It'll start slowly.

    There are going to be the small digs taken at David Wright because of his having won two Gold Gloves when he probably only won them based on a recognizable name when he didn't really deserve them; then there'll be the nitpicks here and there about not getting a runner in from third base with less than two outs; about being unable to deliver at crunch time. It'll be done in such a way that those unfamiliar with Mike Francesa's style of backslapping with one hand while wielding the knife with the other is put into action akin to some wannabe Italian vendetta for a perceived slight. Mark my words, it's going to happen.

    David Wright has refused to go on Francesa's show because of his irritation at some derogatory comments Francesa made about Wright's performance down the stretch of the Mets collapses over the past two years; Wright refused to even meet with Francesa to discuss it (another instance of Francesa's persona as a Godfather wannabe, calling the prospect a "sit-down"); so Francesa yesterday characterized this as a byproduct of Wright's thin skin and immaturity and part of the reason why he does fail in the clutch. Wright was presumably annoyed at Francesa's knee-jerk entreaties to the Mets hierarchy to "break up the core" of the club by moving either Wright, Jose Reyes or Carlos Beltran and bring in some harder edged players.

    Never mind the absurdity of trading two of the game's brightest young infield stars, both signed to reasonable long-term contracts and in their mid-20s (the Mets front office was probably rolling their eyes at the month-long soliloquies and self-justification for Francesa's rabble rousing), but the main problem that Wright has with Francesa, one would assume, is that he was blamed for the team's ills and had to listen to fans agreeing with someone like Francesa, who actually knows very little about the game of baseball and is too pompous and arrogant to know that he doesn't know. That's even worse than not knowing. 

    I don't think anyone's untradeable; this is a world where Wayne Gretzky got traded at the height of his career; but what has to be looked at is the position of the player; the availability of a replacement and what would be coming back. It's not as if the premise of trading Wright is even sound and viable; there are so few third basemen available that trading one who's as young and talented (and well-behaved) as Wright, no matter what's coming back, would be outright stupid. If they did trade him and got someone who wasn't able to handle New York any better than Wright does, got hurt or just couldn't play, who'd be the first one to criticize the Mets for jumping the gun and trading Wright? Mike Francesa! He has no accountability; no standing to make such statements other than the fact that he's on the radio. 

    The Mets and Wright probably don't care a whit what Francesa actually says, but it's the blowback from the repeated harping on one subject that can cause problems. The intelligent fan knows that the idea of trading either Wright or Reyes to "break up the core" as an angry reaction was nonsense from the start; but there are other fans for whom this type of statement fans the flames of resentment and causes booing; it promotes negative energy and discussion; and it occasionally forces the more mentally fragile front offices of teams to react without due diligence and acting on their own analysis.

    Wright made a decision not to be a part of the two-faced, obnoxious arrogance of Francesa as he broadcast his show from Mets camp in Port St. Lucie. Some guys don't let slights go as easily as others; I always thought Al Leiter was a fool for agreeing to go on Francesa and Chris Russo's show after Russo launched a personal (borderline slanderous) attack against Leiter; but Leiter did it for the good of the team after the front office pleaded with him to do it. Would Wright be better off letting it go and going on Francesa's show? I think that's what's eventually going to happen; Wright's father is a police captain and I'm sure he'll explain to his son that he sometimes has to deal with people he doesn't like for the greater good; but this is going to fester because Francesa's not going to let it go until an accord is reached; he's not going to overtly unload on Wright in an obvious manner; his perceived power from being on the radio doesn't mean he knows what he's talking about or has any authority, it's just that he has a forum and can stir up trouble about any subject if he wants to, so he'll be smart enough and calculating enough to slash Wright here and there for making a conscious decision not to speak to Francesa.

    Francesa claims it's Wright's immaturity that's the problem; maybe Wright sees it differently; maybe Wright sees Francesa's arrogance and total lack of knowledge about the game of baseball that makes his authoritative declarations so disruptive and he doesn't want to promulgate Francesa's self-image any further by engaging in it. It's a losing proposition, but a totally understandable one if looking at it from the point-of-view of the player, whose job is hard enough as it is without some armchair genius with a microphone making things appear worse than they are.  

    Rob Neyer quotes Joe Posnanski, who quotes Adam Gopnik from a new book and I vaguely remember reading this somewhere before; here's the clip:

Joe Posnanski, while "tangling" with a long-promised blog post about steroids and finishing a rewrite of his long-awaited book about the B.R.M., somehow finds the time to write a bit about Adam Gopnik's new book about Lincoln and Darwin:

In many ways, Andre Dawson fits the question best (though you could argue that McGwire and the Steroid Five fit too). When Dawson played, you heard that he could "do it all." He played great defense, stole bases, hit homers, drove in runs, he even hit .300 four times. These weren't just standards -- that was everything in his time.

Now we see that Dawson had a career .323 on-base percentage. We now know -- in a way that was not especially straightforward in Dawson's time -- that all those outs the Hawk made greatly diminished his value as a baseball player. What to do? Many suggest that voters should judge him by his time. Dawson wasn't paid to get on base (this is unquestionably true). He did what was asked of him, and he did those things at an extremely high level and with dignity and class, and for that he deserves to be in the Hall.

Others say that you can't put in a guy with a .323 OBP no matter that he did many other great things.

Tough call. I don't know that this Gopnik passage about Darwin provides answers about Dawson … but it made me think.

    Hmmm....where did I see this....let's see....hmmm....hold on!!! I know where I saw it: it came from that ripe melon that sits atop my shoulders that I occasionally refer to as my head. I wrote this on January 13th (click here if you'd like to read the whole thing on my former blogging home):

The manager of the individual player should play a major part in whether said player should be penalized for his absence of "Hall of Fame numbers". When Dawson arrived in the big leagues to stay, his manager was Dick Williams. By most accounts, Dick Williams was a fine manager, a successful winner and able to control his clubhouse. He won four pennants including one in each league and two World Series with the Oakland Athletics dynasty in the early 70s; but Dick Williams was not a manager who was obsessed with on base percentage above all else. In looking at his teams, those that won and those that didn't, he never had a group of players whose main focus was to get on base.
    An old-school manager like Williams had roles for his players. The leadoff man (Raines with the Expos) was there to get on base for the middle of the lineup (Dawson and Gary Carter). This was their stated job. The middle of the lineup was not advised to take pitches and walk to leave the job of driving in runs to the bottom of the lineup. If a young player arrives in the big leagues and a veteran manager tells him to swing the bat and drive in runs rather than take a bunch of pitches as the on base percentage advocates mandate, what's he supposed to do? Is he going to defy his manager and wait and in the eyes of the manager, leave it up to the next guy, or is he going to start hacking at the first pitch he deems acceptable to drive in the runs?
    In looking at the numbers of Williams's teams from his first job with the "Impossible Dream" Red Sox of the late 60s; to the A's in the 70s; then later to the Expos, Padres and Mariners, he was a manager who had a leadoff guy to get on base and power in the middle of the lineup. Rightly or wrongly (and Williams's success suggests that he may have been right), that's the way it was done; and with managers like Williams, young players had a choice: do it his way or don't play. If Dawson was swinging at pitches to try and hit them out of the park instead of bolstering his numbers by walking fifteen more times a year, he shouldn't be penalized for it now as his Hall of Fame candidacy is being scrutinized by numbers that were barely paid attention to during his career by his boss.

The problem with looking at Dawson's numbers and denying him his rightful place (while demanding that a guy like Raines receive the ultimate honor) is ignoring other factors like what the manager of the club was asking him to do; what his role was with the team; and focusing on his faults or injuries rather than what he accomplished. 

   It's a very good argument, I think; but then again, I'd be pretty stupid if I disagreed with it, especially since I wrote it first. 

*The title of this posting sounds like something the late Robert Ludlum would've come up with; a movie version starring Matt Damon (after undergoing a controversial skin pigmentation procedure a la the Robert Downey Jr. character in Tropic Thunder) will be forthcoming. 

    So where does this all end? Manny Ramirez and Scott Boras are sitting out and waiting, hoping that either the Dodgers will panic or as I heard Mike Greenberg (I think; it might've been Steve Phillips) say on his radio show, "some team will find $50 million lying around" and give it to Manny. The problem that they have is that there are no other offers. And every time someone thinks that Boras has this grand scheme, it turns out that he occasionally doesn't have a grand scheme and you see one of his clients like Kyle Lohse end up signing a 1-year, incentive-laden deal. Here are the possible scenarios as I see them for this continuing soap opera:

• Manny sits out until right before the season ends and takes what the Dodgers give him:

    Manny needs spring training less than other, lesser players do, so it's not absurd to think he can walk in on April 2nd and be ready to hit on opening day. There are no scenarios I can see in which Manny's going to get more than the $25 million guaranteed for one year that the Dodgers have offered and presumably----despite their protestations----will keep on the table without specifically saying so until Manny realizes that it's the best he'll get in this market.

    The Dodgers could really be pricks about it and lower the offer as the season draws nearer, but that would only serve to antagonize Manny and if he accepted it under duress, he'd be the same cranky baby he was during most of his tenure with the Red Sox and manager Joe Torre, at age 69, does not need to be dealing with that in addition to the veteran/youngster factions already present in the Dodgers clubhouse.

• The Dodgers tell Manny to take a hike:

    There are repeated claims in the media that the Dodgers "can't afford" to let Manny walk away, but that's nonsense. They certainly could get by with what they have right now and contend along with the three other big league clubs (I don't count the Padres as a big league club) in their division. It'd be a little harder to score runs than it would be with Manny, but there are going to be some big names available at mid-season or earlier and the Dodgers organization is still bursting with prospects; in fact, if the economy is a factor for some teams who fall out of contention trying to dump big contracts, they could get a power bat (Carlos Lee, Magglio Ordonez, Jermaine Dye, Xavier Nady) for pennies on the dollar; maybe even for nothing.

    The name I'd keep an eye on is Lee because while he's no Manny, he could certainly fill that hole in left field with his power as "Manny-lite"; and he has other attributes that Manny doesn't in that he's not a pain in the ass, doesn't strike out and he's better defensively than he's given credit for.

• Another team jumps in and snags Manny:

    Highly unlikely. The Giants were mentioned as a possibility, but they've all but come and and said they're not giving Manny the money the Dodgers have offered; and while they could use him, they're in the same position as the Dodgers in acquiring a bat during the season. The only way this happens is if the Dodgers do cut off negotiations with Manny and he signs with the Giants for whatever they offer. I can't see it; if the Giants were going to jump in, they would've already.

• Manny sits out and waits into the season:

    Manny and Boras could pull a similar move as Roger Clemens did and try to get a prorated $30 million deal for a couple of months work. If a team only has to pay Manny something in the vicinity of $15 million from June through the end of the season, someone like the Mets might say the post-season revenue would more than make up for the short-term investment.

    Financially, it would be a short-term mistake for Manny, but perhaps he'd be fresher, put up massive numbers over the last five months of the season and take a chance on a better economic climate next year; in fact, if he went to a team like the Mets, Cardinals or some other surprise contender, the pressure to keep him would be such that the club might have no choice but to pay him a year from now if they have the money.

    Other than the above possibilities, there's not much else for Manny and Boras to do but wait and hope that lightning strikes and someone does something stupid; but unlike years past, this may not be because of sudden conscious financial prudence; it may be that the money just isn't there and if that's the case, then he's going to have to go back to the Dodgers, which is the only choice he seems to have at the moment.  

   
     Jane Heller has a rare combination of attributes that make her the perfect person to write a book like Confessions of a She-Fan: she's a passionate Yankee fan; she actually knows the game; she has a sense of humor; and she can write. What results is a comic masterpiece which delves not only into the ups and downs of a hard core fan, but how that adoration and obsessiveness affects their loved ones.

     What began as a frustrated joke about her struggling team became a book idea when it was published as an essay in the New York Times. The reaction was widespread and varied but was the genesis of the idea of a whole book centered around following the Yankees at home and on the road through a chunk of the 2007 season. Blunted in her attempts to gain access to the club through the arrogant and condescending stonewalling of the Yankees front office, Jane is reduced to following the team as an obsessed fan and----along with her husband Michael (a man nonpareil in the category of having patience)----culls tickets from brokers; stays in various hotels; sits in (mostly) horrible seats for the games; and ingests copious amounts of unhealthy ballpark fare while dealing with the undomesticated creature known as the baseball fan.

     Regardless of the dismissive reactions of those in power in the Yankees hierarchy as she tries to get some input from at least one player, the love for her team remains. The Yankees organization should be ashamed with the way they're portrayed. The list of people for whom Jane has the skills and the impetus to ruthlessly skewer (but doesn't) is vast and includes the following:

• Jason Zillo: The club media relations director who, one would think, would be interested in someone creating a caricature of the Yankees organization as something other than the cold, monolithic and pompous organism that they clearly are; not only did he refuse Jane press access, but he wasn't even professional enough to answer her Emails with anything other than insulting form letters.
  
• Broadcastress Kim Jones: What position she's in to be sending curt Emails at reasonable requests for brief moments of her valuable time is beyond me.
  
• Yankee Stadium Employees: It often appears that the fans are in the middle of a ruthless dictatorship with the nastiness, abusiveness and borderline physical violence they display toward them, especially women.
  

• Jane as a teen going to Yankee Stadium to try and meet players:

     Yelling at Joe Pepitone during batting practice to get his attention (and getting it) reminded me of the stories I heard of the randy Pepitone following around and trying to pick up my mother a local Brooklyn bowling alley.

• Trying to chat up Al Leiter at the Toronto airport:

     Leiter seems a bit reticent and impatient dealing with people he doesn't know as he delivers perfunctory responses to innocuous chit-chat, but I met Al Leiter at a baseball card show when he was just coming up with the Yankees in the late 80s and he was probably one of the most unpretentious players I've ever encountered, calling me by name and thanking me for asking for his autograph on his picture. (It still have it somewhere.)

• And of course, there are the ironically funny bits:

     Suzyn Waldman's authoritative declaration that "Alex (Rodriguez) has never done steroids". The question how would she know isn't even necessary given the revelations of the past month.

     Referring to Francisco (K-Rod) Rodriguez of the Angels as a "little twerp" is no longer allowed since he's now under the Mets fans' protection (specifically mine).

     Or the reference to getting soaking wet at the ballpark in Detroit----"Still, my jeans are drenched and my sneakers are in a puddle of water and I am shivering"----brought me back to a night at Shea Stadium when my brilliant idea was for me and my fiancee to stay in our seats and wait out the rain delay so that, "the seats won't be wet when the game starts". (Served her right for listening to me.)

     The book isn't just about being a fan or about trying to get close to one's obsessions; but it's about maintaining that loyalty no matter what. The Yankees front office is rude? So what? The stadium personnel are abusive? Big deal. The team isn't completing their championship mandate? Whatever.

     The love of a team goes beyond what happens on the field; it's more than one incident involving people who, by accident of circumstance, seem to believe that they're irreplaceable and integral parts of what's been built in the Bronx over the past 100 years; it's a fan who chooses their loyalties and sticks with them, one way or the other; it's the endurance of the loved ones of those fans who tolerate their moods, tantrums or fits of cussing because of people nicknamed Rocket, ARod, Jeet and Georgie.

    If the reports about the details of the latest Dodgers offer to Manny Ramirez are accurate----2-years at $45 million, with $25 million in 2009 plus a player option at $20 million for 2010----then Manny and Scott Boras should jump at the opportunity.

    It's clear by now that this is pretty much the most Manny's going to get in this market with only one serious bidder and, despite Boras's insistence to Manny that he'd get him his $100 million when they conspired to get out of Boston, the duo should know the difference between quitting while they're ahead and simply quitting (to steal a quote from American Gangster). No matter what, they're not going to do better than this and it's actually a good deal if Manny finally accepts that he's: A) not getting a long term contract for $100 million; and B) realizes the benefits of such an agreement.

    Even though Manny is a hitting savant and will, more likely than not, put up numbers to contend for another MVP, he is 37-years-old; if he gets hurt this year without such an option as a fallback, then he's really going to be screwed going into free agency; with the option, he can simply exercise it to guarantee himself $20 million at age 38; no matter what, the money's going to be there. If he goes out and puts up his usual offensive powerhouse numbers, behaves himself and doesn't go to the dark side of "Manny being Manny", the economy could be in better shape in the winter of 2009-2010 that someone will be willing to give him a 2-3 year deal for $70 million-plus. And if not, there's that $20 million sitting there from the Dodgers.

    Manny has to understand that these are not the days in which someone was going to do something desperate and stupid in a fit of last second panic; considering the money that players like Bobby Abreu had to settle for, Manny is in a unique position in this dead market that he's getting something close to what he wanted, even if it's not for the duration he was promised. This is the best he can do and if Boras is smart and convincing, he'll get his flighty client to cut his losses and take it because it's the wisest thing to do.  

    Rob Neyer wrote a blog and provided some links suggesting that the Nationals may be on the verge of firing GM Jim Bowden (enough's finally enough I suppose) and hiring Blue Jays assistant GM Tony LaCava. I literally know nothing about LaCava, but my concerns don't lie solely with him being hired without the Nats even doing a few more perfunctory interviews with some qualified candidates before jumping on LaCava; but that the people who are extolling LaCava's virtues are in the same circle of stat-geeks and this could be a problem.

    Before anything else, I'm not exactly sure why Bud (Don't Blame Me----I Didn't Do It) Selig is allowing Nats president Stan Kasten to bypass the rule of at least interviewing minority candidates before hiring someone else.The implication that the difficulty with hiring a new GM is going to affect a team like the Nats one way or the other is ridiculous; they're, at most, a 72 win team either way; so what's the difference when they hire their GM? Is LaCava going to come in and build a team to challenge the Phillies, Marlins and Mets in the division within the next six weeks? And if he's that brilliant that he is capable of such a feat, why didn't he get one of the other GM jobs he interviewed for? Forget that, why hasn't anyone given him the task of fixing the economy. 

    The bio I read on the blog FireJimBowden makes LaCava look great, but there are concerns that I'd have before just hiring him. The Dodgers made the same mistake in reading the press clippings of Paul DePodesta (specifically Moneyball) and expecting to have a less expensive version of Billy Beane to build a money machine in LA. People may believe I pick on DePodesta through some personal vendetta, but the context of my problem with him is the following: he was arrogant and obnoxious without a clue how to run a club on his own; he has been a guiding hand in the destruction of that Dodgers team in a very short span; he's taken his act to the Padres, had a hand in ruining them as well; and there are still people who suggest that he actually has done a good job in his time away from Beane and that he'd be a qualified GM in the future. In reading Moneyball, you'd reasonably expect to get a combination of Branch Rickey and Whitey Herzog in terms of talent evaluation; his results speak for themselves. 

    LaCava's said to be a nice guy who's a talent evaluator, but how have the Blue Jays fared during J.P. Ricciardi's tenure as their GM? Is LaCava somehow blameless for the lack of prospects----specifically hitting prospects----the Blue Jays are producing? How much of a say has he had in the way the Blue Jays are currently constructed? Did he endorse the Vernon Wells contract? The acquisition of Scott Rolen? The contract given to B.J. Ryan? Are these questions going to even be asked or is LaCava going to walk in with the reputation of being a nice guy and the endorsement of the stat geeks before Kasten and the Nats unwrap the package and possibly realize that they have a DePodesta instead of a Josh Byrnes or Theo Epstein? 

    That Nationals job is a prize. Turning that team around in that town and the world is literally at your fingertips; to simply hire the one guy that everyone is saying is a great hire without really thinking about it or doing due diligence is as big a mistake as keeping Bowden would be. The only way to know if a GM hire is a success is in retrospect and if the Nats are going to bring in LaCava without anyone else even being spoken to, they're rolling the dice horrifically. It's one thing to interview a bunch of people, make a selection and then have it not work; but to just hire the first guy is a great way to double down on a blunder and if they do that and lose, they're going to wait ten years to contend instead of five.

    If LaCava has to wait an extra week or two because the Nats take pause and decide they want to talk to a few other people, it's not going to hurt him as he sets about the task of rebuilding the club and it'd be smarter for them to talk to a couple of others before jumping into this unknown with both feet.   

    Players have always spoken of Jim Leyland as a guy who convinces them that they're better than they are. Some haven't been that good; they've known that they're not that good; but they've still been influenced to play far over their heads and reach heights they never did before while playing for Leyland. After a year that could only be described as disastrous and managing for his job, Leyland is at it again, but the big question is whether or not it'll work.

    Dontrelle Willis was hideous last season; he couldn't throw strikes and when he did, they were of the batting practice variety that got pounded into space. Leyland was quoted in a story on MLB.com (there are some great sales on team memorabilia and bobbleheads, by the way at the MLB.com Shop) as saying that Willis looks "tremendous". One would assume from the headline that he wasn't referring to Willis's waistline. This is all well and good and as fine a pitcher as Willis has been in his career, he's a likely candidate for a comeback; but it's obvious what Leyland's doing with Willis and another young star, Miguel Cabrera----he's building them up mentally so they can perform physically and, by proxy, help the Tigers win and get Leyland the contract extension he wants.

    The issue with this is that it's the first week of pitchers and catchers and Willis's problems from last season were so pronounced that it's going to take more than a few throwing sessions and a fresh start under new pitching coach Rick Knapp that he's all of a sudden going to be back to his 2005, 22-win form. Willis's complicated motion, with all the little tics and bizarre movements needed to be torn down from what it had degenerated into last season and built back up to what it was with the Marlins in his first couple of years in the league. It's, as Brian Cashman would say, a "process" that's not going to be completed with a few kind words and popping mitts in side sessions and batting practice. 

    Leyland and the Tigers are a different team from last season in more ways than one. The expectations are well diminished; they've improved their defense and brought in a few new bullpen names, but are they any better? The only way we'll know is when they start playing for real and we'll know fast----by the end of April----where their 2009 is going.

    Leyland was as complicit in the Tigers fall from preseason favorites to the 74-88 underachiever (and last place team) that they were. After a poor opening few weeks, Leyland acted swiftly and started shifting players all over the field; Miguel Cabrera was moved from third base to first base; Carlos Guillen to third (and later to left field); Brandon Inge was in and out of the lineup; injuries and poor performance robbed the team of a deep starting rotation and their bullpen was woeful. Because of his reputation and career, Leyland was allowed to do make these changes in what was seen as a proactive series of on-the-fly alterations; if a younger manager such as Joe Girardi, Trey Hillman or John Russell had done something similar after a week, it would've been seen as panicking. The timing of the position changes was strange. It was after nearly a month that the entire infield was shifted; Leyland couldn't see in spring training that Cabrera wasn't going to cut it defensively at third base? He had to wait until the season was a month old to make the move?

    He's doing his best to boost the confidence of his players for 2009 and get them to believe that last year was a combination of injuries and underachievement; but that only goes so far. I'm having trouble buying into a quick turnaround by all of their stars, a year older, a year slower and a year more fragile; their defense is better, but their bullpen is still a mess and no one knows what they're going to get out of their starting rotation. Despite Leyland's proclamations of positive reinforcement, I've got an ominous feeling about these Tigers----similar to the one that I only partially listened to about the Padres last season----that things aren't just going to go bad, but they're going to go really bad; and no matter what Leyland says, by the end of April, the die will be cast for the Tigers, and my gut feeling says that it ain't gonna be good.    

• Manager Joe Girardi takes the Yankees out to play:

    Joe Girardi gave the entire Yankees team a day off and took them to play billiards. The players----especially the veterans----are saying that they loved it. Designed as a "team-bonding experience", I guess it can't hurt, but I'm not a fan of this new age stuff that's been popularized by managers like Joe Maddon. If Girardi wanted to reward the players, he could've just said on Sunday evening that everyone was off the next day because I'm sure the vast majority thought it was amusing, but would rather have gone to play golf.

    In seven or eight months, if the Yankees are coasting into and through the playoffs, Girardi's lightening of the load on the players will be seen as a "turning point", when in reality, it'll be talent that takes the Yankees where they want to go. Girardi's strategic decisions and/or luck, along with the half a billion dollars they spent to upgrade their roster will be more important than and afternoon of pool. 

• Peter Gammons looks on the bright side of life...and it diminishes his credibility:

    I never got the impression from Peter Gammons that he was ever a real "heavy hitter" who unloaded on players even when they deserved it and it's been to his advantage in getting people to talk to him and give him scoops and big interviews; but sometimes he writes something that turns out to be so wrong, you have to wonder if he regrets not unloading when he knows the real deal.

    On ESPN.com yesterday, Gammons wrote a bit about the Blue Jays; it put the best possible spin on the upcoming season, but he's been around the game long enough to know that the Toronto Blue Jays aren't just a non-contender, they're going to probably fall behind the Orioles in the AL East this year; he wrote the following, which is especially ironic considering the news from later in the day: 

It begins with Vernon Wells, who at 30 is poised for a monster season. He has been limited to 36 homers the past two years because of shoulder and back injuries and a broken wrist, but this winter he hired a trainer from the Athletes Performance Institute in Tempe, Ariz., took the trainer to his home in Dallas, brought him to spring training and will continue to use him all season, for a total investment of between $150,000 and $200,000.

"The workouts have made a big difference in flexibility and strength," says Wells.

     Okay...but in what was a most unfortunate accident of timing, the following came through later in the story on ESPN entitled: Wells could be sidelined most of spring with a hamstring pull.

    It's a bit late in the game for Gammons to start really letting people have it, and judging by his success and Hall of Fame career, with the great respect he's generated it'd be ill-advised to change now; but sometimes I'd like to hear him say something to the tune of what we all know, that the Blue Jays are a disaster; that the Wells contract is an albatross around their necks for the next six years (that's until after 2014 if anyone's counting) and the team isn't going to get any better until they dump Ricciardi and bring in a talent evaluator like Logan White of the Dodgers or a veteran executive like Bill Stoneman. We all know it's true; if someone in Gammons's position said it, it'd be accepted without question; instead we get stuff like the above clip about Vernon Wells, which was proven wrong within hours of publication. It's a shame in more ways than one.  

    It's fascinating how the blame game is played. The New York Rangers, stumbling their way out of the playoffs and clearly in need of a new voice behind their bench finally capitulated and fired coach Tom Renney; suddenly the allocation of blame becomes a more heated debate than the team itself. Again it has to be explained: just because a particular person was fired, doesn't mean they're solely to blame for whatever was wrong, but when a change needs to be made, the easiest thing to do is to fire the coach.

    On one of the few days where hockey is the hot topic of conversation, the calls to Mike Francesa's show specifically, were split on what the Rangers should've done and many were calling for the head of GM/club president Glen Sather. Fair enough; there's plenty of evidence that Sather should be the one to take the fall; but what has to be realized is that if a team fires a coach, they're still holding out hope for the remainder of the season; if they fire the GM, they're starting the entire thing over again because the new GM is going to come in and want to put his stamp on the organization and, in some cases, clear the decks completely. As long as that's understood and accepted (and Rangers fans are clearly forgetting about the dark days without playoff appearances for a decade from the late 90s until three years ago), then fine, fire the GM. 

    Was it fair to fire Renney and ostensibly lay the onus on him for what's gone on this year? No. Is it the correct move for the team at the moment? Yes. There are circustances in which a coach, manager or GM deserve to get fired. Paul DePodesta deserved to be fired by the Dodgers; J.P. Ricciardi deserves to get fired by the Blue Jays; Bill Bavasi and John McLaren deserved to get fired by the Mariners last season; Matt Millen, well, he doesn't even warrant mentioning.

    But then there are the cases like Willie Randolph last season with the Mets who didn't deserve to be fired based on his level of work and wasn't fired because GM Omar Minaya didn't want to assign responsibility on Randolph when a big chunk of the Mets failures were organizational rather than managerial; the situation however, called for Randolph's firing. The players were tired of talking about the security of the manager; they weren't playing well and Randolph, not popular in the clubhouse and never all that strong strategically to begin with, needed to go if the Mets were going to save the season. There are always good people who get caught in the crossfire of circumstances. Rod Marinelli had no chance in Detroit working for Millen with the Lions; there was a story years ago, also in Detroit, when veteran minor league coach and manager Les Moss finally got his chance as a big league manager with the Tigers, but was dispatched when the recently fired manager of the Big Red Machine Cincinnati Reds, Sparky Anderson, decided he wanted to manage again and the Tigers jumped at the chance; in retrospect, there's no way Moss would've had the success Anderson had. Was it fair? No. Did it turn out right? Yes.

    Then we get to Renney, Sather and the Rangers. There were many calls absolving Renney of the Rangers ills yesterday; but Renney had a lot of say in the personnel department, so he must've signed off on the decisions. Other calls were lambasting the Rangers for letting Jaromir Jagr leave for Russia. Well, Jagr got so much money in that deal that if the Rangers had even tried to come close to matching it, they'd be in an even deeper mess than they are now with the salary cap; and anyone who watched Jagr last year is engaging in selective memory with how he played; there were many, many times where he wasn't scoring for long stretches and he was coasting through his shifts; of course teams had to plan for him and put their best defenders across from him, opening up opportunities for the ancillary players; but how long was that going to last? If they signed him to a 6-year contract, they'd have gotten what they needed from him for perhaps half that; then what?

    The Rangers have two advantages that make the hiring of John Tortorella a worthwhile gamble to try and save the season: goalie Henrik Lundqvist and that there's no dominant team in the conference that they can't beat. Logically, Tortorella's wide open and aggressive style will suit a few players like Nikolai Zherdev to be able to score more; plus with the way the Rangers have been scrounging for goals, playing for the shootout and relying on Lundqvist anyway, it's better to be a bit more aggressive, try to score a little more and hope Lundqvist can rescue them from the defensive and mental breakdowns (that were happening with more and more frequency) anyway.

    Tortorella has a reputation as a raving lunatic, which is in stark contrast to Renney's cerebral and teaching approach. Renney's way of doing things wasn't working and with the conference as wide open as it is (the Capitals are the most dangerous team with questions in goal; the Bruins goalie situation is also concern for them; and the Rangers have historically had the Devils' number in the playoffs), the Rangers can certainly ride a hot Lundqvist through to, at least, the conference finals. Renney's going to get another opportunity to coach and, worst case scenario, after decompressing a bit, will be back with the Rangers in the front office. This was the right move, right now even if it doesn't work because doing nothing or, as some people want, firing the GM would've been giving up on the season entirely. 

• The Nats prospect/age scandal:

• Jim Bowden as Fredo Corleone:

• I watched five minutes of the Oscars and remembered specifically why I don't watch it:

• Bursting the bubble of innuendo about trainer Angel Presinal:

     Reading between the lines about personal trainer Angel Presinal, the implication is that any kind of involvement with him at all by any player means that they were automatically using his apparent familiarity with steroids as basis for conviction of guilt, and it is----in the court of public opinion. The truth is that simply because the man knows about steroids and probably provided them with guidance in their correct usage to certain players, that doesn't mean he's on a level with Kirk Radomski and Brian McNamee as a dealer/enabler.

    As someone who's done research into steroids; has friends who are serious, competitive bodybuilders; and has worked in gyms, I'm here to tell you that because someone has a certain knowledge about the usage of PEDs, knows where to get them and how to apply them, it doesn't eliminate any training knowledge they have or disqualify them from helping those who want to play clean. I know about steroids but have never used them and, truth be told, I don't think they're that dangerous if used correctly under medical supervision; it's not as cut and dried as is implied.

    ESPN.com had a story about Presinal posted yesterday----LINK. Peering through the subterfuge and knowing what I know about personal trainers and steroids, here's what I think goes on with Presinal: he knows about steroids; he knows how to beat drug tests; and if a player asks about them, he tells them what the deal is. He neither recommends them, nor advises against them; if a player wants to play clean, he can help them get into condition without them; if they don't, he has the knowledge to help them there too.

    Because a person has knowledge about a certain subject doesn't make them guilty. People believe that competitive bodybuilders are muscleheaded idiots, and some of them are; but they also have to know about nutrition; and I'm not talking about basic carbs, proteins, fats; I'm talking about everything about how each and every single thing a person ingests affects their body and performance; that includes water intake, how many calories to consume, how to gain and lose weight and be in peak condition on a particular day at a particular time. It's a science. So as the media tries to turn this Presinal into the devil incarnate and assume everyone who's had any dealings with him whatsoever is, by proxy, a steroid user, the fact is that they might be; but they also might not be; but you'd never know that by the ominous way in which he's portrayed.

• When (not if) Manny signs with the Dodgers, he'll be looking for someone to blame for his "substandard" contract:

     After Manny Ramirez finally rejoins the Dodgers, I've said all along that he's going to publicly fire Scott Boras for not following through on his promises to get him $100 million. Then there's going to be the sticky situation of an irritated Manny because he had to "settle" for around $25 million for one year. That's the thing with Manny: he seems to blame others (even those that are trying to help him) for his problems. Boras does deserve a chunk of the blame for what's gone on with Manny from the way he forced his way out of Boston and behaved like a fool; but Manny's not as stupid as people tend to believe; he shares in the responsibility as well. One thing that has to be worrying to the Dodgers is that Manny is going to show up in a bad mood because he didn't get the multi-year deal he wanted even if was the Dodgers who wanted him and paid him.

    It reminds me of when the Oakland Raiders drafted Lester Hayes far later in the NFL draft than his talents indicated he should've gone (Hayes had a stutter which made people think he was stupid); he showed up to camp all angry because he was passed over by so many teams; Raiders coach John Madden had to explain to Hayes that it wasn't the Raiders he should've been mad at because they were the ones who did draft him. If Manny's on a one-year deal, it shouldn't be a problem because he'll still be motivated to give the big money another shot next year, but if they give him a two-year contract, who knows what Manny's frame of mind will be as he sits there and stews?

• Circumstances could save New York Rangers coach Tom Renney:

    The NHL is a league that tends to fire their coaches first and ask questions later and the Rangers coach Tom Renney is right in front of the firing squad for several reasons, not the least of being how awful the team's been lately. Even with that, he probably has tonight to get the team straightened out because of the accident of circumstance that two of the team's old-time players----Andy Bathgate and Harry Howell----are being honored at Madison Square Garden tonight. After the ceremonies, they're playing a rebuilding team in the Toronto Maple Leafs, whom they should beat; and if they don't, they're not playing again until Wednesday in Toronto against the same team which is plenty of time to make a change.

    Not wanting to distract from a celebration is a strange way to save a coach's job, but these things happen and sometimes they turn out to be for the best. Many coaches and managers have been days, hours and minutes away from being sacked, and are spared for one reason or another out of sheer luck and turn things around.

    Firing Renney wouldn't solve the Rangers problem of not being able to score, but the players do seem to have tuned him out; and he's not blameless in this whole mess because his team plays a lackluster offensive style, has been hideous on the power play and he has a lot of say-so in the composition of the roster. They're still in a relatively secure playoff position and there's no team in the conference that they can't get past in the playoffs, so a change, even if it's just for the rest of the season (the NHL also tends to fire coaches briefly, then bring them back sometime during the next season) might be a wakeup call.

    Team president Glen Sather is close with veteran coach Pat Quinn and he's a successful, respected coach; Peter Laviolette is still out of work; and the Rangers employ a "fixer" with a history of having his teams burst out of the gate when he takes over in Jim Schoenfeld. Then there are the less intriguing names like Bob Hartley, John Tortorella or Robbie Ftorek. One way or the other, Renney had better get the team back on the right track, because if they lose again and look like zombies, he'll be out. (Following is a great clip of Schoenfeld confronting a referee in the runway while he was coaching the Devils):

• What collusion couldn't do, the economy is doing:

• Does this sound like a mentor?

• Comments:

• Tom Glavine returns to the Braves for $1 million+incentives:

• Nothing more needs to be said about this:

• Ken Griffey Jr. returns to the Mariners:

• The funniest part of Greg Maddux's role as a spring training instructor for the Padres:

• Arrogance unfettered:
  

• A very brief note about Alex Rodriguez's press conference:

• Ian Kennedy does not know when to shut up:

“The whole year was a learning process,” Kennedy said. “I think if you’re not confident in yourself, who’s going to be confident in you? I believe in myself. That’s why it comes off wrong or it’s perceived wrong by some people.

"It's always disappointing, but it's my first bad outing in a long time, since the All-Star break," said Kennedy, whose previous seven starts were in the minor leagues.

"I felt like I made some good pitches and got out of the second inning. I am not too upset about it. You move on, and I have already done that. I am not going to look too much into it."

...you'd think he'd have been told by someone to answer with the following well-practiced cliche to any and all questions posed to him this spring: "I had a terrible season last year in all facets; I worked hard over the winter and hopefully I can learn from my mistakes and reward the Yankees for their faith in me." And that's it!!! He doesn't get it.
     Veteran players only tolerate a big mouthed rookie if he performs. The Red Sox put up with Dustin Pedroia because he's the type of player who performs better when he's being obnoxious; Kennedy seems to be missing the fact that he was terrible last season; and the simple reality is that he's not all that good to begin with.

    I don't know if anyone from the Yankees has spoken to him (my guess is they have), but he's either not listening, not comprehending or is too arrogant to believe what they're telling him. I was against giving Kennedy away as some were advocating last season, but after this it's clear that something's not getting through and I'd try to rehabilitate his career at Triple A and hope someone wants to ante up a couple of prospects for him. He's a hopeless cause.

• Something strangely funny (and sad) about MLBlogs:

• Much ado about nothing:

1. The "supportive teammates" will stream out in front of ARod (Derek Jeter will be there, although everyone knows that he'd prefer to be spreadeagled and coated with honey over a pair of warring nests of red ants than be at that press conference) along with manager Joe Girardi and GM Brian Cashman; the Steinbrenners won't be there. Making themselves inconspicuous in the background will be the army of lawyers, PR people and image consultants that ARod has employed, along with ex-wife Cynthia. (Madonna will be at power yoga and unable to attend.)
   
2. ARod will give a short statement, adding a bit more flesh to his evasive responses to the softballs Peter Gammons hurled at him, but not saying anything of consequence or, more importantly, to incriminate himself. There will still be a plausible deniability as to the amount of stuff he used, when and from whom he got it. The statement will be rife with contrition and regret and clearly written by someone other than ARod.
   
3. He'll take questions from the press, but won't answer them directly; he'll be more forthcoming than he was in the Gammons interview, will defend himself with a smile and repeatedly apologize for lying to the kids of America who look up to him; to his family and friends. Instead of pulling a Roger Clemens and playing the slugging boxer, trying to do battle with those that dare question his integrity and motives, ARod will dance. Rather than bore in as a two-fisted slugger like Roberto Duran, he'll pull a Sugar Ray Leonard; prancing around, answering but not answering; never being specific and sticking to his script. The press will unload on him afterward, saying that he wasn't more upfront and honest than he was in the Gammons interview, just more slick, more polished and more prepared. He'll be ripped in the media and by anonymous teammates for being a poser and this story will continue to be a distraction throughout camp and at least until the season starts.
   

• On a more interesting note, I did some in-the-trenches research into ARod's choice of PEDs:

    I've resisted doing this, but the actions of the MLBlogs administration has forced me into a detailed list of reasons that I took my work to my own website. It's one thing to be rationally self-absorbed; it's another to unilaterally erase someone as if they've been cast out completely because they made a conscious choice to leave. In yesterday's posting of the MLBlogosphere, community blog, the "rankings" were again listed. My blog, Prince Of New York, which is still on MLBlogs despite my posting of nothing but notes and links to my new home, PaulLebowitz.com, has received enough hits to be at least in the top 15 of their rankings. In what can only be seen as a decision based on my departure, it was omitted completely as if it never existed and doesn't count in their rankings. I haven't wanted to do this; haven't wanted to let my longstanding feelings known about the way the MLBlogs site is handled because there wasn't really a point, but if this is the vindictive way in which the administration is going to run things, I have no choice but to state my case and let readers come to their own conclusion.

• The site is handled unprofessionally and promoted cluelessly:

• The rankings:

• It was a losing proposition in which I was getting almost nothing of consequence from my participation:

• Ken Griffey Jr. a fit for the Mariners, not for the Braves:

• Things that make me grumble:

    In 2006, the MLB radio show had bloggers as guests during the season. I was on the show in early September and did pretty well (I think); when I published my baseball preview a few months later, I e-mailed the producer asking if they'd have me on for a brief segment to publicize the book.
    They didn't say no.
    They didn't say yes.
    They didn't even respond. We're not talking about me contacting Howard Stern, Rush Limbaugh or Mike Francesa; I can't imagine that the baseball show had to be that discriminating with the guests that they couldn't give me ten minutes; and if not, a response would've been nice.
    Now, I don't ask for much, but the very least I expect is a response even if it's to tell me to go screw myself. I'm in a similar situation now and am tempering my rage (as much as I can) to the lack of respect that I feel I deserve for my skills. Has everyone seen the following? It's an ad on Rotoworld.com:

Baseball News Writer Rotoworld is looking for writers to join the staff as paid contributors for the upcoming baseball season.  Previous writing experience is an absolute must, as is significant knowledge of and passion for both baseball and fantasy baseball. Qualified applicants would work under baseball editors Aaron Gleeman and Matthew Pouliot, providing coverage for Rotoworld's player news page that requires the ability to report news with instant analysis and recap games in a clear, concise style.  If interested, please send a brief note about yourself and desire to work for Rotoworld along samples and/or links of your writing experience and a resume to Aaron Gleeman - Agleeman@rotoworld.com.

    I e-mailed the guy twice at both of his addresses that are listed. That was three weeks ago...and nothing. No screw you, Paul. No, not interested Paul. No, we're considering you Paul. Nada. And why would I be qualified for that job? I don't even really mind if they say no. The thing that's most irritating to me is that they don't even respond. It doesn't take much of an effort to get back to someone when they're responding to an ad in a professional context, but there's very little of that in this industry and it's not just unprofessional, it's insulting.
    Maybe someone else reading this would like to take a shot at that job because I'm missing some key element that they're looking for. What that is is anyone's guess. Considering some of the people who do get paid for their work, maybe I'm doing something wrong. Perhaps if I go along the partisan lines that most paid writers do (damning the truth), don't really know what they're talking about or are so lazy that they don't even bother doing the barest amount of fact-checking, then I'll start getting answers. If I crawl into a book of stats; defend Paul DePodesta to my dying day; wait in the basement for the "food hole" to open long enough for my mother to throw some joints of raw meat down the steps, and abandon any form of female companionship whatsoever, that'll do the trick, because this thing of being knowledgeable, witty and eloquent obviously ain't working. 

• Ben Sheets's elective surgery?
  

•  Sandy Alderson to be out as Padres CEO:

    Aside from the fact that they wouldn't be able to use the drugs anymore, the main fear of the players had to be what Major League Baseball was going to do with the tests after they'd been administered, and judging from the leaks, indictments, threats and bluster coming from commissioner Bud Selig on down (his complicity conveniently forgotten in the whole mess) the players fears are proving to be completely reasonable.
    Bud Selig is in no position to be threatening to suspend anyone as he did with Alex Rodriguez; now that he's backtracking with his comments of chastisement saying, among other things, that ARod "shamed the game", he's either proving that he's too stupid to be the commissioner of baseball or that he's absolving himself and the owners for their part in this whole mess. Does Selig really want everyone to believe that they had no idea what was going on when guys who were 160-180 lbs and looked like members of Menudo suddenly started looking like Ray Lewis's baseball playing cousins? That pitchers who were lucky to have even been drafted because of their 82 mph fastballs were suddenly ripping it at 93-94?
    This discipline stuff and righteous indignation that Selig's trying to portray is an act to gain public support and surf on the waves of anger like Laird Hamilton. Selig has no authority to be disciplining anyone anyway; he's the commissioner of baseball; not the NFL, NBA or NHL where the bosses actually have some authority, so he should just sit there with his mouth shut, keep his self-justifying judgments to himself and let the situation play itself out.
    These leaks have realized the fears of thinking players when the testing process was agreed to; players took the tests believing that they couldn't be punished and the results would never be made public; now ARod has seen his reputation destroyed because he was using the drugs and he lied about it; no matter what he did though, he has rights; and those rights are being violated by having his name dragged through the muck because he's the best player in baseball. What about the other names on the list? Why haven't they been leaked? Was it not convenient of the witch-hunt? Or is it simply not convenient yet and whoever has the names is waiting until an appropriate time to unload on some other players using the mere possibility as some sort of hammer to get something out of them?
    When testing began, my first question to the union reps would've been, "Who's going to be in control of the results and how do we know it's not going to come out?" Then I'd want to know what would stop the testers and from seeing if the players weren't just using PEDs; if they wanted to check for cocaine, heroin, meth, pot or whatever; who's going to stop them from testing for other substances that have no bearing on this situation? And then, what's to stop someone in power from going to a recreational drug user, someone who might have endorsements, a family image, and much of his post-career income at stake because of that in jeopardy unless he spills on who was using PEDs and where they got it. What are the boundaries if there are these leaks?
    I'm not defending the players who used PEDs, but the owners and baseball front office did nothing about the usage and, with their promotion of the home run chase and all the money that came along with the increased interest, encouraged it. As bad a person as Barry Bonds is reputed to be, he was clean until he saw that all of his great, clean play was being completely ignored by the drug users who weren't half the players Bonds was, so he said to himself, if that's the way it is, I'll show them who the best player in baseball is, and he did. And is it cheating if everyone's doing it? Bonds would've been head and shoulders above everyone else without the drugs, just as he was with the drugs; so wasn't the playing field level then?
    I've had enough of the tough talk and "disappointed dad" lectures from Selig because he has no power to do anything but talk and he was a major part of this because he was either stupid, blind, complicit or a combination of all three.

*Note: Until I figure a way to put comments on the blogs (if I figure a way) people who want their comments posted prominently should just Email me and I'll write a blog once or twice a week (or more, depending...) with witty retorts. (Or as witty as I can make them, anyway.)

• This is a weird story:

• How about some care in what you're doing?

• Characters who came out looking bad:

• The truth about Alex Rodriguez and Joe Torre:

• Miscellaneous observations from the book:

The Randy Levine situation: Randy Levine was a power-broker in the Rudy Giuliani mayoral administration and was brought to the Yankees to help with the YES Network and paving the road for the new ballpark. Levine also tried to horn in on the baseball operations and Torre told him in no uncertain terms to "Shut the fuck up." Torre claims that after that incident in 2003, Levine was "trying to find a way to get rid of me from that moment on."
    Fair enough, but that was in 2003. How powerful a voice in the organization could Levine have been on the baseball side if Torre was still there until after the 2007 season? It doesn't say much for the effectiveness of Levine in trying to get Torre ousted.

Part of the Yankees downfall was the relaxing of rules to cater to incoming stars: Did Torre want to set the precedent with newcomers like Jason Giambi, Roger Clemens and ARod that it was okay for them to have their own personal fitness gurus and whatever else hanging around with them; holding team credentials and traveling on the road as club employees? The entire Brian McNamee/clubhouse situation could've been avoided by telling Roger, "No, you can't have your own personal trainer hanging around the club because what message does that send to the guys who were here for the first two championships?" The same thing was true with ARod and Giambi. They could've told Giambi that his personal strength coach, Bob Alejo, wasn't welcome and if the $120 million wasn't enough to make him comfortable in New York, then he could go somewhere else, take less money and get his strength coach to come with him. That, more than most anything else, was a major part of the disconnect that started with the dispatching of important championship cogs like Tino Martinez in favor of guys like Giambi.

• Questions from the department of "uh, why?"

“When I arrived at Texas in 2001, I felt an enormous amount of pressure,” Rodriguez told the interviewer, Peter Gammons. “I felt like I had all the weight of the world on top of me and I needed to perform, and perform at a high level every day.

What happened to Alex Rodriguez's rights?
         In case anyone happened to miss it, ARod has been outed as having tested positive for using the banned steroid Primobolan and all hell has broken loose regarding his gaudy numbers----http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/baseball/mlb/02/07/alex-rodriguez-steroids/index.html - Sports Illustrated Story.
        The last time I checked, this was still America; innocent until proven guilty and all that; but ARod has suddenly had his entire life destroyed in what seems an exercise undertaken just for the sake of it because of the ineptitude of the Players Association; the determination of the press to "get" him; and the inevitable leaks that happen in every case and go unsolved, unpunished and accepted without question.
        Whether or not ARod actually used steroids is beside the point. (And I have to say that I believed him when he said he didn't; when he insisted that Jose Canseco's allegations were untrue.) The revelation of Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens having tested positive in the government re-test of the urine samples has some relevance because both are under scrutiny and under possible legal sanction and/or prison time; but ARod never testified under oath; ARod never did anything that would warrant such a zealous attempt to destroy him other than having the audacity to be the best player in baseball and be a public figure (many times embarrassingly so). For what reason was this disclosed other than to add another historic player to the list along with Bonds and Clemens----all three would be Hall of Famers without the drugs----who's going endure what amounts to a public stoning when the union that was supposed to be protecting him and his best interests simply didn't.
        The union's cluelessness is beyond belief. Not only did they allow their players to be subject to this type of scrutiny after the fact, but they completely disregarded their legal right to destroy the tests a year after they were conducted; so while they're more than happy to pressure their players to accept the highest salary regardless of where they actually want to play, they fail to protect the same players who've earned the biggest contracts and, by proxy, made more money for everyone by raising the bar. What was the purpose of keeping the tests when they: A) could have legally destroyed them without penalty; and B) knew that they could come back to cause a scandal just the type that we're seeing now? This is beyond a mistake; this is malpractice and it may cost ARod a deserved trip to the Hall of Fame.
    And what of the Sports Illustrated writer Selena Roberts? She deserves credit for getting this information before anyone else, but considering some of the other stories she's written about ARod, it occasionally appears as if she was somehow mirroring Inspector Harry Callahan as he followed the Scorpio Killer around in the original Dirty Harry. This isn't the first time that Ms. Roberts has gone after ARod, but it is the first time she's nailed him with anything that could tarnish his career. The last story that I remember, written by Ms. Roberts regarding ARod, was in the New York Times on on December 7, 2007 when she essentially accused ARod of being a slumlord because he was the registered owner of some dilapidated and overpriced properties----http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/07/sports/baseball/07roberts.html?_r=1&scp=6&sq=selena%20roberts%20alex%20rodriguez&st=cse - NY Times Story.

    The very idea that ARod would be stupid enough to have anything to do with trying to squeeze every last penny out of lower income people was so absurd that it wasn't even worth discussing; but there were of course the ominous implications within the piece that implied ARod was hiding something with the quote in the story:

"Messages left on the voice mails of Rodriguez and Scurtis at Newport Property Ventures' offices in Coral Gables, Fla., were unreturned. Repeated efforts to reach A-Rod through three layers of publicists - think booby traps around a precious stone - were unsuccessful." 

    All that was missing was the creepy background music to imply guilt no matter the facts.

    I said at the time that the idea of "ARod the Slumlord" was ridiculous and it still is; does anyone believe that ARod would be that stupid? If philanthropy isn't the first thing in ARod's mind, self-preservation would be, and he's not going to open himself up to that kind of scrutiny for a few extra pennies on top of the wealth he's already accumulated. It's just now that Ms. Roberts's stalking of Rodriguez finally paid off with the steroid tests.
    I'm not defending Alex Rodriguez; nor am I saying that it's okay that he lied; okay that he used the drugs; or okay that he engages in any of the other self-destructive behavoirs that are pockmarking his history. What I'm saying is that he has rights; he has the right not to have his legacy tarnished by leaked information; he has the right to a fair trial with all the evidence presented and then see a case proven or disproven. What's happening now is the dragging down of a supposed hero just for the sake of it; just because it can be done, and it's not fair, especially considering it's happening in the middle of a sport that's known as the National Pastime.