; it's easier to dismiss the likes of Sheffied, who was never happy; or Manny Ramirez for
"Manny being Manny"; it's worse when there's a respected player like Molina putting forth an aura of negativity----specifically
with young players like Posey, Madison Bumgarner and even Lincecum and Cain.
Molina wasn't hitting and he was a detriment rather than a savvy veteran to keep "just in
case".
I have a feeling the Giants
hierarchy was looking to improve the offense, but it was more important to nip any potential disharmony in the bud.
Star players and managers/coaches will always vie for
control. Look at Kobe and Phil Jackson on the Lakers. For awhile it seemed like Kobe would push Jackson out, but Phil is still
around and the two made peace. It takes a smart, strong manager to handle these situations. Ownership has to be smart about
it too.
Since you bring up basketball, it's notable that Magic Johnson got Paul
Westhead fired with the Lakers; and Mark Messier got Roger Neilson fired from the New York Rangers----it happens all the time.
I mentioned Derek Jeter in my posting
regarding manager-star relationships and suggested that he would've gone to upper management and told them that Girardi had
to go if things fell apart early last season. That was a mistake because Jeter's parents would never stand for him getting
a manager fired. Jeter wouldn't have done it----it would've been Jorge Posada who handled it with the clear message it was
coming from Jeter so there was plausible deniability for the Captain's sterling image.
It's only brought up when it doesn't work; but sometimes the star happens to
be right. If the coach/manager comes off in an intractable manner as if to say "this is the way I coach/manage"
without deviation, he's asking for trouble; it's remarkably hard-headed and inflexible to run things in such a way and is
a function of arrogance more than style.
In addition to his iron-fisted rule over the Orioles, Earl Weaver altered his gameplan to suit his talent. When he didn't
have the power hitters to bash the 3-run homers he so adored, he stole bases and hit-and-run----and he still won despite preferring
the security of guys who hit the ball out of the park.
No owner/GM should get approval from his star player as to who the manager is----that's too much power for the player----but
hiring someone who's agreeable to the star is imperative to keeping the clubhouse in line. They don't have to be buddies,
but they have to be on the same page. That's more important than anything in the relationship.
Jeff (Acting Boss) at Red State Blue State writes RE the manager-player relationship and Ruben Tejada's game-ending play:
I love it when the Prince brings the funny, and the line about Cox & Escobar tethering to their deaths...
made me LOL.
And the Tejada play? Bad ass. I like when games end with unconventional drama.
Escobar and his kind are the proximate cause of more antacid sales than the shakiest closer.
I still remember the look on then-Mets manager
Willie Randolph's face when the rookie Lastings Milledge answered a question about one of his numerous on-field mental errors
by barely peeking over his shoulder and giving a too-short response for Randolph's old-school tastes.
With a face set in stone, Randolph's eyes flashed murderously as
he slowly stood up; Milledge then turned and faced his manager giving a more detailed response; Randolph calmed himself and
sat down.
It didn't appear as if
Milledge had any clue how close he came to being strangled in the dugout.
That folds neatly into Tejada.
The biggest thing to remember about him is that he's 20-years-old!!!
My book is still available on Amazon, I-Universe and Barnes and Noble.com. It's available for download as an E-book
here. You can also now get it for less that five bucks on BN via download here.
The trade deadline is approaching faster than
the speed of Mike Francesa inhaling a Diet Coke while simultaneously contradicting himself and maintaining his trademark pomposity.
With that in mind, the rumors are
flying everywhere. 99% of them are essentially meaningless junk thrown at the wall to give the lazy members of the mainstream
media something to write about without having to do any actual work; of course some trades will be made----mostly by teams
who've already fallen out of contention and have personnel/payroll issues. Those names are known: Cliff Lee; Roy Oswalt; Jake
Westbrook; Ted Lilly; and Lance Berkman, among others; but what about teams that have some ancillary problems that need to
be addressed----rampant injuries; pending free agents; bad behavior; a season going down the tubes?
Barring a total collapse, these teams won't dump the season in late
July; but in late August? They'll be ready to deal and the names might be surprising, major difference makers in September
and beyond as their current clubs try to salvage something before losing the players entirely.
Let's take a look at some of the names:
Jayson
Werth, Philadelphia Phillies
With the number of injuries the Phillies have sustained,
they have a choice: they can hold their fire and hope that the watered down National League will allow them to stay on the
outskirts of playoff contention until they start getting their players back and make a run----very possible.
They won't do anything in July unless they have a
disastrous month, but it must be remembered that the Phillies haven't made many friends around baseball over the past two
years and if other clubs----even the cellar-dwellers----start smelling blood, it could get very ugly in Philadelphia as things
come apart.
Jayson Werth's free
agency has led to his name being bandied about in the media wondering whether he'll be traded and might even be available
now. The Phillies aren't trading Werth now, in part because of Ruben Amaro's nightmarish decisions since the end of last season
having resulted in their current predicament and that he won't want to make another stupid move to add to the list of reasons
to criticize him; in part because it makes no sense to dump the season now----they could make a late-season run.
But if they're 10 games out of first place by August 20th; 6 or so games behind several teams for the Wild Card, Werth will
be available.
The teams that would be
after Jayson Werth will be numerous. He'll have a hard time getting through waivers----in fact, he won't----but the
Yankees, Red Sox, Rays, White Sox, Angels and Padres would all be after Werth and he could be a major post-season factor.
Carl Crawford, Tampa Bay Rays
It's unlikely that the Rays will be out of contention
in late August, but they've fallen behind the Yankees and Red Sox in the AL East and have gone 17-22 since a 30-11 start.
That's a palatable lull----a hot
start covers up a multitude of sins----but the B.J. Upton disciplinary issues exhibit a series of fissures in the Rays' clubhouse
that could be glaring enough to affect them on the field. If you look at the lineup, Carlos Pena is hitting .196; Upton's
been awful in his behavior and performance; Jason Bartlett's hitting .220----the Rays have more holes than people realize.
It could spiral fast and Carl Crawford
is a free agent at the end of the season; the Rays have absolutely no chance of re-signing him. The same teams that love Werth
would love Crawford as well. The Rays have shown the courage to make bold deals in the past and could get a lot for Crawford
even as a rental. They'll have to decide if the draft picks they'd get for his departure are worth more than the trade offers,
but Crawford could be in play in August depending on how things go.
Dan Uggla, Florida Marlins
He's making too much money to suit the Marlins and is going to make more as he exhausts his arbitration
eligibility; he was discussed in trade talks over the winter before the Marlins were forced to spend more money on payroll
by MLB (I'd still like the details of how that worked and why they agreed to the edict); and they're stumbling along playing
mediocre baseball.
They kept Uggla
in the winter, but they'll move him if they don't make a run into contention. Uggla is a basher who can play second base adequately
despite his reputation as a bad fielder; he'd be an excellent DH for a team in need of a bat and played third base, first
base and the outfield in the minors. Uggla's a free agent after 2012; he's no rental and is a fiery clubhouse leader who busts
it every game and hits the ball out of the park. I also think he's one of the background guys who'd thrive in the playoffs.
I have a feeling Uggla's going to get
traded.
Manny Ramirez, Los Angeles Dodgers
Manny has a full no-trade clause, but he'll get through waivers; the Dodgers are contending and should remain in contention,
but a team teetering on making a legitimate run could use Manny's bat if he's healthy; plus he'd like a contract for next
year (Manny's not retiring) and what better way to replenish his tarnished image than going elsewhere and helping a team win?
The Dodgers are dysfunctional, but Manny
hasn't been one of Joe Torre's headaches; strangely, Manny's behaved himself for the most part with the Dodgers and, in an
interesting bit of irony, while it was always his bat that let "Manny be Manny" and get away with everything inherent
with that term of endearment/justification of misanthropy, Manny's bat and health are turning into the bigger problems.
The combination of a change-of-scenery to wake up
his bat and Manny's expiring contract, plus a Dodgers fade could make him available by August 31st. A contending team could
deal with Manny for a month----I think.
Brandon Webb, Arizona Diamondbacks
Webb is a free agent at the end of the year; has pitched in one game since 2008; and the Diamondbacks
are in disarray. Webb will want to show he's healthy enough to warrant a guaranteed contract for next year; the Diamondbacks
would love to get something for him. It would only take one or two starts (and not all that many innings) for a team to be
willing to take a chance on Webb. It's win-win for all....if he can come back and pitch.
The Mets dilemma:
While it would be sweet to add to the increasing derangement and bewilderment
of the Phillies and their fans at what's befallen their team by seeing Cliff Lee in a Mets uniform, circumstances have to
be taken into account. If renting Lee is going to cost the Mets a chunk of the farm system----a farm system that's proving
to be far more productive than was thought during the off-season attacks levied at the front office----they have to seriously
consider passing on the Stone Cold Killer.
Would it be better to take a lesser pitcher who won't cost as much like Jake Westbrook or Ted Lilly? Or possibly agree
to take the Roy Oswalt money from the Astros and shun Lee?
Westbrook and Lilly aren't the top-of-the-rotation starters that the Mets want, but they'd eat innings and be serviceable
enough to help. As for Oswalt, he's pitching very well and while he's making a lot of money ($18 million guaranteed after
this season), that could be seen as an advantage if the Astros want to dump the salary, perhaps Oswalt can be had for little
in terms of players and the competition won't be as fierce for his services as only a big market team can absorb the money; and is that $18 million out of line for an on-his-game Oswalt?
No.
Getting Lee would be nice for the Mets, but the better choice right now might be Roy Oswalt.
My book is still available on Amazon, I-Universe and Barnes and Noble.com. It's available for download as an E-book
here. You can also now get it for less that five bucks on BN via download here.
Tim Kurkjian writes about the how managing has become a more difficult
job in today's game in this ESPN piece.
Echoing the growing sentiment
that the chasm between the way GMs and owners are trying to run baseball teams as a pure business is causing disharmony between
the experienced managers and their feel for the game. It's more blowback to the way things have changed in baseball----with
pitch counts; dictates from the front office; and non-stop interference.
Managers have to juggle many more things today than they did even 20 years ago.
With the accessibility to stats; the prevalence of outsiders being put in charge of baseball operations; how every move is
scrutinized as it happens via social media and commentary; and the way the golden rule* is exercised by stars, they're walking
a fine line in maintaining respect and being able to do their jobs.
*Are you unaware of the "golden
rule"? It's simple. He who has the gold makes the rules.
Because of the nature
of managing today, it's evolved from the days in which Earl Weaver ran his ship with an iron fist and did whatever he wanted
knowing that if one of his players challenged him openly, it would be the player who would be gone, not the manager. Now,
if a player with a $20 million annual salary and performance that guarantees an extra 5000 fans in the seats takes on the
manager making $1 million a year and whose contribution is more easily replaceable, who's going to win?
Kurkjian quotes some old-school managers who are on
their way out for one reason or another. One, Bobby Cox, sends a none-too-subtle message (if you read between the lines) as
to why he's really retiring at the end of the season:
"We have the new style general manager and maverick
owners," said Cox, speaking in general terms, not about the Braves. "What you're getting from upstairs [the GM]
is, 'Here's how I would have done that.' Or, 'Here's the lineup.' And … the computers don't lie."
Obviously Cox is referring to his fractured relationship with Braves GM Frank Wren. Do you think Bobby
Cox truly wants to retire? In theory, he'd probably enjoy having a few days or even a week off in the summer to relax and
not have to worry about what boneheaded play Yunel Escobar is going to pull on that particular day to make Cox want to jump
off the nearest bridge with Escobar tethered to him so they could die together; but I guarantee you by late March of 2011
(at the earliest) after he's had enough of fishing, sleeping late and mowing the lawn, he's going to start banging his head
into walls.
This new template in baseball
is not such an easy adjustment. Some of today's veteran managers who, as players, functioned under the likes of Earl Weaver
and managers of the "my way or the highway" ilk have adjusted to it (Joe Torre for example); others like Cox have
had trouble with the new breed GM telling them what to do. Tony La Russa won his power struggle with the Cardinals front office
based only on his history of success and that he was palatable to the star of the team, Albert Pujols. Rest assured if Pujols
wanted La Russa gone as a precondition to remaining with the Cardinals, La Russa would be gone.
This brings up an important point.
Kurkjian mentions the dustup between Marlins shortstop Hanley Ramirez
and the recently fired manager Fredi Gonzalez and how Gonzalez is perceived to have won the "battle" between the
two while Ramirez won the "war".
If the Ramirez scrap was a factor in Gonzalez's firing, I don't believe it was anything more than a tiny fraction of the real
reason that Gonzalez was dismissed. The Marlins front office never thought much of Gonzalez's contribution to the club; he
was in trouble going back to last season and probably before then; the Ramirez incident was public, but if anything, it enhanced
Gonzalez's standing throughout baseball because of the fearlessness and necessary nature of disciplining a player who'd pushed
and pushed until his star status could shield him no longer. The mere fact that the Marlins front office saw fit to send Andre
Dawson and Tony Perez to basically threaten Ramirez into toeing the line indicates that they knew there was a problem that
extended further than a simple manager-player disagreement.
It all depends on the way a particular organization is run. Certain clubs----mentioned by Kurkjian----put
faith in their manager and leave him in charge. The Angels and Mike Scioscia are a prime example of this----issues are handled
in-house; Scioscia is in charge and there's no debate as to how things are going to be.
The case cited of Orioles center fielder Adam Jones responding to
a suggestion that he play deeper to prevent balls from going over his head by saying, "I'll think about it" had
multiple meanings. One, Jones felt he was safe enough with the Orioles hierarchy to be so blatantly selfish and arrogant that
he said it in the first place; two, there wasn't a chain-of-command in place for the club to tell Jone straight out that he's
going to do what he's told or he's not going to play. Such an occurrence would never happen with the Angels because
not only would Scioscia have handled it accordingly, but the club veterans would've seen to it that Jones was put in his place
as to respect for authority----star status, salary or self-importance aside.
The implication that stars are only now running the show is ignoring history.
Do you really think that in his heyday, even when he was being chastised
for a wild off-field lifestyle, that Babe Ruth couldn't have gone to Yankees ownership and said, "enough with this guy
already" and gotten the manager fired? That Joe DiMaggio couldn't have done something similar? That all the way through
baseball history the stars weren't exerting some power over who was in "charge"?
Some star players push the manager simply to see how far they can go and
need to be checked. Others----like Ramirez----don't get it and it wouldn't matter if he was playing for Scioscia; La Russa;
Torre, or Gonzalez.
The key for a manager----young
or old----is to come to an agreement with the star player that the star won't embarrass the manager and will put a public
face of harmony even if one doesn't exist. I doubt Mike Piazza was in love with Bobby Valentine when the two were the faces
of the Mets in the late 90s, but there were never any public disputes between the two and the relationship co-existed until
Valentine was fired as the other veterans----Al Leiter, John Franco and Mo Vaughn----undermined Valentine.
Joe Girardi's rocky initiation from teammate to coach
to manager could have gone in the opposite direction if the Yankees' slow start in 2009 had continued. The season ended with
a World Series win, but it was dicey for awhile as everyone adjusted to the young Girardi after having gotten used to Torre.
With veteran star players who are club icons like Derek Jeter, Mariano Rivera, Jorge Posada and Andy Pettitte remaining from
Girardi's days as a player, the transition was bound to have its ups-and-downs.
For players who'd known little other than the Torre-style of management to come
to grips with the new manager----someone with whom they'd played----there was always the potential of a blowout. With Girardi's
frequent strategic gaffes, is it that far-fetched that had the club been staggering along into late July with another missed
post-season a genuine possibility, for Jeter to go to GM Brian Cashman or even the Steinbrenners and say, "this isn't
working" and for a change to be made? It's happened before and it'll happen again and it's not always wrong for a star
player to exert his authority in such a way.
Players----especially the younger, pampered, bonus-babies who are too young and/or ignorant to realize that the world
doesn't revolve around them and they can't win by themselves----need to be disciplined and, in some cases, are hungry for
that discipline. Of course there are cases in which their callowness leads them to do something stupid; that was a legitimate
possibility with Ramirez when Dawson essentially told him he was going to knock him out if he said the wrong thing; some younger
players would have come back and Dawson with impudence and gotten their teeth knocked out. Perhaps then they would've understood----but
perhaps not.
Part
of being a long-term, successful manager lies in flexibility. Those who are able to adjust stick around through the eras;
others find themselves clinging to their principles and----like Valentine----have trouble finding another job not because
of their abilities, but because of their reputations. If a Valentine rumor begins floating around a club and the star player,
knowing what's been said about Valentine in the past----true or not----he can nix the idea relatively quickly with a off-hand
and pointed public statement of: "I dunno about this guy..." while in private saying they don't want to play for
him.
In short, there are managers
who've been around long enough and have the support of upper management to do what must be done----benching Ramirez for example----in
order to maintain order. Others have to accept the way things are and push on out of pragmatism, just to keep their jobs.
It's a decision that have to make
consciously due to reality, not because of the changing culture since the stars always have and always will run things in
their own way.
It's the way it
is.
Jeterian:
Yeah, I'm using a Michael Kay term. Sue me.
In the Mets 5-3 win over the Nationals, rookie shortstop
Ruben Tejada made a play that shows exactly why he should not be traded. It's not
the way the 20-year-old has comported himself in seamlessly shifting from shortstop to second base (and now back to shortstop
in place of the banged up Jose Reyes); it hasn't been the way he's played competently and fundamentally well; it's his physical
presence and presence of mind that are most striking as he's burst onto the scene.
With 2-outs in the bottom of the 9th inning and the Nationals rallying against
Mets closer Francisco Rodriguez, Tejada made a play that wins games; the type of play that Derek Jeter has made his whole
career.
The tying runs were on
base as Tejada noticed that the runner at second, Roger Bernadina, had strayed to far and wasn't paying attention; K-Rod spun
and fired to Tejada, picking off Bernadina to end the game.
As if it wasn't enough that Tejada was conscious enough to realize that they'd be able to make the
play, he was also able to cunningly signal to his veteran closer without the Nationals catching on in time to warn Bernadina.
The maturity necessary to pull that off is, yes, Jeterian.
The Mets should not trade this kid.
Tejada is the type of player who games and championships----just by the way he carries himself and
keeps his head in the game.
My book is still available on Amazon, I-Universe and Barnes and Noble.com. It's available for download as an E-book
here. You can also now get it for less that five bucks on BN via download here.
Diamondbacks Fire GM Josh Byrnes And Manager A.J. Hinch
Organizational advocacy, loyalty and a train wreck:
The Arizona Diamondbacks fired both GM Josh Byrnes
and manager A.J. Hinch in a decision that has been in the wind for weeks.
Diamondbacks Vice President for Player Development Jerry DiPoto takes over as GM; bench coach Kirk
Gibson as manager----both are on an interim basis.
It was a matter of time before heads started rolling in Arizona. It's only advisable to fire the GM at mid-season if:
his contract is set to expire; he's going to be fired at the end of the year anyway; or the team is a wreck and the season
is lost.
The Diamondbacks are a wreck
and the season is lost.
Byrnes's undoing
came from a combination of circumstances and personnel mistakes in players and management.
When he took over in December 2005, the Diamondbacks were recovering from
a 77-85 season and still seeking a path back to contention as the last remnants of the veteran-laden 2001 championship team
was in the process of being cleared away. Byrnes had an impressive pedigree having worked in numerous capacities for the Indians,
Rockies and Red Sox; he was the assistant GM under Dan O'Dowd in Colorado and Theo Epstein in Boston.
Byrnes wasn't a typical stat zombie in the way he ran his club. Using
scouting techniques and taking risks, the Diamondbacks improved quickly with him in place as the GM----ironically, that rapid
success may have sown the seeds for his downfall.
In 2007, Byrnes's second full year at the helm, the Diamondbacks won a surprising AL West title and advanced to the
NLCS where they lost to the Rockies. Decried for their "luck" in winning despite a poor run differential, the pieces
were in place for an extended run of success. They were young and inexpensive; core pieces Brandon Webb, Stephen Drew, Conor
Jackson, Chad Tracy and Micah Owings were all in their 20s; they had more prospects like Justin Upton on the horizon.
Even if they didn't win every year, they were well-situated
to be respectable on an annual basis; and they were doing it with a reasonable payroll.
After the 2007 season and aggressive to improve quickly, Byrnes traded
a large chunk of the farm system to the Athletics for Dan Haren. None of the prospects he surrendered have become stars and
the trade worked great for the Diamondbacks; Haren's been a perennial Cy Young Award contender, an affordable workhorse and
exemplary player and person.
The blueprint
to build around Haren and Webb at the top of the rotation and fill in the pieces around them wasn't new, nor was it faulty.
The championship team in 2001 had a lineup packed with reliable veterans like Matt Williams, Mark Grace, Steve Finley and
Luis Gonzalez and functioned with a manager in Bob Brenly who could easily have been replaced by a mannequin sitting at the
end of the dugout in a uniform; the reason the Diamondbacks won the World Series that year was because they had Randy Johnson
and Curt Schilling fronting the rotation and pitching masterfully. The rest of the rotation was terrible; the bullpen shaky;
but they won because of Johnson's and Schilling's excellence. With Webb and Haren at the top of the rotation and a young core,
the Diamondbacks were rightfully expected to make the playoffs and do damage while there.
Things didn't work out that way.
Adding fuel to the fire that the 2007 team had drastically surpassed expectations,
the 2008 club went 82-80----exactly what the simplistic (yeah, simplistic) Pythagorean Win Theorem created by the exalted
Bill James said they should be. The 2008 club was undone by shakiness at closer (Brandon Lyon was awful and replaced late
in the season by Chad Qualls); injuries to Tracy and Orlando Hudson; and a poorly designed offense that struck out with an
alarming frequency (one of the hallmarks of all the Byrnes-built teams).
Trying to save the season on the fly as things were coming apart, Byrnes acquired Adam Dunn and Jon
Rauch----trades that cost them very little in retrospect (Emilio Bonifacio for Rauch; Micah Owings for Dunn); they didn't
work.
By 2009, the guillotine was hanging
over the head of manager Bob Melvin. Byrnes didn't hire him and a year-and-a-half after winning Manager of the Year in the
National League for his division title in 2007, he was the likeliest candidate to take the bullet; Melvin was fired with the
club staggering at 12-17, in 4th place in division and fading.
Then came the hire that will haunt Byrnes forever.
In replacing Melvin, he tapped A.J. Hinch as the replacement.
Hinch's post-playing career was spent mostly in the front office. He was the
Diamondbacks' Director of Player Development before becoming the manager and, armed with a degree in psychology from Stanford
and his experience as a journeyman catcher in the big leagues, was expected to be a GM in the future, not a manager.
It wasn't Hinch's inexperience as a manager that was
the biggest issue with his hiring; the mistake was two-pronged: one, Hinch had never managed anywhere at any time; and two,
most egregiously, was the phrase that Byrnes, Hinch and everyone with the Diamondbacks would like to have back----organizational
advocacy.
Circling like vulture over
everything he said and did, the implication with those two words was simple: Hinch is a puppet.
If Hinch had some managerial stops on his resume; had he not been given
a 4-year contract; had the team been built better; had Webb not gotten hurt (woulda, shoulda, coulda), then things might have
been different; but those two words----organizational advocacy----already cast doubt on Hinch in the clubhouse before he managed
one game.
Hinch almost immediately
butted heads with influental veteran pitcher Doug Davis for a questionable strategic decision to pull Davis from the May 15th game vs the Braves with 2 outs and no one on base in the sixth inning of a tie game in which Davis had only thrown 80 pitches. The Diamondbacks
lost the game and Hinch's inexperience and relationship with the GM----already causing the Diamondbacks veterans to peer at
him with a jaundiced eye----became even more pronounced.
A new manager has to gain the trust of his players and if he starts out with the double onus of being
perceived as a spy for the GM and not knowing what he's doing, he's doomed.
While the 2008-2009 teams were rightfully expected to win, the 2010 club was drastically overrated
especially considering the uncertainty surrounding Webb's return from shoulder surgery. How anyone looked at this team and
thought they were going to contend is beyond me. Their pitching from the start was awful with Haren and Webb. All
that needs to be said is that Rodrigo Lopez and Ian Kennedy were expected to be integral parts of the rotation; that Aaron
Heilman and Bobby Howry were supposed to be linchpins in the bullpen.
The lineup has pop, but the strikeouts they accumulate could function as a source of power to rival
the largest windmills in the world. Their defense is rancid.
They're a badly constructed team playing in a division with four good teams; how could anyone have
objectively expected anything more than maybe a .500 season if everything went right?
Byrnes's trades and signings weren't overtly "bad"; there was a logic
to the trade of Carlos Quentin----he was always hurt; to the acquisitions of Edwin Jackson and Kennedy----I wasn't all that
impressed with Daniel Schlereth and Max Scherzer may be better suited to the bullpen. The contract extension doled on Eric
Byrnes was a failure, but he gets a pass for one huge player mistake.
Josh Byrnes is a smart executive who made one ghastly error in casting his lot with Hinch. No
one would've said a word had Hinch been given a 1-year contract with an option, but it was the 4-year deal and "organizational
advocacy" that led to Byrnes's downfall.
As admirable as it is that he refused to fire his hand-picked manager and chose to go down with him as both were dismissed,
Byrnes's loyalty cost him his job. Of course, it's easier to be so loyal when armed with a contract that runs through 2015,
but Byrnes chose Hinch and went over the cliff with him as the Diamondbacks world collapsed.
Now both are gone.
So
what's next for the Diamondbacks?
Having been slightly chaotic in recent years from the way in which they hired and fired Wally Backman within the span
of a few days; to the shoddy treatment of Melvin and his replacement by Hinch; followed by the spiral into the depths they
now inhabit, they have to come to a conclusion whether they want to bring in an outsider after the season or keep DiPoto.
DiPoto has been up for numerous GM jobs
in recent years and is respected for his ability to evaluate talent; but with that, they have to come to a rapid fire conclusion
as to whether DiPoto is the "guy" because of the Haren trade talk.
Are managing partner Ken Kendrick and team president Derrick Hall prepared to allow DiPoto to
trade Haren and saddle the incoming GM with the aftermath of such an important maneuver? It could be the impetus for a drastic
turnaround or a 5-7 year purgatory; it's not something to put in the hands of an interim boss regardless of how respected
he is.
Kirk Gibson was named the new
manager and will audition for the full-time job. Known for his clutch hitting, intensity, toughness and football mentality
as a player, it remains to be seen if Gibson's style as a player will translate as a manager. As a player, teammates respected
and feared Gibson; as a coach that didn't appear to seep through----he was on the Tigers coaching staff under Alan Trammell
and has been with the D-Backs since 2007.
That in-your-face style may backfire with today's players. Gibson is a polar opposite to the cerebral, vanilla and subdued
Hinch and Melvin, but this team is plain bad, so a different personality can't alter that reality. If Gibson starts screaming
like a maniac and flips the food table after a sloppy loss, will the players jump to attention? Or will they roll their eyes
and go back to their I-Pods and cell phones? And even if they are inspired by Gibson
to some degree, that's not going to make them better than what they are.
The sequence of events that led to the Diamondbacks unraveling was in part due to unforeseen occurrences
and mistakes by Byrnes. Now, they're in official disaster mode and how they choose to begin the clean up will determine how
long the lull lasts.
It's a mess in
Arizona and whoever has to coordinate the clean-up effort has a massive undertaking ahead of them.
I was living in L.A. during
the DePodesta disaster.
Generally speaking, he wasn't liked by the public. I seem to remember talk radio hosts
lambasting him for his "moneyball" mishaps.
For the reasons you state in your retort, he did wreck what
was a pretty good thing at the time... and to top it off, in the public eye he was a smarmy, pedantic prude.
Still
is I imagine.
The expectations were unreasonably high for him after Moneyball; while
he took part in the book, that wasn't his deal----he didn't write the thing. What was his responsibility though was the way
he appeared incapable of doing the job in theory or practice; as a stat zombie or human being. That wood-headedness permeated
his tenure as GM and caused its inevitable destruction.
What I find funny is that he's working as an assistant for the Padres...and has a blog that he updates relatively regularly of the inner-workings of the front office. Under Sandy Alderson, I could see the blog
going unchecked by----Alderson ran his ship similarly to the Bush White House----if it works, okay; if not, you're on your
own.
Under Jeff Moorad, I thought:
A) that DePodesta was going to leave; and B) that Moorad would tell him he could either blog or work for the Padres----pick
one.
But he's still blogging. I'd tell
him to shove the blog, but that's me.
The resurgence of Vlad has been interesting. He was
looking so done in Anaheim and now he's on a tear. Yes, the ballpark in Arlington is hitter friendly, but I think you're right
about the change of scenery and the need to get out of a rut. The guy has always been dangerous but now he's downright scary.
It could have a lot to do with health. Guerrero is a warrior and he might have been more beaten up
in his last few years with the Angels than anyone let on; maybe now he's healthy.
Gabriel (Acting Underboss) writes RE Vladimir Guerrero
and Cliff Lee:
Vlad has always been a reliable player. I have always
liked him, and it never ceases to amaze me how well he plays the game. I remember the first time I saw him get a base hit
off a ball in dirt, and thinking "man, he's awesome!".
On another note, how do you like the Angels' chances
with Stone-Cold Killer Cliff Lee? They have played well recently, but I feel they could use his services.
The most ridiculous thing about Guerrero's free-swinging is that he never strikes out!! Hitters who
go up hacking generally strike out a lot, but Guerrero is like Don Mattingly in that they were free swinging power hitters
who rarely walked, but they rarely struck out either.
I felt that the Mets main competition in pursuing Lee as a free agent was going to be the Angels, but there's been
a rumor floating around that Lee doesn't want to go to Anaheim. Bear in mind that it came from Mike Francesa, so it might've
been another "story" he pulled out of his nether-regions and said it as if it was factual. The Angels are in on
everything an operate stealthily, so I'm sure they've told Mariners GM Jack Zduriencik to keep in touch regarding Lee.
Joe
writes RE DePodesta and Brad Penny:
How
can you hold Brad Penny getting hurt against Depodesta though? You said they got nothing, but they did get something, and
that was Penny. Unfortunately he got hurt though.
You're right about the injury not being DePodesta's
fault; Penny had been healthy throughout that whole 2004 season and there was no reason to expect him to get injured. But
in practical terms----objectively analyzed----they did get nothing for the rest of 2004
As I said in my response to the comment yesterday, it wasn't the
players themselves that were the main issue with DePodesta, but the decision to blow things up at exactly that moment. Things
were going great; they had a dominating, shut-down bullpen similar to the one that won the Yankees the 1996 World Series;
once the Dodgers had a lead after the sixth inning, the game was over. With Duaner Sanchez, Guillermo Mota and Eric Gagne,
it was reduced to little league rules. The starting pitching was secondary to that bullpen and the bullpen with Darren Dreifort
instead of Mota was a train wreck.
Therein lies the error. Not in the players acquired, but in the theory itself that a good starter was more important than
a dominating reliever.
Smarmy! I love that word. LoDuca? L.A.? Trade? Bad Move!
As much as I would like to, I
don't think the Mets should be (then or now) criticized for not trying to sigh VLADDY-G. Hind-sight is always 20/20 vision.
The Angels took a chance and it paid off. At the time the Mets couldn't afford to get burned again. I only throw that out
there cause Vlad is the topic. ...Just sayin'. But Vlad's career numbers should start to get a different conversation
about him started. It's amazing how under-rated he's remained all these years.
The Mets pursuit of Guerrero after 2004 was undermined by their belief that no other team was in the bidding and their
own haphazard way of doing business. The Mets tried to be clever and get a bargain and lost out; but they learned an important
lesson for later free agent courtships----don't be over-aggressive and overpay, but it's still necessary to pay a fair amount
for the player they want. They did that in getting Francisco Rodriguez when few other obvious suitors were out front.
As they always seem to do, the Angels played
their cards close to the vest as to their intentions and struck without warning or remorse.
I don't know if Guerrero was ever cut out for New York anyway; he prefers
to be a behind-the-scenes leader and do his job quietly; that would've been impossible if he played for the Yankees or Mets. He was better off in Anaheim then and Texas now. He would've performed, but probably wouldn't have been happy.
It was best for all involved that things went the way they did.
My book is still available on Amazon, I-Universe and Barnes and Noble.com. It's available for download as an E-book
here. You can also now get it for less that five bucks on BN via download here.
I hate to keep harping on that ridiculous Theo
Epstein comment of being concerned with "now and the future" as he fiddled while Rome burned at mid-season 2006,
but it exemplified the way GMs (sometimes meekly) try to explain away inaction by way of verbal gymnastics.
For those of you who don't remember, the Red Sox were
rolling along at mid-season 2006 looking like they were on a collision course for a 20-year rematch with the Mets in the World
Series when fate struck both sides before they could meet their ends of the bargain. The Mets lost Duaner Sanchez (and the
World Series) to a car accident in which Sanchez's shoulder and career were destroyed; and the Red Sox fell into third place
in the AL East because of injuries; shortness in the starting rotation; an imbalanced lineup; and the usual Manny Ramirez
controversies.
After the season, Epstein's
financial constraints were mystically removed as building "for the future" included flinging money at J.D. Drew,
Julio Lugo and Daisuke Matsuzaka. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that as long as the perpetrators admit what it is----checkbook
retooling.
While the presentation
was somewhat condescending and self-serving, there of course was an argument for what Epstein was saying even though
the claim of organizational poverty was similar to the maudlin whimpering of the bailed out financial giants who found it
appropriate to take government cash while still organizing and attending luxurious junkets for their overpaid and unproductive
executives.
In refraining from
making any big money deals to bolster his sagging club in 2006 with the likes of Bobby Abreu, Epstein saved the money to go
after Drew, Lugo and Matsuzaka. Drew worked out well enough. The other two, not so much; but the signing of Matsuzaka added
an imperative ingredient to the Red Sox in recent years----Hideki Okajima, so the sequence of events worked out well even
if the initial intent didn't.
The Red Sox rebounded to win the World Series in 2007.
ESPN.com has a front page story from their Baseball Tonight Clubhouse discussing a hired gun who's going to be up for auction, the Mariners' Cliff Lee. Two mirror images of Lee----pitchers at
the top of their game, toiling for non-contenders and heading for free agency are mentioned in the piece----Randy Johnson
and David Cone.
In 1998, the Astros
traded for Johnson to make a title run. Johnson had been struggling with the Mariners and wanted out; on July 31st, the Astros
sent Freddy Garcia, Carlos Guillen and John Halama to the Mariners to get Johnson knowing the slim chance of keeping him for
more than the rest of the season.
Considering that the Astros got a blazing 10-1 finish from Johnson and won 102 games, the deal worked for the regular season;
but they got bounced in the playoffs by the Padres in the first round; Johnson was offered a lucrative contract to stay with
the Astros, but instead chose to pitch in Arizona and left for the Diamondbacks.
The Mariners rebuilt their club with lightning speed as Garcia became a workhorse;
Guillen was a solid contributor; and Halama had some use. The Mariners were back in the playoffs two years later in large
part because of that trade.
The
Blue Jays acquired Cone from the Mets in late August of 1992 as the Mets, floundering after championship expectations, were
worried that: A) Cone's contract demands would be too expensive; B) his heavy use would result in a physical breakdown; and
C) the pitcher's hard-partying ways were bad news waiting to happen.
Cone was an integral part of the Blue Jays first World Series win and departed for his hometown Royals
after the season----he won a Cy Young Award in 1994 and was traded back to the Blue Jays in a salary dump in 1995 and was
later being traded to the Yankees. The players the Blue Jays traded to get Cone from the Mets----Jeff Kent and Ryan Thompson----were
extremely talented, but Thompson never fulfilled massive potential in any area aside from his mouth; and Kent took five years
and two more address changes to become a star.
For the Mets, the trade simply didn't work as Cone pitched brilliantly for almost another decade in helping the Yankees
win four World Series.
In each case,
it was well worth it to make the trades even if they were only rentals.
Cliff Lee appears determined to experience free agency and, unlike Johnson and Cone, there don't seem
to be any tugs of the heartstrings pulling him in one direction or another. He wants to get paid; and he wants to win. With
that in mind, teams wouldn't be taking as big a risk as the Astros and Blue Jays did in making their bold decisions to get
Johnson and Cone respectively. Lee's agenda is clear and if the team acquiring him pays him, he's likely to stay.
There's a roll of the dice in making blockbuster moves
to go for it now; in the case of the Blue Jays, it worked; in the case of the Astros, it didn't. But retrospectively, you
can't question it, because they got what they were expecting when they brought in the short-term assassins. Sometimes it works
perfectly; sometimes it doesn't; but you can't say it wasn't a calculated decision.
Vladimir Guerrero----a Reggie Jackson like flair for the dramatic:
One of the reasons that I was so perplexed at the
Red Sox decision in last year's ALDS loss to walk Torii Hunter in the ninth inning of game 3 to pitch to Vladimir Guerrero
had nothing to do with stats; it had to do with Guerrero's penchant for the dramatic that is approaching a Reggie Jackson-level
of histrionics.
The Rangers and
Angels are battling for first place in the AL West and Guerrero has been a one-man wrecking crew in the first two games of
the series the teams are playing (they've split); Guerrero has gone 6 for 8 with 3 homers; a double; and 8 RBI. This isn't
a "revenge" scenario against the team that dumped him, but with Guerrero raising his game for circumstances just
like this.
At age 35, Guerrero
has had an MVP-caliber year with the Rangers in part due to demolishing the ball at the friendly confines of Rangers Ballpark;
and in part due to the awakening that sometimes comes with a change-of-scenery.
It's that inner aura that Reggie had; that Lenny Dykstra had; that Dave Henderson
had allowing them to come through on the big stage when the spotlight shines brightest. That, more than anything, was why
I never would've walked Hunter in the playoffs last year to pitch to Guerrero. Guerrero's current batting average against
Jonathan Papelbon in .091; Hunter is at .429 in 7 career at bats.
It doesn't matter.
There are times to look at the players and their personalities and ignore obvious statistics. To this day I believe
that had Red Sox manager Terry Francona pitched to Hunter, Papelbon would've blown a high 98 mph fastball right by him. He
chose to antagonize Guerrero with the game on the line and Guerrero made him pay.
That's the type of player Vladimir Guerrero is, cool under fire; fearless and
determined; somehow he gets the job done.
Viewer
Mail 7.1.2010:
RMiller writes
RE Paul DePodesta:
DePodesta did do that bad a job; in fact, he was a horrific
GM who wrecked a team on the verge of a title run. >> That little tidbit is perhaps "common sportswriter
wisdom" but hardly up to the standards of one who considers himself a knowledgable baseball blogger. As a long-standing
Dodger fan, your oversimplification just misses the mark. If "wrecking a team" is referring to the infamous LoDuca
trade in 2004, clearly that didn't "wreck" the Dodgers ability to win the NL West that year. The Finley trade made
nearly the same time recouped and then some the meager production loss from proven 2nd half fader, LoDuca. In fact both LoDuca
and Mota were so horrible in Sept that they may well have cost LA the NL West had they been kept. Granted, LA got little value
from the Florida guys that year but the loss of LoDuca was the most over-estimated media-created myth in some time. I
am not one who believed in DePodesta's alleged "genius", nor lamented his firing as a great injustice. He didn't
have the communication skills to be a good GM. But he wasn't "horrific" and he didn't "wreck" anything
in LA except himself. His key acquisitions in '05 (Kent, Lowe, Penny, Drew) helped the Dodgers win NL West in 2006 and Lowe
remained on to help win in '08 also. He made some bad moves in '05 also, but some of it was due to a budget cut of nearly
$ 20 mil v. 2004 season because the owner was running on a thin cash margin.
I have to admire the deftness with which you cherrypick your argument to defend aspects of DePodesta's tenure while
admitting he did a bad job.
The
case that I continually make against DePodesta (as a retort to those that still promote him as a potential GM) has little
to do with one individual move, but the entirety of what he did as Dodgers GM.
The Paul LoDuca trade was a bad one not because of the questionable aspect
of LoDuca's leadership in the clubhouse and that the maneuver was such a stunning bolt from the blue to the clubhouse from
manager Jim Tracy on down, but that they: traded LoDuca; traded Guillermo Mota who was the best set-up man in baseball for
a dominating bullpen; and got back literally nothing that helped the team for the rest of 2004 in Brad Penny, Hee-Seop Choi
and Bill Murphy. It was as if he dumped LoDuca, Mota and Juan Encarnacion just because he could; because it was a solid statistical
decision. In practical terms, it was a nightmare.
While it's never been confirmed or denied, the Penny trade was meant to be a precursor to get Randy Johnson from the
Diamondbacks before Johnson had agreed to come to Los Angeles; Penny was presumably a suitable consolation prize if the Johnson
trade didn't pan out----but Penny got hurt after one start and didn't pitch for the rest of the season.
You're right about Mota pitching poorly for the Marlins after the trade;
but Mota had been absolutely fantastic for the Dodgers from 2003 all the way up until the trade. You can't say that he would've
pitched as badly for the Dodgers as he did for the Marlins. He was comfortable with the Dodgers as Eric Gagne's set-up man
and that bullpen was the stuff that wins championships.
So what you had was a team that was 60-42 and in first place by 3 1/2 games at the time of the deal,
and went 33-27 the rest of the way. They had their bullpen demolished (with Darren Dreifort anointed to replace Mota----he
was terrible and got hurt); a shortened starting rotation with no Penny and no Johnson; and a scotch-taped together team that
was barely able to hold on to make the playoffs.
Some of DePodesta's acquisitions did work out. Jeff Kent, Derek Lowe, Milton Bradley and Penny had value;
but the tone-deafness in detonating a team that had grown up together under manager Jim Tracy; trusted each other and was
playing excellent baseball is the main failure of the stat zombie method of building a team in general and DePodesta in particular.
Being a good GM also has
a touch and feel quality to it; it's more than looking at the statistics of one player vs another; judging that a good starter
is better than a good reliever (an arguable premise); or doing something gutsy and drastic even if it's unpopular. That trade
unraveled the 2004-2005 Dodgers.
Firing Tracy----one of the best strategists in baseball and popular with the players----after 2005 was absurd; and the proffered
reason to "get someone on the same page" is identical to saying, "I want someone who'll do what he's told".
His drafts were rotten with only Blake
DeWitt and Cory Wade (average players at best) contributing to the Dodgers in the years after their selections.
It's interesting that you bring up payroll when the
main reason DePodesta was hired was due to the role he played in Moneyball; that he was supposed to be able to find players
who were undervalued and inexpensive. The Dodgers payroll in 2004 was $89 million; in 2005 it was $83 million. In comparison,
the team with which DePodesta was supposedly the stat-wielding consigliere to Billy Beane's ruthless boss----the Athletics----had
payrolls of $59 million in 2004; and $55 million in 2005. DePodesta couldn't function with $30 million more available
as Dodgers GM?
You bring up his absence
of communication skills, but you fail to add in that he couldn't see past the numbers on his laptop; with that factored in,
you understand the true genesis of his horrific tenure as Dodgers GM----the 20-month reign of terror that I prefer
to call The DePodesta Disaster.
My book is still available on Amazon, I-Universe and Barnes and Noble.com. It's available for download as an E-book
here. You can also now get it for less that five bucks on BN via download here.
