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.
