Roy Halladay stays in Toronto for now and this could give the Blue Jays ownership the time to let sanity prevail and make the decision to get rid of GM J.P. Ricciardi before he can do any more damage to the organization. It would take a gutty soul to come in after the season and trade Roy Halladay, but if they hire the right guy, he'll have the guts to trade Halladay, keep him and try to win, or let him pitch for the club until mid-season next year and trade him then. Be that as it may, here are today's moves, categorized in: the good, the whatever and the bewildering:

The Good

• A's trade SS Orlando Cabrera to the Twins for minor league INF Tyler Ladendorf:

    Cabrera's played much better over the past couple of months for the A's. He's hitting close to what's normal for him; he's still a good fielder; he's a gregarious, likable guy who's been successful in the post-season before. Cabrera came cheap in terms of money and the player the Twins traded. Ladendorf's numbers so far in his brief professional career aren't encouraging.

    Nick Punto hasn't hit for the Twins this year, but they can cobble a second baseman from Alexei Casilla, Punto and Brendan Harris with Cabrera playing shortstop every day. For the A's, this was a case of, "let's just get something for the guy", and I suppose they did.

•  Mariners trade LHP Jarrod Washburn to the Tigers for LHP Luke French and LHP Mauricio Robles:

    The Tigers have gutted their farm system in trades to acquire the likes of Edgar Renteria, Miguel Cabrera, Dontrelle Willis and Gerald Laird that it's amazing they had anyone left to get an in demand pitcher like Washburn. French has shown the potential to be a pitcher the Mariners could use in some form; Robles is only 20 and in the low minors.

    With the Tigers in first place, a veteran roster and older manager, they needed to try and win now. Does Washburn make that much of a difference? Yes since he's going to be filling the empty spot that was occupied by Dontrelle Willis and jumps immediately ahead of the struggling Armando Galarraga and rookie Rick Porcello. This is all contingent on Washburn continuing to pitch well and as free agency beckons, I'd expect he will. He's got playoff experience too. The Tigers could also have used some bullpen help, but they can address that in August; some names should be available as teams fall out of contention. 

    As said before, the Mariners got something for the future as GM Jack Zduriencik makes clear that the trade for Jack Wilson was made with 2010 in mind. They're contenders neither for the division nor the Wild Card now even though they've had a solid comeback season after 100 losses in 2008. 

• Padres trade RHP Jake Peavy to the White Sox for LHP Aaron Poreda, LHP Clayton Richard, RHP Dexter Carter and RHP Adam Russell:

    White Sox GM Kenny Williams's balls are as big as Jupiter. First of all, if someone rejected a trade to my team the first time as Peavy did to the White Sox in May (for essentially the same package), I wouldn't even bother trying to get him again. Then to acquire a player who's on the disabled list and might not even pitch at all for the rest of the season with a tendon injury in his ankle, well, you have to admire it. Wasn't it a rule that players couldn't be traded while they were on the DL? Didn't it used to be if you were doing it, the player had to be a player to be named later, only named when he was off the DL? 

    No matter what, the White Sox didn't give up the house to get Peavy and the only issue, again, was whether he'd okay the deal and this time he did. I dunno what changed Peavy's mind, maybe he'd had it with the Padres and the fact that they weren't going to contend for at least three years, if then. Peavy's had a long injury history and that motion is terrifying, but logically, his contract is easier for the White Sox to swallow the $52 million guaranteed remaining through 2012 than to sign a lesser pitcher. If he's healthy, he's a devastating addition for relatively little in return, although I like Richard's stuff.

    The Padres managed to get Peavy's salary off the team and get some pitching to fill out their organization. They did as well as could be expected under the circumstances.

•  Indians trade C/1B Victor Martinez to the Red Sox for for RHP Justin Masterson, LHP Nick Hagadone and RHP Bryan Price:

    Martinez bolsters the Red Sox offense at multiple spots since he can play first base and catcher; he's also signed through next year with a ridiculously reasonable $7 million option. The Indians got multiple arms for their system. As good as Masterson looked as a starter and reliever, he was expendable on the Red Sox depth chart with all the pitching they've accrued in their organization; the same for the other young pitchers. The Indians have Kelly Shoppach to catch now and they've brought in a couple of young catchers in their housecleanings over the past two years. it's a great deal for both sides. 

• Nationals trade Nick Johnson to the Marlins for LHP Aaron Thompson:

    Are you aware that the Marlins had called about Roy Halladay? More evidence why the Marlins are the best run organization in the big leagues; they're absolutely fearless and willing to do anything at anytime.

    Johnson allows the Marlins to bring in an on base guy who has pop and is great defensively and they can also shift Jorge Cantu back to third base and make Emilio Bonifacio a utility player. (Keith Law is still scouring the Nationals organization wondering what happened to Bonifacio.) Having a guy with a .400+ on base percentage in front of the Marlins bashers is going to make them an even more legitimate contender down the stretch.

The Whatever

• Red Sox trade 1B Adam LaRoche to the Braves for 1B Casey Kotchman:

    LaRoche played for Bobby Cox before with the Braves and played well. He's got power the Braves needed and he's a fine fielder, but does he make the Braves much better than they were before? No.

    Kotchman's not going to play much for the Red Sox as anything more than a defensive replacement or unless multiple players get hurt.

• Reds trade INF/OF Jerry Hairston Jr to the Yankees for C Chase Weems:

    The best part of Chase Weems appears to be that he has a name that Jim Carrey would have in a Farrelly brothers comedy. He doesn't sound like much of a prospect.

    Hairston's a useful guy to have around; he can play mutliple positions and has some occasional home run power and can run, but let's be honest here, he's not going to play much at all with the Yankees unless someone gets hurt.

• Dodgers trade RHP Claudio Vargas to the Brewers for C Vinny Rottino:

The Bewildering

• Blue Jays trade 3B Scott Rolen to the Reds for 3B Edwin Encarnacion, RHP Josh Roenicke and RHP Zachary Stewart:

    For what purpose do the Reds need Scott Rolen? At his salary (the Blue Jays threw in some cash along with Rolen) and with his injury history, what do the Reds think they're getting? And to trade Encarnacion to get him? Encarnacion is a handful. He's erratic and talented with the glove; he's erratic and talented with the bat; and he's had some attitude problems (which are only going to get worse as he's lost in Canada), but I wouldn't have done this. Reds GM Walt Jocketty also threw a couple of useful arms into the deal to boot! 

    This was a good move by Ricciardi to clear Rolen's salary and get something for him.

    The trade deadline wasn't as much a "deadline" as it's been in recent years. Because of the economy, you won't see much (if any) waiver claims being made as players are put onto the wire. If a guy with a big contract is dangled, he'll get through waivers and trades will be made because if anyone was stupid enough to claim a contract like Barry Zito or Vernon Wells, the Giants or Blue Jays would say, "take him, he's yours". There will be more trades all the way through August. 

• Manny Ramirez and David Ortiz are on the 2003 PED list:

    There are limits to how much one can improve past their natural abilities in their chosen endeavors. No matter how hard they work; how much they study; how diligent they are in their preparation, a David Ortiz can't become Reggie Jackson without going that extra mile. In this era, going that extra mile meant using steroids/HGH and whatever else it takes to be successful.

    Are you seriously surprised? 

    Does this come as a great shock when looking at what Ortiz was with the Twins and what he became with the Red Sox----Ortiz Stats?

    David Ortiz was a good player; a useful guy to have in a lineup; he had some home run power; got on base; and was well-liked in his clubhouse. Was he this machine he became in Boston? Did someone flip a switch to turn him from a guy who hit 20 homers in 466 plate appearances in 2002 and was not tendered a contract by the Twins (a smart organization) into the player who hit, in succession: 31, 41, 47, 54 and 35 homers from 2003 through 2007? In 2008, as more stringent and public testing and suspensions came into effect and more and more players were getting busted, Ortiz hit 23 homers; and now, in 2009, he's got 14 by the end of July, which is pretty much back in line with what he was in Minnesota. Can you----stat zombie or not, Red Sox fan or not----really sit there and act so stunned?

    What people have to understand is that this doesn't diminish the good things Ortiz has done away from the field. It doesn't make him less generous with his money and time; less of a gregarious personality that it was hard for anyone to dislike. It just makes him another in the long line of players who did what it seems everyone was doing to keep their jobs and lied about it; to get a competitive edge; to make a lot of money.

    There are the good (Ortiz, Andy Pettitte, Jason Giambi, Mark McGwire); the bad (Barry Bonds); and the bizarre (Manny Ramirez) who've had their names attached to the PED scandal. Scandals that were allowed and encouraged by the Lords of Baseball, the owners and front office people who relied on the players performing to keep their jobs and make more money. Everyone is implicated whether they openly participated, encouraged or turned a blind eye out of convenience and expediency. No one should be stunned at any name that comes out, no matter whose name it is or how vehemently they deny and decry drug use; Ortiz isn't an exception to this. In fact, his lies/likability could actually make him a case study for the rule----no one is above suspicion.

• The limits of one's physical/mental potential dictate what they can become:

    Years ago, I was trying avidly to become a novelist. The end result was one published, flawed, though readable and in certain passages, dead-on accurate novel (still available if anyone's interested), a creative writing degree (which is essentially useless in becoming a writer unless you find some successful writer/professor who's willing to help you whether you have any talent or not); a couple of other attempts at novels that received either form letter rejections or, in a couple of cases, personal notes that said, "not for us, but keep trying". (Getting one of those is an accomplishment in and of itself.)*

*Just a note about that, this has bothered me for awhile. When you read or see a profile of a successful young author like Joe Hill (Stephen King's son) or that talentless and inept Nick McDonnell, or Elizabeth Kostova and they claim that they got an agent and/or got published "on their own", think about it logically. The books they wrote weren't particularly impressive (and in some cases were atrocious), understanding how hard it is to get an agent or to get published, what are the odds that these people----connected to those in some way who can get them published no matter how mediocre or bad they are----would've managed to make it in their twenties? Think about it. They didn't make it "on their own"; they had help; and there's nothing overtly wrong with that other than that they don't openly admit it and instead try to put forth the myth of a talent and ability that simply is not there.

    I wanted to be like Thomas Harris of Hannibal Lecter fame. I tried to emulate his style; write similarly as he did (this was before he presented us with that terrible project to extract money from his fans with schlock, Hannibal Rising), but it didn't work. I couldn't do it because that's not my voice. I don't write like Harris because I can't write like Harris. Now, could Thomas Harris do what I do? I doubt it. That's just the way it is; is the nature of our abilities and is an allegory of what's happened in baseball.

    So when you take someone who has reached the limits of what they can do, achieved the maximum of their potential and suddenly at an age where they shouldn't be improving on such a grand scale as David Ortiz and so many others did, there's a reason for it. They had to get "help". That help wasn't a new approach; a new venue or a new hitting coach----that help was apparently PEDs.

    How many times have we heard old-time veterans say something to the tune of: "By the time I figured out mentally what I was supposed to be doing, I was too old to do anything about it"? It's the natural progression; it's the way things are supposed to go. David Ortiz wasn't supposed to be this superhero; he wasn't supposed to be anything more than what he was with the Twins, and he wouldn't have been had he not used the PEDs just as everyone else was using the PEDs.

    In truth, there was nothing wrong with Ortiz as the real Ortiz for the Twins. Had he wanted to play clean and be a role model, that would've been enough to have a good career. Maybe that career wouldn't be as memorable as what he's carved out for himself with the Red Sox with the championships, idol-worship, endorsements and books, but good enough. Now, instead of the folk hero he was before his name came out, he's just another name on the scandal list; just another guy who got caught.

    Sometimes when an individual's success or improvement is unbelieveable; when their story is like a fairy tale, there's a reason for it----it's because it's a fantasy; it's because it's not real. Now, Ortiz will pay the price for what he did and see his reputation goes down along with everyone else who's being scapegoated for the PED scandal that won't go away until every name is disclosed and everyone is outed. Instead of Big Papi, Red Sox legend, Ortiz is just another name on an ever-expanding list and no one should be surprised.     

• The worst part of Joba Chamberlain's blossoming as a starter is listening to the stat zombies gloat:

    I wasn't as adamant about Chamberlain being a reliever as others were until a couple of weeks ago after that nightmarish performance against the Angels in Anaheim, but I don't want to hear the stat zombies going on and on about how they were "right" about Chamberlain anymore than the hardcore "Joba As Reliever" brigade does.

    The only reason anyone would babble endlessly about how "right" they were about anything is because they lack confidence and conviction in their beliefs and have to keep beating others over the head about what they think they know. I could sit here for hours and list the things I was right about, but don't because: A) it's boring; B) I've been wrong about stuff too (less stuff, but stuff nonetheless); and C) I believe in my analytical abilities enough to resist the urge to try do a Deion Sanders touchdown dance when I'm right about something. 

    The simplistic idea that Chamberlain "should be a starter until he proves he can't be a starter anymore" is nonsense. When deciding where a pitcher or player should be used you have to take into account his temperament; his motion and potential for injury; his stuff; where he's needed; and most importantly, what he's good at. Until the last three starts, Chamberlain looked like he belonged in the bullpen not just because of his success there in 2007, but because he's emotional and was more poised, confident and outright better out of the bullpen. Now he's pitching well and may make it as a starter. Do we have to hear these self-indulgent, stream of consciousness, metaphysical rants from the zombies because of it? Your agendas, lack of confidence and self-loathing is showing.  

• George Sherrill's no difference-maker:

    The Dodgers have reportedly acquired reliever George Sherrill from the Orioles for two minor leaguers. Sherrill's a useful guy to have around especially since Dodgers closer Jonathan Broxton has a lingering toe injury that could recur and Sherrill can handle the job if necessary; plus Joe Torre can always use another reliever to run out there every day and burn out, but if the Dodgers are going to win the pennant this year, they could use another starter more than a reliever. If the Dodgers do bust through and win the NL this year, it won't be because they acquired Sherrill.

• A history lesson for Matt Garza:

    I was thinking about the Matt Garza admission that he threw at Mark Teixeira in retaliation for Chamberlain throwing over Even Longoria's head and remembered a 1985 Mets-Expos game (24 years ago today, in fact) in which Bill Gullickson threw a pitch over Gary Carter's head. 

    Carter was in his first year with the Mets and it was known that he was despised in the Expos clubhouse for years because of his self-promotion and knowledge of where every camera in the stadium was at all times. Gullickson fired a pitch over Carter's head and Carter stood at the plate with his lips pursed and nodding as if to say, "So it's like that, huh?" When Gullickson was due to bat third the next inning, Gooden made sure to strike out the first two batters and then fired a 95-mph fastball over Gullickson's head. (It was pretty stupid of Gullickson to be throwing at Carter considering he'd have to bat against Gooden later in the game.)

    Nothing further happened and the Mets won the game 2-0 on a complete game shutout by Gooden. After the game, Gooden was scheduled to appear on Ralph Kiner's show, Kiner's Korner. Before the appearance, Keith Hernandez pulled Gooden aside and said (I'm paraphrasing from memory and Keith's book): "I don't know what happened on that pitch Doc, but the ball slipped out of your hand." When Kiner asked about it, Gooden mentioned something about a little moisture getting onto his hand and causing the "accidental" pitch that sailed over Gullickson's head. (Gooden only walked two batters in that game.) 

    The point is that Kiner knew what happened; Carter knew what happened; Gullickson knew what happened; as did the entire rosters, coaching staffs and managers of both clubs. The umpires knew too. The Expos threw at Carter; the Mets retaliated, and that was it. No fights; no suspensions; no nothing. Maybe Matt Garza should take a lesson in "moisture" or some other bullshit excuse for doing what needed to be done. Part of it might have been Garza announcing to one-and-all that he defended his teammate; that kind of self-promotion is prevalent now too. Either way, he should've come up with a cover story.

• Viewer Mail 7.30.2009:

Gabriel Gutierrez writes RE the Blue Jays:

Speaking of housecleaning, Freddy Sanchez to the Giants. Guess that just reduces Blue Jays trading possibilities all around the league (I was thinking about Rios).

    The more I look at it, the more I think the Blue Jays would probably be better off hanging onto Alex Rios. He's durable; has pop, speed and can play good defense; plus his contract isn't that bad (around $72 million or so guaranteed through 2015). Unless they get bowled over in a deal or have someone to replace him within the organization, they'd just have to overpay someone with lesser abilities to replace him.

    If they don't trade Scott Rolen now that everyone is saying how wonderful he is again, they're going to regret it. Whatever they do, it can't counteract that contract they gave Vernon Wells; it's going to haunt them forever. The sick part is that the really big money hasn't even started kicking in yet! He's "only" making $10 million this year; next year it jumps to $21 million.

    Since you mention the Pirates and Sanchez, they're just about done with their housecleaning as they sent Tom Gorzelanny and John Grabow to the Cubs for Kevin (Everybody Duck!) Hart; Jose Ascanio and minor league utilityman Josh Harrison.

    Yikes!!!

    Couldn't they have gotten more for Gorzelanny (14 wins two years ago and pitching well in the minors now) and Grabow, a historically good lefty reliever? I'm willing to give Frank Coonelly and Neal Huntington the benefit of the doubt...to a point, but this is mind-boggling.

Jeff at Red State Blue State writes RE ??????:

I'm sure you're not surprised by all of this (as I am clearly not) but I -- and the rest of your followers -- eagerly await your response... PS, what will the Stat Zombies say?

    Uh. Jeff? I'm no Fulbright. I'm the twit who can't figure out how to Twitter. What are you talking about?       

• While not justifying the Minaya meltdown, it explains it...to a point:

    WFAN Mets beat reporter Ed Coleman is a well-liked guy around the club and at the radio station because he doesn't take cheap shots; nor does he walk around like he owns the place. This is why when he makes a statement about what happened at the disastrous Mets press conference to announce the firing of assistant GM Tony Bernazard, you take what he says seriously. The full posting is available here, but the relevant quotes follow:

 

Here's what happened and what triggered the outburst that stunned everyone. The press conference start time floated, as, it always seems, everything Met-related does - it was 3:00, then 3:30, then 3:45. The SNY Network - killing time - put Rubin on prior to Minaya's appearance. Meanwhile, Minaya was watching, along with several players - some friendly with Bernazard - in the Mets clubhouse. Minaya obviously felt that Rubin was gloating over toppling Bernazard, the blood began to boil, some of the players expressed their displeasure, the anger rose and - voila - you had the perfect storm. Minaya carried it from there to the podium, and the rest is history.

    Of course this is no way justifies what Minaya did, especially if his allegations about Rubin aren't true, but we've all lost our tempers and lashed out at people in an embarrassing way that we wish we hadn't; it just doesn't make headlines and place an already embattled executive under more scrutiny. There's been speculation that Minaya's as good as gone after the season, but I don't get that sense from the way COO Jeff Wilpon is talking. Never mind the contract Minaya signed last year extending him through 2012, there isn't the "dead man walking" feeling hovering around Minaya. That may change over the next two months, but if he is let go, it won't be because of this; and if he's retained, it won't be because of his contract. I think Minaya's going to get 2010 to straighten things out. 

    Regarding Bernazard, Coleman was another person that's around the club who sounds like he wants to throw a party now that Bernazard's gone:

Now for Tony Bernazard. He deserved it, if for nothing else than overseeing a rather barren farm system while being the Vice-President of Player Development. While the Mets suffered critical injuries, the cupboard was bare. But it was much more than that. A people-person Bernazard was not. I always said hello to Tony upon seeing him, regardless of the circumstance. Rarely, if ever, was the salutation returned. The hello was usually ignored. He ruled by intimidation, and treated many subordinates with disdain. He had a legendary temper, which he never seemed to hide very well. I always came away with the feeling that he thought he was better than others - that he had a grand sense of entitlement. If you could do something for him, you mattered - if you couldn't, you didn't. Jose Cruz, the first base coach of the Houston Astros, once asked Tony to speak with his son, Jose Cruz Jr., who was having some issues at the time. Never heard from him. When G.M. Tim Purpura was fired by Houston owner Drayton McLane, Jose finally heard from Bernazard - hey, can you put in a good word for me, can you put me in contact, etc..

Never mind you, what can you do for me lately. One final time - Hi Tony, how's it going? Don't worry, he'll be fine - people like that always make sure they are.

    I may be wrong; I've never met Ed Coleman, but he seems like the type of guy who doesn't attack people for no reason or to say such negative things about someone unless it's earned. If he's putting this stuff in print and shouting "good riddance" as Bernazard cleans out his office, it's clear Bernazard was a big problem that neither Minaya nor Wilpon could see.

• Matt Garza shows why the Twins traded him:

    Every time he gets into a shouting/shoving match with a teammate; screams into his glove while he's out on the mound; or says something stupid as he did last night, Matt Garza provides evidence why the Twins traded such a talented pitcher for another potential clubhouse problem in Delmon Young. The quote from Garza last night, admitting throwing at Yankees first baseman Mark Teixeira in retaliation for a pitch thrown over Evan Longoria's head is going to get him fined and/or suspended at a time that the Rays need to win every game they can if they want to stay within striking distance of a playoff spot:

"They can take whatever they want from it from it, but I just kind of got tired of people brushing him back. It's about time someone made a statement."

I hate to be that guy, but someone had to take a stand and say we're tired of it. You can go after our best guy. Well, we'll make some noise, too, and that's what happened."

    It's smart to defend one's teammates; it's dumb to eliminate plausible deniability while doing it. Garza's behavior doesn't jibe with the Twins way of doing things and while Young hasn't played well for the Twins, at the very least, he's comported himself well while there, unlike with the Rays.

    If Garza's mood swings are this pronounced now, one can imagine what they were like while he was in the minors and you can understand why the Twins were so willing to deal him no matter how talented he is----and he's got Cy Young Award talent. I don't see Joe Maddon as the guy who's going to bridle him either, so the Rays have to deal with him as is. 

• A positive along with a negative and what could be a season-wrecking problem:

    I've been wrong before.

    Yes. 

    I said it.

    Now, after putting forth the caveats about Joba Chamberlain's two previous starts that he didn't exactly pitch to a murderer's row against the Tigers and Athletics, he faced a tough lineup with the Rays and didn't just handle them, he dominated them. Just like it's too soon to automatically anoint Chamberlain the next Roger Clemens after three straight great starts, it's also not a ridiculous notion that he can become a successful starter; instead of people saying how he should be a starter because of this number or that number or this type of contextualized logic, Chamberlain is actually performing as a very good starting pitcher.

    One thing that I'd worry about as Chamberlain is finding his groove is whether the arbitrary "innings-limit" the Yankees have attached to him (no one seems to know exactly what the number is) is going to force them to stick him back in the bullpen just as he's doing the job as a starting pitcher; this would retard any progress he's made and hinder what he's accomplished in the past three starts.

    On a negative note, Chien-Ming Wang had season ending surgery on his right shoulder and there's a thought that the Yankees might cut ties with him after the season rather than have to pay him what he'll get in arbitration (at least the $5 million he's getting this year); if they do cut ties with him, I wouldn't be able to bring him to my organization fast enough because he's got a history of success and has been derailed by injuries, not ineffectiveness. If the Yankees start penny-pinching for an amount of money that won't matter to them one way or the other, someone will get a pitcher inexpensively with two 19-win seasons to his credit who's a great bet to rebound into form.

    I don't want to sound any alarms, but what was wrong with Mariano Rivera tonight? Was it dead arm? Or something else? His velocity was popping at about mostly 87 and his control was totally out of whack. He's been about as durable as brilliant for his whole career, but he's about to turn 40-years-old; it could've been a glitch at mid-season I suppose, but an 87 mph fastball from a guy who's usually at 95 isn't something to ignore. It might be nothing. At least the Yankees better hope it's nothing because they can't win without a healthy Rivera.

• If the stat zombies hate Tony La Russa so much, maybe they'd like Trey Hillman or Bud Black better:

    What the point of ripping Tony La Russa is, I don't know, especially from someone whom I would assume is a Cardinals fan----Fangraphs Blog.

    This confused me much like I was bewildered when people ripped the Mets for trading Jason Vargas in a package to get J.J. Putz, they pointed to all sorts of cute little acronyms to "prove" why Vargas was more valuable than Putz. Putz got hurt; nothing you can do about that; and Jason Vargas, after pitching a couple of good games in May has again become...Jason Vargas. Look at his GameLogs and you'll see why no one's mentioning him anymore----his performance is in line with what he is (what he is is a pitcher who isn't any good) and discussing it hurts their arguments. 

    So, is the author of that blog really going to point to Scott Rolen and Adam Kennedy as reasons why La Russa's personality is a negative to his club? Rolen and La Russa's beef stems from La Russa benching Rolen in the 2006 NLCS. Rolen wasn't hitting and Scott Spiezio was; Spiezio also had shown evidence of turning into a latter day version of a Lenny Dykstra/Dave Henderson in that he found a way to get big hits in the post-season. The Rolen contract is horrendous; he was terrible last year and the Cardinals were happy to get rid of him and to find someone to take that contract. While he's been healthy this year, do you believe that he's going to have two healthy years in a row in 2010? And his power is all but gone. Kennedy's an okay player, but he's not going to be the difference between a championship or not. It's conveniently forgotten that the darlings of the stat zombies, the Rays, let Kennedy go too. 

    It's not as if he's fighting with Albert Pujols. The players La Russa didn't get along with aren't players that can be made more valuable no matter how many UZRs; WORPS; WIPS; WAPPYS; or MAFLUUFLAAS you come up with. Put another manager in that clubhouse and see how many games the Cardinals win; then maybe you'll appreciate what you have.

• On some level, the Pirates clearing the decks reboots their system:

    We'll know within a short time----two years probably----if the Pirates housecleaning was the smart thing to do and Frank Coonelly and Neal Huntington were the ones to do it. With the trade of Freddy Sanchez to the Giants, there's no one left now. It's a shaky manager in John Russell and a bunch of prospects. This isn't a situation like the Marlins where the Pirates have taken their veterans and gotten the best and brightest from other organizations, but the veterans are gone. The players brought in were chosen by Coonelly, Huntington and their staffs. Time will tell if they knew what they were doing. I'd say they don't, but as stated earlier, I've been wrong before.

• Back-to-back examples of the Royals ineptitude:

    I again saw Leo Nunez close a game for the Marlins using a fastball in the 96-98 range with great movement and wondered what Royals GM Dayton Moore could've been thinking when he: A) traded Nunez for Mike Jacobs; and B) thought Kyle Farnsworth would be able to fill Nunez's shoes in his own bullpen. A bit later, Ramon Ramirez pitched a scoreless inning in the Red Sox loss to lower his ERA to 2.28 with very good numbers across the board. For Ramirez, the Royals got Coco Crisp.

    So, what do you think? Would the Royals have been better off playing Kila Ka'aihue and Billy Butler at first base/DH than trading for Jacobs? Would they have been better off filling their center field need from within or signing someone like Jim Edmonds instead of trading Ramirez for Crisp? Would the Royals be in their current mess had Moore done a bit of talent evaluating? They couldn't be much worse, that's for sure.

    Another note about the Marlins: I saw one of their top prospects in Gaby Sanchez and his stance and movements reminded me of Jeff Bagwell. 

    Whether or not the Pirates deals in which they've dispatched a chunk of the veterans they had on their roster (and I'd expect Freddy Sanchez, Ramon Vazquez, John Grabow and possibly Matt Capps to be on the move soon as well) will be seen as successful won't be known for at least three years. Will GM Neal Huntington and team president Frank Coonelly have that long? Well, if ownership is letting them do it, presumably, they'll let them see another Pirates rebuilding process all the way through wherever it leads.

    What's interesting is that while the Pirates are in the midst of a housecleaning, so is Huntington's former club, the Cleveland Indians, where he was an assistant to GM Mark Shapiro. The difference being that Shapiro has a history of cleaning out the house during downturns for his club and has rebuilt them quickly, getting to within one game of the World Series in 2007. Huntington's maneuvers so far have left much to be desired and the implication that Coonelly is more interested in enforcing some of the "innovations" he came up with while working in the MLB front office is making Huntington look like a puppet. Amid the Pirates trading away their marketable veteran players Jason Bay, Xavier Nady, Nate McLouth, Damaso Marte, Adam LaRoche and Ronny Paulino and the general opinion that they didn't get enough for those players, these moves could, in retrospect, be seen as the foundation upon which the Pirates were rebuilt, much like the Indians were in 2001-2003.

    The deal that the Pirates made today as they sent shortstop Jack Wilson and pitcher Ian Snell to the Mariners for veteran utilityman Ronny Cedeno; former top catching prospect Jeff Clement; and three low-level minor league pitchers. One would assume that the Mariners are going to exercise Wilson's contract for next season; he's a very good fielder and has shown in the past that he can hit enough to be a useful part of the lineup. Snell has had some personal issues with depression and has pitched nothing short of horribly since he had two good seasons in 2006 and 2007; there's still something salvageable there and perhaps getting away from the hapless Pirates organization is all Snell needs.

    Cedeno is a journeyman and Clement's stock has dropped since he didn't hit at all last year for the Mariners; couldn't beat out Russell Branyan to play first base this year, and had his path blocked behind the plate by the horrible contract ownership bestowed on Kenji Johjima. As for the minor league pitchers, who knows? Mariners GM Jack Zduriencik has the advantage of not being beholden to any of the players drafted by the previous regime, so he can deal them at will. This does improve the Mariners a lot from Yuniesky Betancourt at shortstop and if they can get Snell back to where he was a few years ago, it's a great move.

    Shapiro's strategy of cleaning house wasn't lost on Huintington. In the span of three years, the Indians fell from the AL Central champs in 2001 to 94 losses in 2003 as they dispatched Roberto Alomar to the Mets, let such longtime stalwarts as Omar Vizquel, Jim Thome and Kenny Lofton leave via free agency; and made the franchise reviving deal of Bartolo Colon to the Expos for Grady Sizemore, Cliff Lee and Brandon Phillips. They also replaced veteran manager Charlie Manuel with Eric Wedge and by 2005, they'd rebuilt from those 94 losses to 93 wins; then in 2007, they lost in game seven of the ALCS. The question is does Huntington: A) know what he's doing as Shapiro does; and B) have the freedom to do what needs to be done without Coonelly interfering? We won't know for at least three years, if then and will the remaining Pirates fans even care at that point after another three years of 90+ losses?

    As for the Lee trade to the Phillies, this is another typical Shapiro move to clear out a veteran at his top value and take advantage of circumstances. The Indians sent Lee and Ben Francisco to the Phillies for pitchers Carlos Carasco and Jason Knapp; catcher Lou Marson and shortstop Jason Donald. (I'd expect Victor Martinez to be the next Indians veteran to go.) The Phillies gave up a lot to get Lee, but they managed to keep top pitching prospect Kyle Drabek out of the deal and have a legitimate top-of-the-rotation starter for the rest of this year and next year at a reasonable rate contractually ($8 million). What the Phillies need Ben Francisco for, I don't know.

    I wouldn't go so far to say that the Phillies are World Series favorites because of this; Roy Halladay's a better pitcher than Lee, but with the way they hit, they could be able to ride Lee, Cole Hamels and the cast of middling starters they currently have and bash, bash, bash their way through the playoffs at least to the World Series.

    How this affects the Blue Jays as they try to trade Halladay is that it either leaves them keeping Halladay until the winter; trading him within the division to the Red Sox (their offer was pretty substantial, though not as lucrative as J.P. Ricciardi's demands from the Phillies, Angels and Dodgers) or hope a team panics and guts their farm system for Halladay. I don't think Ricciardi is going to let divisional rivalries affect his decision to trade Halladay to the Red Sox or Yankees; at this point, what's the difference?

    Overall, the Indians are getting what they want as they accumulate prospects; the Phillies get an established star pitcher; the Pirates get rid of another veteran; the Mariners get a proven shortstop at a reasonable price and a very talented pitcher. We'll see within days what happens with Halladay and after all that's gone on so far, nothing would surprise me.        

• If everyone's asking for Kyle Drabek, maybe the Phillies should just bring him up:

    Kyle Drabek is the sticking point in the negotiations between the Phillies and Blue Jays for Roy Halladay and the deal is in a holding pattern to the point that the Phillies have begun engaging in conversations with the Indians about Cliff Lee. If they're not trading Drabek for Halladay, they're absolutely not sending him to Cleveland for Lee, but Indians GM Mark Shapiro is more flexible (and smarter) than J.P. Ricciardi of the Blue Jays, so if Shapiro decides to deal Lee, the Phillies are as likely as anyone to nab the reigning AL Cy Young Award winner. But have the Phillies actually considered the simplest and cheapest solution? Kyle Drabek.

    Drabek was moved up to Double A earlier in the year and his total record for the season is 11-2 with excellent numbers across the board. Drabek had Tommy John surgery two years ago and is still only 21; while he may not be completely ready for the big leagues, what's the harm of bringing him up and giving him a shot rather than gutting the farm system to get Halladay or Lee?

    There's been talk that Drabek still needs some polish (don't we all?) and that he's mouthy (he'd better not be mouthy in that clubhouse unless he wants to be surrounded by Raul Ibanez, Jimmy Rollins, Ryan Howard, etc.), but with the Phillies offense, he'd only have to be adequate to fill one of their rotation spots. They've had Jamie Moyer in their rotation for this long knowing that there's a great chance of him getting shelled, why not try the youngster?

    It's not as if Drabek would be going to Toronto for Halladay straight up. Ricciardi's demands are Drabek and J.A. Happ to start with, plus a couple of other Phillies prospects. As great as Halladay is, that's a lot to give up for a guy who's never pitched in one post-season game, ever. The Phillies are hesitating and I don't blame them; but has the thought crossed anyone's mind that if Drabek's this good, then maybe he's the answer after all.

• Don't just take most of the stat zombies statements with a grain of salt; ignore them completely!!!

    Oh look, one of the darlings of the stat zombies-----Russell Branyan----about whom they nearly separated their shoulders patting themselves on their collective backs a month ago as he was having his career year, has seen his average drop from .303 on June 28th to .264 now; his on base percentage has dropped from .400 to .362; and he's hit five homers in a month. Along with his always-massive strikeout numbers, Branyan has----surprise!!!!----reverted into exactly what he's always been for most of his career. So now, as the zombies go on and on about how bad a move it would be for any contending team to make a move on Bronson Arroyo, listen at your own risk.

    Is Arroyo a top-of-the-rotation starter? No. Is he worth the money ($11 million for next year plus whatever's he's owed for this year)? Not for a team with a budget. But the idea that Arroyo would be a disaster for the Yankees is ridiculous. That his contract would be negligible for the Yankees to take on is beside the point. He's handled the AL East before; he's been a good post-season pitcher (mostly); he's fearless; and he's loved pitching in the spotlight.

    Some see it as a frailty that Arroyo's template is that he's either going to pitch great or he's going to get shelled; I look at it as a positive; at least you know what you're getting. With the still existing questions about Joba Chamberlain as a starter; with Chien-Ming Wang looking increasingly like he's not going to pitch again this year and the Yankees functioning with Sergio Mitre----Sergio Mitre!!!----as one of their starters, they could get a pitcher to start the fourth game of a post-season series just by agreeing to take Arroyo's contract; then they could move Chamberlain to the bullpen for the playoffs to join Phil Hughes to create a devastating set-up crew that no one can match. 

    This is just another example of these unqualified fools making a statement, pulling numbers out of their asses and trying validate themselves by acting indignant at the mere suggestion of doing something they disagree with. Here's my advice: ignore them because they don't know what they're talking about. 

• Viewer Mail 7.28.2009:

Joe at Statistician Magician asks RE Billy Beane:

Let me ask you a question: Do you think that the signings of Cabrera and Giambi were bad signings? There was really no long term risk, and I can see where both could have fit in, especially for cheap short term deals...

    Whether or not the signings of Jason Giambi and Orlando Cabrera were good ideas or bad ideas is irrelevant. If you look at the text and point of Moneyball, it's implied that Beane is infallible; that he's almost never wrong; that he and his brethren are the new breed of executives who are going to put the old-school guys out to pasture and render them worthless. Now we hear Beane almost whining like the Hollywood superstar or worldwide rock star with the equivalent of "be careful what you wish for" and how horrible it is to be so revered. Is he really wondering why there's a backlash with all the people who were disparaged in that book with Beane's complicity and underlying approval, intentional or not? 

    What exactly did he think that Michael Lewis was going to write? He knew Lewis was there to observe how he ran the club with so little money; he partook in the way he was portrayed knowing how it was going to come out. What kind of book would it have been if it was presented more truthfully? That the Moneyball system is only a strategy that cannot work if it's taken to its logical conclusion as presented in the book. Beane would have to be pretty stupid if he didn't realize how this was going to look. The entire thing was designed to make Beane, Paul DePodesta, J.P. Ricciardi and everyone else look like they're the smartest guys in the room and if you don't do what they're doing, you'll get trampled. It hasn't worked that way, has it?

    He brought Cabrera in because he was cheap. He brought Giambi in because he too was cheap and he still gets on base, but he also brought him in as a sentimental move which the heartless executive in Moneyball never would've done. It's a pretty easy life if an executive can do whatever he wants because someone like Lewis----who doesn't know much of anything about baseball----wrote that Beane was a genius and people believed it.Hell, I believed it. He was validated by that designation for so long that he functioned without any criticism. You want to trade your veteran starting pitchers for prospects? Okay. You want to fire one manager after another? You're the boss. You want to be aggressive when you probably shouldn't? Fine. You want to benefit from the fame with speaking engagements and accolades and worship as the team is floundering? Hold on a minute...

    It works until people start to question what he's doing because the actions of the "genius" aren't working on the field anymore. Now he doesn't want the attention. Now he's showing a thin skin. Now he's backing away from the book to which he's attached forever. As I said yesterday, it doesn't work that way, my friend. You broke it, you bought it and right now, the Athletics are a bad team being run poorly. Going forward, maybe all of that young pitching will turn them back into the 100-win team they were in the early part of the decade, but they might not. Regardless, he's got to live down that book because it probably did more harm than good even if the true results of the narrative are only beginning to be understood and taken for what they are-----there's no genius in the business of building a baseball team, not even the exalted Billy Beane or Bill James for that matter.  

• The reasons for the Mets reluctance to hire Minaya in 2003 become clearer and clearer:

    When the Mets fired Steve Phillips, their initial intent was to hire Omar Minaya to handle the personnel and let Jim Duquette function as the "press conference guy" or face of the franchise. Now, with every excruciating, awkward and fractured Minaya press conference, we start to see why. When they finally did demote Duquette and hired Minaya late in the 2004 season, the organization felt they didn't have a choice but to give Minaya control of the whole show and would deal with whatever went wrong with Minaya's weaknesses as best they could.

    The talk of Minaya not doing a good job in finding players is ludicrous; he is and always has been an excellent talent evaluator; that, his likability and charm are some of the reasons that he's a solid guy to have in an organization; but it's his difficulty with expressing himself in times of trouble and use the necessary spin doctoring during press conferences that could be his downfall.

    As I said yesterday, I have no idea whether Minaya's accusations toward NY Daily News reporter Adam Rubin are accurate; if they stemmed from Minaya wanting to unload on someone for having to fire his friend Tony Bernazard; or that he was trying to say something that came out wrong. Minaya is fine when he's charming the press with his winning smile, smooth wardrobe and charisma, but it's when he's trying to represent the organization and should be talking in corporate circles as his crosstown counterpart Brian Cashman does (and is so adept at), Minaya sounds like a child presenting a speech in front of an assembly and failing miserably.

    It's not just the awkwardness nor the problems he has with his second language, English; it's that the cringeworthy turn of a simple announcement of a necessary dismissal turned into a whole new mess for the organization to dig out from under. It's certainly understandable that when he agreed to return to the Mets, Minaya wanted to not only be the procurer of players, but the guy who speaks to the press and gets his picture taken when things are going well; on the flipside, it's also clear that the organization was concerned that if these press conferences became necessary, this isn't Minaya's strength. Duquette could handle that; Phillips was great at it; Minaya's not.

    There's no solution here. The Mets aren't going to demote Minaya; nor are they going to bring in someone to speak for the GM at these press conferences when they have to be held (and they always have to be held, like it or not, with every organization) because that would be the equivalent of castrating their GM. The only thing they can do is hope that this blows over and try to get Minaya to understand the need for saying something without saying anything at all. By now, with Minaya in his 50s, the nuances of the language are going to be tough for him to navigate, so I wouldn't even try to address it. All the Mets can do is weather the storm and hope it doesn't happen again.

• Giants acquire Ryan Garko:

    The San Francisco Giants are proving that a farm system can be rebuilt quickly.

    It wasn't long ago, during the waning days of the Barry Bonds-era and the Giants were rightfully referred to as the "geriatric" Giants for continuously bringing in the likes of Omar Vizquel to "build around Barry" and try to win immediately. Now, with a farm system loaded with prospects, the Giants were able to trade one----class A lefty pitcher Scott Barnes----to the Indians to get a veteran bat in Ryan Garko.

    I've always liked Garko as a hitter. He's got pop and can play first base and either corner outfield spot. He's also a hard-nosed player who's had post-season experience and success. Garko pummels left-handed pitching and hits right-handed pitching solidly; while he's not a huge impact bat the level of an Adrian Gonzalez, the Giants have done pretty well so far with a lineup devoid of any power and lots and lots of pitching. Barnes is at least 2-3 years from the big leagues and the Giants are contending for a Wild Card now. Plus they have a load of pitching in their system. This is a great move for now as the Giants beef up their offense for the stretch run.

• THE PADRES LOSSOMETER: 62

    What makes this whole mess worse is that the Padres started the season 9-3 and enjoyed a nine game winning streak in May to put them over .500 at 24-23. Do you think this roster go 25-37 the rest of the way and avoid losing 100 games? Neither do I. My prediction of 56-106 was in jeopardy earlier in the season, but they might make it-----or they might even be worse!

• THE CURSE OF CAMMI, Red Sox 8-Athletics 3:

• The Mets press conference to fire Tony Bernazard descends into near chaos:

    The Yankees have been referred to as "The Bronx Zoo" and a circus; so after today, what are the Mets? A sideshow? A traveling carnival? What?

    In what should've been a cathartic, controversy-quelling and necessary press conference in which GM Omar Minaya announced the firing of assistant Tony Bernazard, a whole new dynamic was added to the equation as Minaya accused the NY Daily News reporter Adam Rubin of lobbying for a job in player development and kinda, sorta implied that Rubin's breaking of so many stories relating Bernazard's antics was a byproduct of trying to get Bernazard's job.

    Yeah. 

    It happened.

    I saw it.

    After this disclosure and that Minaya felt he had to investigate (he said the word a bunch of times again) the Bernazard incidents a bit closer because it was Rubin who was breaking the stories, the room was flabbergasted at the very idea that this accusation could be: A) possible and B) announced in such a way. When asked to be specific in his charges against Rubin, Minaya said that he didn't think that Rubin was trying to get Bernazard fired to get his job or get a job in the organization.

    What all of this means is anyone's guess. Was it a retaliation from Minaya for doing something he didn't want to do? Was it a genuine belief on Minaya's part that Rubin was angling for a job with the organization in general and Bernazard's job specifically? Or was it another example, similar to his repeated use of the word "investigate", of Minaya having trouble expressing himself clearly in his second language, English?

    No matter what, it's a mess.

    Would I be surprised if a reporter was trying to angle his way into getting a job with an organization? No. Do I think it happens? Of course. Is Adam Rubin stupid enough to plan and scheme and intentionally get at Bernazard by breaking these stories? It's a ridiculous idea. First of all, it was Bernazard who behaved that way and Rubin who reported it. What was Rubin doing? Hypnotizing Bernazard to be a lunatic? To be an abusive and obnoxious presence in the Mets organization that few seemed to like? Did Rubin somehow say something to Bernazard every day to work him into an angry frenzy like an abused child so he could take his frustrations out on others as part of some grand plot to "get" Bernazard? It's insanity. 

    I can't imagine that a Mets hierarchy, looking to douse a fire, expected Minaya to come charging into the room with a figurative bomb strapped to his body to take out those that forced the firing of his friend, and the thing about the figurative suicide bombing to get one's enemies that Minaya is forgetting is that the person who detonated the bomb does dispatch his enemies, but he gets dispatched as well. One has to wonder if this is the beginning of the end for Minaya with the Mets because this ain't good and you can't win if you take on the media. 

    On the note of a reporter actually lobbying for a job with an organization he's covering, it is, at the very least, inappropriate. I've never done that and I'm not even a reporter. (I consider myself more of an analyst/agent provocateur/evil genius.) The only thing I've ever done is to openly say I'd love the Washington job because there's nowhere to go but up and the access to power would be immeasurable for the person or persons who turned around that team in that town. I have no idea whether Rubin could do a job in player personnel; considering some of the people who are currently employed throughout baseball who have no idea what they're doing, how much worse could Rubin be? 

• Speaking of which, it's time for your daily dose of Moneyball:

    Howard Bryant writes and says intelligent things much of the time, but this article is taken out of context and twisted----just like Moneyball itself.

    I'm not going to get into a point-by-point refutation of Bryant's article, but what I will say is that it's strangely convenient how Billy Beane is suddenly distancing himself from the book when he reveled in the attention and money that it brought him. It's also convenient how Sandy Alderson is quoted; Paul DePodesta and J.P. Ricciardi are held up as examples of the way Moneyball has changed the game, but not one word is included about their results in running teams since the book was published. In short, those results are not good and it's fact, not opinion.

    You can't have it both ways, my friend. If you're going to take take the credit, the blame comes along with it. Beane can't distance himself from the book that easily because he participated in it and used the notoriety to advance his standing to the heights he could never reach as a player who never fulfilled massive potential. His team is currently terrible because of decisions he made. He can't run from it. Beane and Moneyball are intertwined forever. Just as they should be. 

• If you do it, you'd better not screw it up:

    The Padres are in a position that they have to look at their best assets and try to maximize them. They've tried to do that with Jake Peavy several times and have either sabotaged it themselves by being too demanding (as they were with the Braves in the winter) or had Peavy block the deal (as he did with the trade to the White Sox). The ghost of Sandy Alderson and his mismanagement is haunting the franchise months after his departure as he betrayed one of the Moneyball tenets that he should've adhered to----no no trade clauses!!!! Now the Red Sox have come calling to try and pry Adrian Gonzalez from the Padres to fill their lineup hole and get themselves a young, financially inexpensive star power bat. This is a risky proposition to even be discussing for the Padres for several reasons and if they do it, they'd better make sure that they're getting massive quality in return.

    There are few teams that have the organizational depth to be able to satisfy the demands of the Padres for a player of Gonzalez's age, reasonable contract and production. The Red Sox have it; the Angels have it; the Braves and Marlins have it. The Padres are in a position that they don't have to trade Gonzalez and would have to be bowled over to pull the trigger; this one move could exponentially improve the Padres in one shot and if someone makes that kind of offer, the Padres have to take it.

    Because Gonzalez is one of the best players in baseball; is so cheap and young; and is from San Diego, the concern is that the Padres fans would revolt if he was traded. I think this belief is unfounded. The fans didn't blink when the franchise was systematically demolished by Alderson and his minions; if they receive a bounty for Gonzalez, it'll be easier to swallow since they have a new owner in Jeff Moorad who helped turn around very quickly a.Diamondbacks club that lost over 100 games in 2004. It also helps that Alderson is gone. They're in a very strong position to do something bold in dealing Gonzalez. 

    Another aspect that has to be considered is who's making the deal. GM Kevin Towers has an up-and-down resume as the longtime Padres GM. The deal that brought Gonzalez and Chris Young from the Rangers for Akinori Otsuka and Adam Eaton could be considered one of the biggest heists in the history of the game. (Although Rangers GM Jon Daniels has more than redeemed himself with the trades he made of Mark Teixeira and Eric Gagne, he probably wants to crawl into a closet and hide when thinking about the Gonzalez trade.)

    Towers's ability to function as a GM was compromised by the presence of Alderson and Paul DePodesta scrutinizing and interfering in everything he tried to do. One has to wonder how much Towers's executive incarceration of going along to get along and keep his job in the Padres dysfunctional structure has hindered his judgment. It's not as if Towers had done particularly well in the draft even before Alderson's arrival, so his talent recognition skills are rightfully questionable.

    As for Gonzalez, he might welcome a trade away from San Diego. The team isn't going to be any good for at least 2-3 years; they're not going to pay him as lucratively as a bigger market club would; it's not easy playing in one's hometown; and, judging from his concerns about family members in nearby Mexico possibly being kidnapped, he'd be better off on the East Coast.

    It's something that the Padres don't have to do, but in the end it might be better for everyone if they did it. The one warning attached is that it's like stealing third in the late innings of a close game----you'd better make it. Or else.

• THE PADRES LOSSOMETER (which I lapsed yesterday): 60, 61

•   Speaking of the trade market...

    Erik Bedard has such wicked stuff that he should be a perennial 15-game winner; but he's always hurt and, by many accounts, is a jerk. The trade made by former Mariners GM Bill Bavasi to get Bedard was well-intentioned and could've worked had Bedard been able to stay healthy, but the mistake Bavasi made was expecting Bedard to stay healthy. It only makes things worse that the players Bavasi sent to the Orioles are all flourishing----Adam Jones and George Sherrill have been All-Stars; Kam Mickolio is big and has great potential; and Chris Tillman has dominated in the minors and was just called up. Now Bedard's back on the disabled list, hindering Mariners new GM Jack Zduriencik's attempts to trade him. It's a lost cause with Bedard.

    On some level, as weird as it sounds, Bedard deserves some begrudging credit because he didn't do what many other free agent-to be players do in staying healthy for that one year before big money is in the offing. Bedard is going to have trouble getting a long-term contract in this economic climate with his injury issues, so perhaps he and the Mariners can come to a short-term solution for a 1-year extension. As many negatives as Bedard has, he's worth a shot on a short contract. After everything that's gone wrong since he went to Seattle, he owes them something, and maybe a reasonable contract for 2010 is it. (Judging from Bedard's behavior, don't expect it unless he has no other choice.)

• Steve Phillips should keep his opinions to himself about the Mets front office:

    On the one hand, since he worked there for so long, ESPN analyst Steve Phillips is uniquely qualified to comment about the Mets front office issues; on the other hand, considering how Phillips himself was part of that dysfunction and used the way things are done in Flushing to his advantage, he should limit his opinions to what's known about the Tony Bernazard situation. 

    In this Bob Klapisch column, Phillips comments on his experience with the acrimony that is seemingly encouraged in the Mets front office from ownership on down; how power plays and back channel influence is part of the culture. Phillips was there and knows what he's talking about, but because he took part in it as he weaseled his way out of being fired when manager Bobby Valentine was shown the door even though it was thought that if one went, both went, he should recuse himself from getting too deeply into the issue. Phillips was fired six months later when he should've been dumped along with Valentine. (Valentine's bewildered response----"And Steve stays?"----is classic Bobby V.)

    The "insider's" perspective Phillips can disclose has value, but it's not as if he was this innocent executive caught in the crossfire. While he did a good overall job as Mets GM (contrary to popular belief), Phillips himself put the organization in the position that they had to defend themselves against a sexual harassment lawsuit for a consensual affair Phillips had with a Port St. Lucie staffer and the club could've (and probably should've) fired Phillips for the incident, but didn't.

    Bernazard needs to go, but considering how Phillips benefited from the Mets reluctance to fire people who should be fired, he's in no position to judge the way the Mets do business especially since he would've been out of work had they followed through on the "fire first, ask questions later" strategy of running the club that many are now advocating with Bernazard. 

• Viewer Mail 7.27.2009:

Jane Heller at Confessions of a She-Fan writes RE Michael Kay's buffoonery:

I was thinking the same thing when Michael Kay made that comment about the bullpen. Hilarious. For all he knew, they were swapping dessert recipes!

    Michael Kay lives in imagination-land.

Jeff at Red State Blue State and Joe at Statistician Magician write RE Bill James's essay about steroids:

From Jeff: While I respect James for what he is and what attention he's gotten (in the end he's just like the rest of us who want to be heard) his statement on PEDs is ridiculous. You're right, Prince, if it was just a case of guys being younger, than McGwire and Sosa would've done what they did in the primes of their careers, not when they were getting their AARP cards. And Clemens would've been ranching cattle rather than winning WS titles with the Yankees. While I was a part of it -- buying tickets and merchandise in the mid to late 90s at a rampant pace -- I have to say that now, in its aftermath, the steroid era has been harmful to the game and its overall image. I'm just glad I don't have a HOF vote. I'll let the someone else sift through the mess.

From Joe: I'm a stat guy, and I don't really like the essay that much either other than the fact that it is a baseball opinion I respect writing something new.

    The stat zombies who are beholden to James and are reluctant to criticize him even when he writes stuff like that, diminishing their credibility even more (if they had any to begin with). I'm not sure why people feel the need to kiss the guy's ass and treat every utterance like it's gospel.

• Bill Madden writes the following about Bill James’s essay regarding steroids:

The stat geek Bill James, who has made a fortune taking credit for having invented on-base percentage, last week revealed to the waiting world his position paper on steroids in baseball, which, essentially says that there is no harm in steroids and steroids have had no harm on baseball.

Mind you, this is coming from a guy who is employed by the Red Sox as a special assistant to GM Theo Epstein: "One of the characteristics of the steroid era was that we had several dozen players who continued to improve beyond the normal aging time frame, so that many of them had their best seasons past the age of 32. … But what does it mean? It means that steroids keep you young. … Well, if steroids keep you young, what's wrong with that?"

James goes on to say that he believes the Baseball Writers Association will eventually come to the same conclusion - that steroids didn't enhance performance, merely prolonged it, and that they will eventually vote all of the steroid cheats - Barry Bonds, Sammy Sosa, Roger Clemens, Mark McGwire, Rafael Palmeiro - into the Hall of Fame where they belong, ignoring evidence that the performance of some steroid users actually improved over time. He also said steroid users will be called "pioneers" in the future, when everyone in America, he said, will be on the drugs.

This is just what Bud Selig needs as he desperately tries to enforce and enhance baseball's drug policy and hold the game up as a model for young kids. I can only suppose James also agrees with Carl Everett that dinosaurs never existed and men never walked on the moon.  Then again, didn't he just tell us a couple of years ago that teams would be more successful bringing their closers into the game in the seventh inning, and that bullpens-by-committee were the way to go? Obviously, the resident baseball stat geek wants to make sure all big stat players, however performance-enhanced those stats were, are properly enshrined in Cooperstown.

    I would expect the rabid and fanatical stat zombies----for whom Bill James is their Jesus Christ, Muhammad or whichever symbol you choose ----are going to attack Madden viciously for daring to disparage the object of their worship.

    I find James a bit much to take sometimes with his obnoxious and condescending pomposity; that and the number of would-be “experts” he’s spawned, who are doled out credibility as part of the vicious circle of having been involved somehow with Bill James. They’ve had contact with James and been validated by Bill James, therefore they know what they’re talking about, even if they don't. One thing has little to do with another. Such a pyramid is painful, especially when many of the descendants of the main stat zombie are clownish, abusive, hypocritical and don’t know much of anything about baseball in their own right other than what a calculator tells them. That being said, while the essay contains some off-the wall claims worthy of Sarah Palin, Dick Cheney and George W. Bush,  James is taken slightly out of context by Madden.

The essay is available here in PDF form.

    I tend to believe that steroids are not dangerous if they’re taken in the proper dosages administered by medical professionals. As I’ve said before, the old-school bodybuilders who were doing the drugs in the 60s and 70s didn’t have the health problems that later cropped up when HGH and the out-of –control use of diuretics, combined with  the massive overdosing and stacking that led to the deaths of bodybuilders Andreas Munzer and Mohammed Benaziza to name two. The wrestling world has had its own share of high-profile deaths that have been blamed on PEDs, but the abuse heaped on a pro wrestler’s body , the travel and recreational/party drugs they ingest play more of a part than baseline, bodybuilding and performance-enhancing steroids ever could. James’s view, however, is simplistic when he says that the commonality of the drug use will somehow validate the players who used them. It’s bizarre logic.   

    What’s even stranger is when he asserts that voters in the future will look past the scandals that have swallowed the careers of Roger Clemens, Rafael Palmeiro, Sammy Sosa, Barry Bonds, et al. The idea that the main advantage that comes from PED use is that “steroids keep you young” is out of left field. I don’t think the age of the players had anything to do with how they suddenly began hitting 60-70 home runs; if it did, wouldn’t they have been hitting them when they were in their early 20s and playing clean? The home runs numbers came as a direct result of the drug use, thereby making the drugs responsible for the increase.

    If you’d like the make the argument that the drugs weren’t even banned by major league baseball, so the players who accumulated those numbers through their application have no reason to be denied entry into the Hall of Fame, then that is a viable case to make. This becomes a slippery slope as to whether baseball didn’t have to ban the drugs because the drugs were illegal in this country unless a doctor prescribed them for a specific reason. And what if the players procured and used the drugs in a country where they were perfectly legal and sold over the counter in any corner drug store? Once you get into morality and ambiguity, there's no end to the debate.

    I’m of the opinion that only players who were caught after having failed a drug test should have that impact their case for enshrinement. Under those auspices, Rafael Palmeiro, Alex Rodriguez and Manny Ramirez are the only ones who are part of that group right now.

    Then there’s the James theory of the movement of societal boundaries as in his chosen example of sex on TV. Whereas married couples were shown to sleep in different beds on such shows as I Love Lucy, the line has moved to the point where we’re not all that far from showing full nudity and more. If, as James suggests, everyone is eventually taking a steroid-like substance to stay young, then those that are deciding on the Hall of Fame candidacy of the above-mentioned players are more likely to shrug their shoulders at the idea. I don’t believe that will happen.

    If the voters are looking at the numbers as some do today and notice someone like Bonds, who was a Hall of Famer before he injected anything, suddenly became superhuman in what should’ve been the twilight of his career; or Clemens, whose career was almost over when he left the Red Sox; or Palmeiro, who was a slap hitter who had the power to hit 15 homers; or Sosa, or McGwire or any of the names in question, they’re going to notice that they exploded statistically and physically at the time that the drugs became accessible and prevalent and most are not going to reward the players for doing them.

    James can defend the idea of steroids being part of an improvement in the human condition, but I doubt those that are paying attention to the way the numbers have collapsed to the point that 35 homers is going to lead the league and players aren’t able to function past their sell-by date as they did when they were 25 are going to just let all that go as a matter of progress and vote the suspected “cheaters” into the Hall of Fame.

    Now that I think about it, I have an award to present:

• THE GEOFF BAKER AWARD FOR POMPOUS ARROGANCE GOES TO: BILL JAMES

• Designation of terms----stat geek vs stat zombie:

    I don't simply prefer the term "zombie" over "geek" because I'm trying to be different. I prefer it because it's more applicable. The definitions of the words follow.

zombie-a person who appears to be lifeless, apathetic, or totally lacking in independent judgment

geek- a. A person regarded as foolish, inept, or clumsy. b. A person who is single-minded or accomplished in scientific or technical pursuits but is felt to be socially inept.

    I do not believe that the majority of those that are either considered stat geeks or stat zombies are stupid, foolish or inept. I do believe that they are so invested in their stated strategies and dogmatic in defending them that they've hypnotized themselves and abandoned any pretense of independent thought to force themselves onto others.

    Like any fanatic, a zombie's brain is gone. They prefer to subvert any individuality in favor of the almighty numbers. There's no arguing with them; no debate allowed; and they respond to those that dare disagree with them with ridicule and arrogance. I think the term "zombie" fits far more neatly into the profile of these poor souls than "geek" does.  

• Michael Kay in Wonderland:

    From anyone else the following bit of naïveté and “tra-la-la” world of fantasy might’ve come off as somewhat sweet, but from Michael Kay, it elicited the response of, “What the hell are you talking about?”

    In brief, the Yankee broadcast caught the members of the Yankees bullpen discussing something that looked to be about pitching mechanics. They were in a semi-circle and pantomiming their stretch positions. This led Kay to declare (I’m paraphrasing), “that brings a team closer together.”

    How he would know that is anyone’s guess.

    He hadn’t the faintest clue as to what they were really talking about; they could’ve been talking about some sex position for all he knew. Having sat in bullpens, I can tell you that it’s one of the most boring enterprises in all of baseball at any level. There are only so many women you can leer at; stretching exercises you can do; word games you can play; and stories you can tell. The amount of fun that a team’s bullpen has is largely dictated by the bullpen coach. Yankees bullpen coach Mike Harkey doesn't look like the most light-hearted guy in the world and the days of guys being able to stage classic reenactments of their favorite WWE matches from the late 90s went out the window with the cameras that are stationed in every team’s bullpen.

    One of the reasons (in addition to money) that so many pitchers want to be the designated closer is because they get the privilege of lounging around doing whatever until the sixth or seventh inning. Dennis Eckersley used to sit in the clubhouse in his shorts before ambling out to the bullpen. It's a great job. So while mechanical and strategic discussions do go on, this Pollyanna, hackneyed and tiresome storybook angle that the members of the Yankees bullpen were going to grow closer together from that one moment existed only in the empty mind and fertile imagination of Michael Kay, buffoon extraordinaire.

• Why does baseball allow the players from the Asian countries to have a translator everywhere they go when they have to speak English by now? 

    The Spanish-speaking players don’t have translators everywhere they go, so why do the players from Japan, Korea and Taiwan? In last night’s Mets-Astros game, David Wright was on second base and Kaz Matsui came over and started chatting with his former Mets teammate. Now, unless they had those earplugs with translators relating what their counterpart said in their native language on the fly like at the United Nations, one would assume that they were either speaking English or Japanese and I don’t think David Wright speaks Japanese.

    These players speak English. Why are they given a pass from having to deal with the media, talk to fans and the other aspects of being a big league player that are inherent (and sometimes tiresome) parts of the job? Do you mean to tell me that Ichiro has been playing for the Mariners since 2001 and doesn’t speak English well enough to function and communicate without a translator? That Chan Ho Park and Hideki Matsui don’t speak English? Matsui is often caught joking with Derek Jeter in the Yankees dugout. They speak English and I’ll bet they could handle themselves perfectly well without their translators shielding them from the bane of many a ballplayer’s existence----the press. It would annoy me if I were a teammate even though I’d understand it, much like the Asian players understand English.

• Blue Jays are under no obligation to trade Roy Halladay now:

    With the Phillies saying that they’re not going to meet the steep demands for Roy Halladay, the Blue Jays are right to ask for the world in trading one of the top three pitchers on the planet and have the advantage of having the Halladay signed through next year so they can back off and wait until the winter if need be. It probably wouldn’t be smart to wait until a year from now unless they really want to gamble that someone’s going to panic and give in to the demands, but the winter months can be just as, if not more, productive in making a deal.

    Whether or not the Phillies are posturing in the hopes of Blue Jays GM J.P. Ricciardi lowers the asking price will be seen in the next week, but Ricciardi has no reason to lower his demands. Judging by what Ken Rosenthal said Ricciardi asked for from the Angels---Brandon Wood, Willy Aybar, Joe Saunders and a prospect----Ricciardi’s not going to send Halladay to the Phillies without getting Kyle Drabek; and if the Phillies hold to their stance, then Ricciardi can move down the line to the other interested parties and say he’s going to hold off until the winter if he doesn’t get what he wants. The only risk is that Halladay gets hurt between now and then, but with Halladay, the risk of that is minimal. We’ll see who blinks first.

• I'm not advocating a change, but here's a name for the Mets to pursue:

    In the same Bill Madden column that he rips into Bill James, he also suggests that the Mets have to clean out their current front office and bring in some new blood. He suggests two names for the GM post in Red Sox assistant Jed Hoyer and White Sox assistant Rick Hahn. I'm not advocating Minaya's ouster (at least not yet until we see what he does over the next several weeks with Tony Bernazard and the decision to trade some veterans), but if the Mets are going to go for a new GM, the first thing I'd do is seek permission from the Marlins to speak to Larry Beinfest.

    Beinfest's been with Jeffrey Loria for a long time going back to when they were running the Expos and he has a background in scouting and development; he might not want to leave Florida, but money talks and the Mets could offer a lot more money and resources than Beinfest has had as he's worked his bargain-basement acquisitions and talent recognition magic in Florida. Even if he's unlikely to come, you never know unless you ask. He's young, ballsy and has the goods to turn around a flagging franchise from the bottom up very quickly. 

• Has Joba Chamberlain "turned the corner" or is he just doing well against teams that can't hit?

    One thing that amazes me with baseball "experts" is how their opinions can be altered by the day based on one or two games. As Joba Chamberlain has pitched well and economically in two straight games, you hear those that are adamant proponents of Chamberlain being a reliever sort of coughing into their hands as they admit, "brahhemm, he's pitching well; harrumph". But how much did the competition play into Chamberlain's "success"? If you look at the last two starts that are somehow validating the much-debated decision to use Chamberlain as a starter, neither the Tigers nor the Athletics are very good.

     The lineup that Chamberlain faced last Sunday against the Tigers was the following:

1. Curtis Granderson
2. Placido Polanco
3. Miguel Cabrera
4. Marcus Thames
5. Clete Thomas
6. Brandon Inge
7. Josh Anderson
8. Gerald Laird
9. Ramon Santiago

    Aside from Granderson, Cabrera and Inge, there's not much to worry about there and certainly no reason to suddenly take a solidly pitched game against that lineup to believe that "Chamberlain as starter" is well on the way to being a success. 

    Then there was the Athletics lineup from last night:

1. Adam Kennedy
2. Orlando Cabrera
3. Scott Hairston
4. Jack Cust
5. Kurt Suzuki
6. Ryan Sweeney
7. Daric Barton
8. Mark Ellis
9. Eric Patterson

    Nothing much impressive there either. 

    Chamberlain does deserve credit for doing his job, throwing strikes and dealing with what was placed in front of him. It's not his fault that the last two lineups he's faced can't hit, but nor does he become entrenched as a career-long starter because of two games in July of 2009. 

    If he begins to find consistency against teams that can actually hit like the Angels, Red Sox and Rays, then it'll be accurate to say he's turning the corner and becoming the starter that parts of the Yankee organization feel he should be; but now's not the time to say that Chamberlain is maturing as a starter. 

    In a way, this back-and-forth of good start-bad start and taken out of context results to bolster an argument is making things worse because it's increasing the ambiguity and giving cause for those who believe Chamberlain should be a starter to continue their crusade. Chamberlain is next scheduled to start on Wednesday in Tampa Bay. Don't be surprised to see him lose the strike zone and/or get shelled by the Rays; then the debate will heat up again as it does with every start, positively or negatively. 

• Another note about the Mets and Tony Bernazard:

    I can totally understand and appreciate the Mets hierarchy performing their due diligence before coming to a conclusion in their investigation as they investigate what needs to be investigated with investigative procedures to investigate the series of incidents involving Bernazard because they require investigation; but the talk that Bernazard's cozying up to ownership saving his job is disturbing.

    If I were in the position of CEO Jeff Wilpon or his father Fred, I'd have to take the situation on the whole and make the decision to do what's best for the organization even if it's only for appearances and dismiss Bernazard. As I mentioned yesterday, it's not as if the guy's even doing a good job; and the scope of incidents with him makes it clear that there's a personality problem rather than a series of misunderstandings.

    I suppose it's possible that they're looking for a way to get out of paying his contract because of violations that make his employment untenable (that would explain why human resources are involved) but embarrassing actions and overt stupidity are enough of a reason to fire anyone and pay him just to get out of everyone's sight. The loony owners like George Steinbrenner and Peter Angelos would've fired him immediately; other owners like Jeffrey Loria, Frank McCourt and John Henry would dump him as well.

    In 2003, the Mets fired Bill Singer after one incident in which he made racially inflammatory remarks to Dodgers assistant GM Kim Ng. This was a week after hiring him. As bad as that incident was, it's less of a transgression than the boatload of enemies that Bernazard has made in his time with the club. How much more evidence does the club need? How can they bring him back around the club if he sees fit to: abusively scream at 20-year-old minor leaguers; get into a near-fistfight with the team's star closer; undermine the manager and general manager; and scream at another club's employee? Where's the debate? And the biggest factor in all of this is: he's done a terrible job!!!! 

    Just flip the switch; pull the trigger; let loose the hangman; begin the public stoning or whatever way you prefer to describe it. Just make the guy disappear from the Mets organization already. What's the hold up?

• THE CURSE OF CAMMI, Yankees 8-Athletics 3

• The Royals conundrum:

• A deeper look at the Matt Holliday trade for all parties:

    The Athletics have traded left fielder Matt Holliday to the Cardinals for three minor leaguers in a move that has many tentacles. The A's managed to get something for Holliday, a player they were rolling the dice in acquiring in the winter; the Cardinals boost their lineup and quiet the talk that they have no interest in seriously trying to win; and Holliday gets the chance to replenish his value as free agency approaches.

    The A's made the deal for Holliday last November knowing that, in the event of a bad scenario, they'd be able to deal Holliday and recoup the prospects they were sending to Colorado to get him in the first place. The players the A's have received in the Cardinals deal----3B/1B Brett Wallace, OF Shane Peterson and RHP Clayton Mortensen----could possibly be better than the players the A's sent to the Rockies to get Holliday. Those players were LHP Greg Smith, OF Carlos Gonzalaez and RHP Huston Street.

    Smith has been hurt with shoulder inflammation after going 7-16 with the A's last year; Gonzalez is murdering the ball in Triple A after struggling with the Rockies earlier in the year; and Street is pitching well as the Rockies closer after getting off to a terrible start. Had the A's held onto those players, they wouldn't be in any better position in the standings now and with this deal, they may have found their replacement for Eric Chavez at third base in Wallace. 

    The Cardinals, long accused of standing pat out of cheapness, seem to be: A) genuinely trying to win; and B) deeply concerned that the long possible loss of Tony La Russa after the season as a free agent would become reality if they didn't do something to bolster his lineup.

    The Cardinals front office led by the frugal, stat-loving ownership and GM John Mozeliak, has been humoring La Russa for years now while doing little to improve the club on the fly. Weeks after acquiring Mark De Rosa, they went out and got Holliday. How much better does this make the Cardinals? They have another power bat in the lineup to go along with Albert Pujols and the club will automatically be better. There's been talk that Holliday will bat behind Pujols, but I'd consider batting him in front of Pujols to get him some better pitches to hit. We'll see what La Russa does.

    As for Holliday, he had a rough time in Oakland and his massive numbers posted in Colorado took a nosedive. I'm not prepared to compare Holliday to such Coors Field creations as Dante Bichette and Larry Walker; the weak lineup he joined in Oakland didn't do him any favors; nor did the A's ballpark. With Pujols present in the Cardinals lineup and a return to the National League, along with hitting in a ballpark at Busch Stadium in which he's done historically well, there's no reason for Holliday not to replenish his free agent value.

    Much has been said about Holliday's "bad" year with the A's, but he was on pace to drive in 100, score 100 and hit his 20 homers. Part of his decline can be traced to the new league and the fact that he was playing for a bad team. And don't discount how many players have been traded to the Cardinals with every intention of testing the free agency waters and decided to stay for less money because they loved the atmosphere so much. For right now, this is a good move for the Cardinals and gives them a legit shot at making the playoffs. 

• Viewer Mail 7.24.2009:

Jane Heller at Confessions of a She-Fan writes:

Did you just add the "ruthless" to your blog name? Or has it been there the whole time? I love it!

    That was actually my Google Ad slogan (now being used on Bing.com; I'm boycotting Google for their business practices in unilaterally eliminating paying customers without informing them; I encourage others to do the same). People seem strangely impressed with it even though it just popped out of the vast expanse of my head. In fact, Matt at Diamondhacks asked me if you'd come up with it given your public relations background. It must be pretty good if some bright people are mentioning it positively.

Jeff at Red State Blue State writes RE Twitter and Matt Holliday:

I looked up that Twitter account but can't find it. You sure it's active? If so, follow me @RSBS and I'll jump on and show you the ways of the dark side you never knew existed. Oh, and we got Matt Holliday and gave up A LOT for it and have no chance of signing him at the end of the year and well, I'm tired.

    I dunno what's going on with that thing. I have to look at it and see. I probably screwed something up. 

    Just be happy your club made an aggressive move on Holliday! As I mentioned earlier, many players showed up in St. Louis and didn't want to leave, not even for more money. 

• The Mets cannot keep Tony Bernazard in their organization:

    If Tony Bernazard had a record of finding, developing and nurturing players, then he might be able to keep his job amid the latest allegations that have popped up one after another; but he doesn't.

    If Tony Bernazard had the likability quotient of his boss, Mets GM Omar Minaya, he might be able to charm his way out of this mess; but he doesn't.

    And if Tony Bernazard behaved appropriately for someone in his position, none of these things would've happened in the first place.

    The Mets are not going to have a choice after they complete their "investigation", and not even David Caruso in his absurd CSI Miami glory could "investigate" all three incidents at once and come to any conclusion other than the obvious one----Bernazard has to go.

    The latest three incidents that have become public are made worse by the narrow time-frame in which they occurred. Bernazard has long had a reputation----going back to his time as an executive in the Players Association----as being difficult, and he was said to have had a strong hand in the undermining and then firing of former Mets manager Willie Randolph. The allegations of Bernazard within certain circles of being conniving, scheming and Machiavellian were well known, but the majority of these things could be shrugged off if one had the werewithal and motivation to do so.

    Using shared heritage to try and lure free agents? Part of the deal and nothing out-of-line.

    Challenging people when disagreeing with them? I'd rather have someone do it to my face than go behind my back.

   Questioning Randolph's managerial skills? There was a lot to question.

    But when an executive behaves in the abusive way the Bernazard has in these flamboyant confrontations (and these are the things we know about; who knows what else has gone on that's been kept from the public view?) in what appears to be an effort to exert a non-existent power and machismo, he needs to be downsized, purged, eliminated or whatever fancy word you choose for someone being fired.

    Do the Mets want someone like Bernazard, with this reputation, making this lost season look any worse? Do they need a 53-year-old man tearing his shirt off, calling 20-year-old kids abusive names and challenging them to a fistfight? Do they need a representative of their organization screaming at his assistant and a scout from another team as if he's a naughty child? Do they need an executive who thinks so highly of himself that he's willing to get into a confrontation with a team star and one of the few players who's stayed healthy this season and performed beyond expectations in Francisco Rodriguez?

    If these incidents stood alone as a minor blip during his time with the club, it'd be one thing. The shirt-tearing tirade at Binghamton? That could be brushed off as a big league executive doing as Crash Davis suggested in Bull Durham and scaring them because they're kids. Maybe he went a little over-the-top, but if they're misbehaving and drinking underage, then screaming at them to get them straight is well within his boundaries.

    Screaming at his assistant? Certain assistants need to be screamed at and the yelling at the Diamondbacks scout would be handled with an apology.

    The incident with K-Rod? The number of confrontations that occur withing an organization over the course of a season are rarely made public because they happen so frequently; it's just that this is an addendum (and should be a eulogy) to Bernazard's current issues.

    The problem is that they're happening one after another with an executive that hasn't done a good job and who people don't seem to like very much. What do they need him for?

    The Mets have been historically reticent to fire people when off-field incidents have made them look like they were on borrowed time. Notably, the Mets put up with the crisis-a-day controversies that came from former manager Bobby Valentine and the sexual harassment suit lodged against former GM Steve Phillips for a consensual affair with a club employee, but the difference with those two employees was that they were doing a good job for the club and these incidents that weren't as pronounced in the negative spotlight placed on the organization as a whole. Bernazard is hurting the organization with his reputation and behaviors and hasn't done a good job at anything other than ingratiating himself with the club ownership.

    Fred Wilpn has a noted temper in his own right and does pay attention to how his club is perceived. If his son, CEO Jeff Wilpon and his GM, Minaya, don't do what needs to be done on their own, Fred is going to step forward before long and tell them to get rid of Bernazard.

    It's enough.

    He needs to go.

    Now.

• The roasting of the Mets is trendy and unfair:

    It's amazing how many people start popping up with negative stories as they wait to pounce on the next flagging franchise and add to the growing list of issues any struggling club has. The Mets injuries, lack of depth and now off-field controversy has given these leeches ammunition to increase the scrutiny the Mets are under, but it's blown out of proportion on purpose.

    Do you remember the aftermath of the 2006 season in which the Red Sox had bumbled their way out of a playoff spot after a first half in which they and the Mets looked like they were on a collision course for a 1986 World Series rematch? Everyone's job was on the line; the Red Sox fired their hitting and pitching coaches and spent a load of money on questionable players to reignite their franchise and placate and angry fan base. What happened? They won the World Series in 2007 and are again recognized as one of baseball's best-run franchises with the lost year of 2006 a distant memory and now referred to as a necessary hiccup to get to their current state.

    What about the Rays? They'd earned their laughingstock status as they hired a new GM who had never been involved in baseball in any way; changed their name from Devil Rays to Rays and were expected to remain in their established position of last place and target for the bullies of baseball. Then they made a couple of moves dispatching misbehaving players, got lucky in most of the top draft picks and acquired youngsters from the prior regime began maturing, and are now considered one of the "smartest" front offices in baseball.

    The Padres? The media darlings in the middle of the decade for their smarts and frugality with a "proven" CEO in Sandy Alderson, have collapsed into a heap that can only be called ludicrous and not even the stat zombies dare to defend them.

    I can go on forever with this stuff. It's easy to look at the Mets in their current state and retrospectively rip the decisions that were made to trade for J.J. Putz; to fire pitching coach Rick Peterson; to expect their star players to maintain the good health they've shown in the previous three years, but it can just as quickly be turned around next year if a couple of prospects develop and if they stay healthy.

    What's happening now is piling on and shooting arrows at the wounded animal; if the Mets are smart, they'll take their lumps now because it's not anyone's fault that the season has unraveled this way. No team in any sport could withstand these injuries, so ignoring the criticism for what's happened on the field is the smart way to go to move forward; panicking and reacting to the public is only going to make things worse.

• Do you blame the guy?

    Blue Jays GM J.P. Ricciardi has said that the reason the club is looking to trade ace Roy Halladay is because the pitcher is going to test free agency if he's still Blue Jays' property when his contract expires after 2010. The way it's presented is sort of, "well, he doesn't want to be here anyway and we're not going to lose the guy for nothing"; but do you blame Halladay for wanting out?

    Why would a pitcher of Halladay's caliber----who's going to be 33 next year and has never even come close to a post-season appearance and isn't going to get the C.C. Sabathia, Johan Santana contract he's earned from the Blue Jays----want to take short money to stay with a club that has little-to-no chance of competing in an impossible division as they're currently built? With his resume and durability, Halladay could command at least $22 million a year and he's not getting that from the Blue Jays. And even if he did, is it worth staying in the only baseball home he's known to win 85 games a year and have no chance at performing on the big stage?

    The only question that I'd ask regarding this stuff is why Halladay didn't ask to be traded sooner.

• I started a Twitter account and I'm not sure why:

    All this talk about Twitter made me sign up for an account a couple of weeks ago. Dunno how much good it's going to do or how much traffic it'll drum up here, but why not? If anyone has any suggestions how to use the thing, I'm all ears. All I got so far is three would-be prostitutes wanting to follow me on Twitter. For what, I dunno. I'm no pimp. Anyway, my name on there is PRINCE_OF_NY. If anyone wants to follow me, feel free. I shall lead you through the gates of hell!!!! If I can find it, that is.

• THE PADRES LOSSOMETER: 59

    Every time I watch Kevin Correia I wonder, "why can't this guy get anyone out?" He looks like he's got good stuff to me. Maybe he'd be better as a reliever going one time through the lineup. Someone should be able to get some use of his talent.

• THE CURSE OF CAMMI: Yankees 6-Athletics 3

    Billy Beane is doing things backwards. With the A's in moderate contention last year (they were within four games of first place as late as July 11th), he cleaned out the house of remaining high-priced pitchers; now the team is floundering and he hasn't done anything yet.

    The market for Matt Holliday isn't going to be as strong as everyone thinks even with his recent hot streak; and Beane's not going to get much of anything for any of his veteran bats Orlando Cabrera, Nomar Garciaparra, Jack Cust; or his relievers Russ Springer and Michael Wuertz. What is he doing?    

• Consistency has value:

    Mark Buehrle is an innings-eater; he's durable; he throws strikes; he works fast; and he wins. For a pitcher with limited ability, a decent fastball and changeup, Buehrle was drafted in the 38th round. It's easy to forget about Buehrle and take him for granted. After pitching his second career no-hitter today against the Rays (a perfect game no less!), Buehrle will be the center of attention in the baseball world for a brief moment; he's spoken to the president; he'll make the talk show rounds; he'll receive accolades and garner appreciation for what he does----then he'll recede into the background and do his job quietly and win a lot of games in a workmanlike fashion.

• Scott Kazmir is trying too hard:

    What are the Rays going to do with Scott Kazmir? He tries to throw too hard; his mechanics are out of whack; he's an arm injury waiting to happen; and he's been atrocious for most of this year.

    In comparing Kazmir's GameLogs for 2009 (today's game isn't up on Baseball-Reference yet) with those of his Rays teammate Andy Sonnanstine, they're quite comparable; in fact, Kazmir's numbers are, in some cases, way worse!

    Sonnanstine has an excuse----he's not any good. Kazmir is simply pitching terribly. His strikeout numbers are down and he's getting rocked. His velocity is down; he's got no command and he's not getting the job done. I've long said that Kazmir's long-term future is in the bullpen, but the Rays are sticking to the stat zombie tenet of a good starter being better than a great reliever, but what if Kazmir is no longer a good starter? Then what?

    I know what the response to that will be: the sample size is too small to make that decision, blah, blah, blah; but with all the mounting evidence that he cannot handle the long term workload of being a starter, are they going to finally make the move and send Kazmir to the bullpen? Since 2007, Kazmir has pitched eight innings in a game twice. Twice. He's a six-inning starter who taxes the bullpen and is now a Livan Hernandez-like question of what the Rays are going to get from one game to the next. Kazmir has twice the stuff that Hernandez ever had; but the results are the same if they get knocked out in the third inning.

    There's a role for Kazmir to go to the mound and go all out for one inning-plus as a closer. He's small and not physically strong enough to handle the workload of being a starter. Period. Whether the Rays ever admit this and do what must be done is up to them; they've shown some courage before when reaching the threshold of their patience when they dumped Delmon Young, Elijah Dukes and Josh Hamilton; will they ever do the same for Kazmir? You'd have to think that the idea is finally seriously crossing their minds because they can't go on like this if they want to crawl back into playoff position and every start Kazmir makes is putting them in a hole. 

• Speaking of the Rays, the rumors of their rise back into contention were a bit premature:

    The Rays were supposedly regaining their footing after an up-and-down start. At least that's what the "experts" in the media were saying. Lost in all the stuff about the "return of the Rays" storylines was that they got healthy over the past couple of weeks beating up on: the Blue Jays; the Athletics; and the Royals. Directly prior to that, they were playing the Rangers and got swept; and this week, they lost three of four to the White Sox in a series in which they: A) should've gotten swept; and B) had the opposing pitcher throw a perfect game against them in the finale. 

    In short, I'd prefer not to hear about their wonderful and misleading run differential until they can consistently beat some good teams. 

• Another look at a criticized trade:

    When I mentioned the Astros in my previous posting, I didn't bring up an unsung hero in their solid play: center fielder Michael Bourn.

    That's the same Michael Bourn who was sent from the Phillies to the Astros for Brad Lidge. The same Brad Lidge who was perfect in 2008 and led the Phillies to the world championship.

    Is that trade still looking so horrible? Lidge has been rotten this year and Bourn is doing what the Astros expected him to do last year: playing good defense; batting .285; getting on base; and stealing bases. He still strikes out too much, but he's got a 28 extra base hits and is redeeming the Astros for believing in him.

• The Astros are the media's new darlings, but aren't deep enough to contend:

    You undoubtedly remember in early May when all the geniuses who, in the pre-season, thought the Royals were ready to take the next step into contention were reveling in the team's solid start.

    Then reality set in.

    And now you see the Royals in familiar disarray with a record twenty games under .500 and heading towards 100 losses. The Astros aren't as bad as the Royals and they do tend to play above their talent level, but that doesn't mean they're going to be able to continue their winning ways with two reliable starting pitchers. 

    The Astros have Roy Oswalt and Wandy Rodriguez, both of whom are trustworthy to give innings and performance; after that, what do they have? Brian Moehler? Mike Hampton? Russ Ortiz? The team can hit, hit and hit some more, but their starting pitching is short and their bullpen has been solid, so they should be able to hang around .500 for the rest of the season based on scoring and holding leads when the back-end starters have departed, but in a division with the Cubs and Cardinals and competing for the Wild Card with the Giants, Braves and Marlins, they don't have the horses.

    If they make an aggressive move for a starting pitcher, they could conceivably contend into September, but as currently constructed? No way. Even without another starter, they'd be dangerous if they got into the playoffs because many times all you need in a short series is two starting pitchers to pitch well, but getting there is the problem that won't be solved with what the Astros have on their roster.

    The bandwagon jumpers will find another vessel when the Astros re-enter the earth's atmosphere. First it was the Royals, then the Blue Jays, now the Astros; my guess is that the Braves will be next; then, whoever gets hot in September, the Giants probably or maybe the Marlins. No matter what, it's not going to be the Astros with that rotation.

• Viewer Mail, 7.23.2009:

Gabriel Gutierrez writes RE J.P. Ricciardi:

I don't think Ricciardi is going to get an extension. He will leave, because the Blue Jays are managed without interest in what's good for the team. Apparently, they aspire to be like the soccer team Atlas de Guadalajara (I'm from Mexico). It's a team whose philosophy is to bring up a lot of young players, 2 or 3 seasoned veterans, and try to win with them. They are a very productive team and export 2 or 3 players a year to economically more powerful teams, the thing is, they haven't won a championship in over 50 years. It's a good idea for building a business, but not so much for winning championships (see the latest WS). Unfortunately, it seems that's gonna take another failed rebuilding process to get rid of the idiot we have as a GM. And then, ANOTHER rebuilding process will start, but maybe they won't be called the Toronto Blue Jays anymore :(.

    He's signed through 2010, but if they're letting him clean out the house, they might as well let him stay there through another rebuilding project, but I wouldn't expect an extension either unless it's for one year. He won't leave of his own accord; no one's going to hire him as a GM off of his Toronto experience. Maybe he doesn't want to be a boss anymore. I think his personality is more fitting for an assistant anyway. 

    The soccer team you mention sounds like they run their team in an eerily similar fashion to the Marlins, except the Marlins have two World Series trophies in hand.

Jeff at Red State Blue State writes RE Julio Lugo for Chris Duncan:

Would my evaluation of the Lugo/Duncan exchange be accurate by quoting SOUTH PARK and saying it's a choice between "A douchebag and a shit-sandwich"?

    Free crap is still free. 

• Red Sox acquire Adam LaRoche:

    Adam LaRoche is a useful pickup for the Red Sox. He's got power; he's a very good fielder; he's got experience playing for a good team from his Braves days; he's singing for his free agent supper; and he'll be thrilled to be playing in games that matter again after 2 1/2 years with the Pirates. The prospects the Red Sox sent to the Pirates are predictably questionable which is right in line with the body of work of the current Pirates regime.

    The Pirates are becoming the go-to source for veteran players in exchange for mediocre prospects, so you can't give anyone credit for fleecing them. After Dave Littlefield's disastrous reign as Pirates GM, you wouldn't have thought they could've found anyone who could do worse, but the Pirates may have managed it with team president Frank Coonelly and GM Neal Huntington. 

    The Red Sox also got something for the privilege of paying the rest of Julio Lugo's contract as they traded Lugo to the Cardinals for Chris Duncan. Duncan's been injured and just plain bad for the Cardinals over the past two years, but he's got post-season experience and the change might wake up his bat. I'd be stunned if these were the only two moves that GM Theo Epstein makes from now until August 31st; but considering what they gave up, the Red Sox are a little better than they were before the deals.

• Viewer Mail 7.22.2009:

Gabriel Gutierrez (a suffering Blue Jays fan) writes RE J.P. Ricciardi:

Ricciardi is a clown: http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=4347517
I don't want to see Halladay leave, but there's not much choice, unless the Giants decide they want either Wells or Rios for almost nothing. I don't think Wells has been as atrocious as most people say, he's only not hitting with RISP, therefore he's not earning his huge paycheck. Do you think Rolen might be traded before the deadline?

    The thing I do not understand about the Blue Jays putting Roy Halladay on the block is why they're letting Ricciardi make this move? After the mess he's made of pretty much everything from the big league roster to the minor league system to the payroll to all the off-field stuff, how can he be allowed to make the decision upon which the entire future of the franchise hinges? They can't make a mistake when trading a player of this magnitude. If this was even a remote possibility in the winter, they should've fired Ricciardi then and brought in a qualified executive to oversee the rebuilding. It had to be at least in the back of everyone's mind that they'd have to trade Halladay, how did they keep Ricciardi knowing this?

    Vernon Wells hasn't been good even if you discount his salary. No one is taking that contract. No one. It could possibly go down as the worst contract ever in any sport and they're going to be paying it until he's 36-years-old. Think about that.

    Alex Rios is actually worth a shot if a team's not giving up much to get him. He's only 28, so if I were Ricciardi, I wouldn't give the guy away. His contract's way more reasonable than the Wells contract. 

    The Giants were supposedly interested in Rolen and Ricciardi would take a moderate prospect just to get out from the $11.8 million he's due next year. Rolen's home run power is gone, but he's got 27 doubles and still plays great defense. He's injury-prone, so anyone trading for him had better keep that in mind. It's almost guaranteed that he'll get traded before August 31st. The classification of his 2009 season as "great" is inaccurate, but he's had a good comeback year if one accepts that he doesn't hit the ball out of the park anymore. 

    You might as well accept Ricciardi as the guy who's going to rebuild your team, Gabriel. He's the man whether you like it or not. It makes no sense to fire him now.

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

I don't think anyone on the Yanks thinks Mitre is a find. But he was the best option available. I'm trying to keep an open mind! 

    Yankee fans (you're a notable exception) and executives tend to get overenthusiastic about these guys they find at yard sales. It reminds me of this vinyl record collection I found by a corner garbage can in Greenwich Village a few years ago. Included in the collection was an early 80s Michael Bolton, numerous Broadway show soundtracks; and assorted crud. Judging from the contents and where I found them, they must've been some gay guy's music of choice.

    I thought I had some valuable "find" and took them home. When I brought them to a local record store to sell for thousands of dollars, the proprietor, trying to contain his laughter, gave me $4 out of pity and so I could get myself a couple of slices of pizza as he purchased a few of the jazz records that were amongst the rabble. He then doled out some sage advice when he said: "Generally if someone puts something by the garbage, you should just leave it there." To which I responded, "Come on, you don't want the Michael Bolton? It's gotta be worth something." Then I went to get my pizza. The same advice applies in baseball.  

    If anything can close your mind, it's this: Mitre's Statistics. They state everything very clearly.

Somebody commented with the following:

jhyY4N <a href="http://syuayapjiyft.com/">syuayapjiyft</a>, [url=http://woxdngmhlxti.com/]woxdngmhlxti[/url], [link=http://pajgaspcqjuh.com/]pajgaspcqjuh[/link], http://jglsmqietozl.com/

    I'm worried if I read this aloud, I'll end up in the fifth dimension with the Superman villain Mr. Mxyzptlk.

• THE PADRES LOSSOMETER: 58

• J.P. Ricciardi's self-imposed deadline for trading Roy Halladay is absurd:

    Blue Jays GM J.P. Ricciardi has "set" a July 28th deadline for himself and the clubs that are interested to get the Roy Halladay deal done. You can decide on your own whether or not you want to believe this, but given Ricciardi's history of flexibility with the truth; his penchant for embarrassing himself with public disputes with players and his managers; the ridiculous contracts he's doled out for middling players, it's silly to suddenly take what he says at face value.

    Much of Ricciardi's problems have been self-inflicted, as if he gets a charge out of putting obstacles in his own path to getting things done. How does Ricciardi drawing such a line in the sand help his efforts to trade his ace while there are three days remaining until the actual league-mandated deadline? Are you going to tell me that if Ricciardi is negotiating seriously with <INSERT TEAM HERE> that he's going to look at the clock on the wall, see it strike midnight on Sunday and cease talks like a deranged Nikita Khrushchev, punctuating the end of any and all proposals by banging his shoe on the desk? Please. 

    Ricciardi's history is well-documented as an executive. He's been mediocre with almost no serious on-field success and a series of embarrassing tête-à-têtes with others including Frank Thomas, Shea Hillenbrand, Adam Dunn and Rod Barajas; he's signed players to ghastly contracts and openly lied to the media in the case of B.J. Ryan when the pitcher needed Tommy John surgery and Ricciardi claimed his injury was to his back. The Blue Jays GM has been allowed to function with impunity since 2001 and is now getting the go-ahead to make a franchise-making/breaking maneuver in trading a potential Hall of Fame pitcher. How much more are the Blue Jays going to take?

    The reasoning behind the "deadline", according to Ricciardi, is that "In three days, not much is probably going to happen," Ricciardi said. "It's such a magnitude, the trade. He's got to OK the team he's going to, we've got to agree on prospects. That doesn't happen, traditionally in baseball, in one hour. I think we need a little more time than that."

     How does this jibe with the Red Sox consistently making trades (good trades) of Nomar Garciaparra and Manny Ramirez while getting back quality and completing the complicated three and four team deals with minutes to spare (and not even minutes to spare in the case of Manny). If the participants are sufficiently motivated, deals can get done in the waning moments of July. For Ricciardi to publicly utter such garbage is only another example of his unsuitability for the job he's held for far too long and if this is the attitude he's going to carry into the Halladay trade, I wouldn't expect him to acquire the required building blocks to turn his team around.

    How many more chances is Ricciardi going to get after the giant, moderately competitive mess he's made in nearly eight years on the job? The trade deadline is July 31st, not July 28th and if he really cuts off negotiations on July 28th (he won't, but if he does) it'll only add to the list of reasons he should no longer be the GM of the Toronto Blue Jays as they try to rebuild.

• Yankees 6-Orioles 4:

    Can we please not hear about how "smart" the Yankees are and how they may have uncovered an unpolished gem in Sergio Mitre after last night's performance against the Orioles? He didn't pitch particularly well and won because he's pitching for the Yankees. This is Sergio Mitre we're talking about, not Chris Carpenter. Mitre is what he is: a journeyman pitcher best suited to be Triple A filler. Why is it, though, that I'm halfway expecting to hear the Yankees lauded for "finding" Mitre just as they were lauded for Brian Bruney and Jon Lieber until they reverted to what they were----journeymen.

• Somewhere, Willie Randolph is shaking his head and chuckling:

    I have no clue whether the stories about Mets assistant GM Tony Bernazard are true, but this latest incident sounds so stupid that it probably is true. Bernazard has been accused of taking off his shirt (whether he calmly removed and folded it or tore it off Incredible Hulk-style is unclear) and challenging the entire Double A Binghamton team to a fight. If proven accurate, this is another layer of concrete on Bernazard's memorial as a Mets executive .

    How much more are the Mets going to swallow? I've been vocal in the questioning of Bernazard being the epitome of evil in the Mets organization, but he is the man who undermined Willie Randolph with the players and ownership; he was accused by Carlos Delgado of trying to use their Spanish-speaking heritage as a chip to the negotiations during Delgado's free agent tour; and he's one of the main proponents of the clownish World Baseball Classic. What exactly does he do aside from anger members of the media to the point that they look for reasons to write stuff like this? 

    With the Mets season in disarray and GM Omar Minaya and manager Jerry Manuel not being replaced, don't be surprised to see Jeff Wilpon make an example of someone and get rid of a lightning rod by dispatching Bernazard. It's enough already and considering his reputation, he's perfect fodder to be thrown overboard without creating a negative ripple in the organizational pool.

• Is it wise to mess with the Phillies chemistry?

    Any team can use Roy Halladay, but with Pedro Martinez rehabbing and supposedly nearly ready to pitch (I'll believe it when I see it), do the Phillies really want to mess around with the chemistry that won a World Series last year and has now won 10 straight games to put a tight grip on another playoff spot? The dynamic is working pretty well on and off the field now; I dunno if I'd screw around with it to that degree. Sometimes teams out-think themselves and believe they're improving when they're not.

• I called it on the Royals:

    What I wrote in my book about the Royals before the season started:

I have no explanation for the moves Moore made this off-season; he has no concept of reality if he thinks it was money well-spent to lavish the 2-year deals on the likes of Ramirez, Farnsworth and Bloomquist. Trading useful relievers for Crisp and Jacobs, especially when Ka’aihue  deserves at least a chance to play in the big leagues was absurd. If they think that Jacobs and  Crisp are going to solve the problems the Royals had in scoring runs last season, then they’re either living in fantasy world or deluding themselves intentionally. The starting rotation could be pretty good with Meche, Greinke, Hochevar and Davies; but any game in which they pitch pretty well and leave with a lead is very likely to get blown up by Farnsworth if they’re using him as their regular set-up man.
    There were many positive things happening when Moore first took over, but now he looks like a guy who doesn’t really know what he’s doing. The Royals don’t have any chance to contend and the decisions they’ve made this past winter are going to be predictable disasters. If the ownership is paying attention, Moore is going to be in trouble as the season winds down and I think there’s a great chance he’s going to get fired. The Royals are going to be one of the worst teams in the American League and fall to last place in the AL Central.

    The only caveat is that things might be worse than I predicted. I had them at 72-90 and they're looking like they could lose 100 games. A team with Bruce Chen and Sidney Ponson on their pitching staff is in deep, deep trouble.

• THE PADRES LOSSOMETER: 57

• THE CURSE OF CAMMI, Twins 3-Athletics 2:

    If you choose, you can come up with a list of reasons that the Mets should move forward after this season with a new GM/manager combination. Omar Minaya has been in charge since late in the 2004 season and, while he's presided over the turnaround in Queens and the building of the new ballpark, he's made some gaffes that would justify a change.

    For every Johan Santana trade, there's the deal of Matt Lindstom for Jason Vargas; for every bold signing of Carlos Beltran, there's the wasted money on Pedro Martinez, who turned out to be more personality and cachet than performance; for every Carlos Delgado acquisition, there's the dealing of Heath Bell and the clumsy handling of the firing of Willie Randolph. And the Mets farm system hasn't produced much of note under Minaya.

    I don't think Minaya deserves to be fired off of this lost season simply because half the team has gotten hurt and there's little that can be done about that, but if you want to make a case, the foundation of it is right there in the previous paragraph. That's why it's so irritating when one of the self-proclaimed "experts" at Baseball Prospectus comes up with the following out of context crap (clipped from ESPN's Rumor Central and written by Christina Kahrl) to "prove" a point with half-truths:

Baseball Prospectus
We should question Minaya

"Minaya needs to be questioned. His self-serving win-now moves with the then-Expos gutted the farm system, and his subsequent management of the Mets has him making a splash with the big headline deals, but also making monumental errors both big (Luis Castillo's contract) and small (witness the absence of quality minor league free agents to stock Buffalo, exacerbating the team's current predicament because of their rash of injuries). If Minaya's as much of a win-now GM as he's tried to be, you would like to see a better track record of actual success." - Christina Kahrl

    The "self-serving win-now moves with the then-Expos" were made for one reason and one reason only: Minaya was told that the club was being contracted after the season. There was no longer going to be a Montreal Expos, so for what purpose was Minaya going to keep anything the organization might possibly sell off to bring back a player to try and win immediately? It's like coming to a peace treaty during the fallout after a nuclear holocaust; it's like putting on a condom during the eighth month of pregnancy; it's like any analogy you can come up with to compare taking a precaution or coming to a solution long after the problem has resolved itself for better or for worse. There was no reason to have a farm system for a team that was no longer going to exist.

    On paper, if you look at the trades that Minaya made with the Expos in moderate contention in 2002, they look like something George Steinbrenner would've done in 1982. The two most prominent trades sent Grady Sizemore, Cliff Lee, Brandon Phillips and Lee Stevens to the Indians for Bartolo Colon and Tim Drew; and he acquired Cliff Floyd from the Marlins in exchange for a package that included Carl Pavano. After the Expos floundered, he dealt Floyd to the Red Sox for Seung Song and Sun-Woo Kim. The deals look awful, but what was the difference? The Expos were going to be contracted until the decision was made that they weren't going to be contracted. It made sense at the time because they didn't need the prospects because there wasn't going to be a team. 

    It's this type of argument and the stat zombies' insistence to defend the likes of Paul DePodesta that is more irritating than anything they say or do. I can deal with people using stats above all else even if I disagree with that way of management; my problem is the selective attacks and overt hypocrisy that's present and exemplified in the above statement questioning Minaya. 

    Despite the idea that I "hate" Paul DePodesta, I'm here to tell you with 100% honesty that it's nothing personal; it's that he's still touted in some circles as this "brilliant" executive; someone who could still be a successful GM and a person who (this is a quote) "was more right than wrong" in his time as Dodgers GM. Well, I go by what I see. I have no clue what DePodesta added to the equation when he worked for the Rockies and Indians; all I know is that he came off as a pompous, self-promoting and obnoxious jerk when he worked for the Athletics and had his work documented in Moneyball, he wrecked the Dodgers in nearly record time and has had a major hand in the destruction of the Padres.

    If some courageous stat zombie would come out and be honest about it, they'd have some credibility; instead we get the ripping of those who don't follow stats and stats alone as they try to get another one of "theirs" into a big league front office. They did it in the spring when Jim Bowden was on the way out in Washington and they relentlessly promoted Blue Jays assistant Tony LaCava. At the time, I wanted to know how much of a hand LaCava had in the series of mistakes (Vernon Wells's and Alexis Rios's contracts; etc.) before jumping into hiring him without entertaining any other candidates. Cooler heads prevailed as the Nationals decided to promote from within and take their time before hiring a permanent replacement. LaCava might be the right guy to rebuild a franchise, but not at the expense of looking around and talking to others before signing up for five years of what could be a Padres/Blue Jays-like purgatory. 

    It's the blindspots that hinder any genuine debate. It's the selective use of facts to "prove" points. It's the self-indulgent statements like the above clipping from ESPN that ruins their argument more than anything else.

• Kenny Williams keeps pushing until he gets what he wants:

    I watched a chunk of the White Sox-Rays game last night and while the White Sox are flawed (they have no center fielder and their overall defense is porous), they have as good a chance as anyone to break out of the weak AL Central. They'd have an even better chance if they were able to pry Roy Halladay loose from the Blue Jays. If they don't send John Danks away in the deal, no team is going to want to deal with Halladay, Danks, Mark Buehrle and Gavin Floyd in a short series.

    White Sox GM Kenny Williams is smart and relentless and doesn't care what anyone says about him, so if he gets it into his head that he wants to get Halladay no matter the cost, then he's going to go all out to get Halladay. The White Sox have some young talent to deal (Tyler Flowers, whom they acquired in the Javier Vazquez trade to the Braves, tore the cover off the ball in Double A and was recently promoted to Triple A. The Blue Jays need a catcher.) and if they can possibly expand the trade to include Alexis Rios, they'd solve their center field problem too. (Although having looked at Rios's contract, the Blue Jays would have to lower their demands in terms of players significantly.)

    There are many ways this could play out; dozens of ways for the deal to be expanded. With the Pirates looking to trade Jack Wilson and Freddy Sanchez, perhaps the White Sox, Blue Jays and Pirates could enter into a menage a trois to get Wilson from the Pirates to the White Sox and they could move Alexei Ramirez to center field or back to second base. (Ramirez, incidentally, has quietly gotten his numbers back in line with what they were last year after an atrocious start.)

    No matter what, the White Sox and Williams have a tendency to remain stealth in making big moves and then swoop in to bag their prey. While all the talk has been on the Phillies, Angels and Rangers as the main destinations for Halladay, don't forget about the White Sox because they have a GM willing to do just about anything to get what he wants. 

• Speaking of Halladay:

    This is clipped from the entity that has more unrealistic fantasies than the imagination of Michael Lewis, ESPN's Rumor Central:

The Mets may have entered the Roy Halladay sweepstakes with an SI.com report on Monday that they have turned down an offer of four players, including outfielder Fernando Martinez, for the Blue Jays ace. ESPN's Keith Law, however, responded via Twitter that the SI.com report was "bogus."

    I wouldn't put much stock in Keith Law's calling the report "bogus"; I think he's still wondering where the Rockies are going to deal Matt Holliday and why Emilio Bonifacio has all but disappeared from the Nationals organization.

    The proposal would've sent Fernando Martinez, Bobby Parnell, Jon Niese and minor leaguer Ruben Tejeda to the Blue Jays for Halladay. That's a lot to give up for a pitcher who's going to cost $22 million a year; and would Halladay even okay a deal to the Mets now in the hopes that they'll contend next year? After the way he held out in dealing for Johan Santana, I don't believe that Mets GM Omar Minaya would make this deal either.

    Speculating on this stuff is silly because nobody knows what's going to happen. The guy might not get traded at all until the winter.

• Alexis Rios's contract:

    While it's nowhere near as heinous as Vernon Wells's contract, Alexis Rios's deal makes him about as impossible to move unless they're taking back someone like Barry Zito. What was GM J.P. Ricciardi thinking in giving a player like Rios the following numbers (clipped from RotoWorld)?

04/04/08: Signed seven-year, $69.835 million contract w/2015 club option and full NTC 2008-09, limited NTC 2011-15. 2009: $5.9 million, 2010: $9.7 million, 2011: $12 million, 2012: $12 million, 2013: $12.5 million, 2014: $12.5 million, 2015: $13.5 million club option w/$1 million buyout, 2016: Free Agent

    This is another very good/borderline great player-contract that Ricciardi gave to a pretty good player. If a large enough segment of the Canadian population still cared about the Blue Jays, the government might've stepped in by now for a managerial bailout. 

• The implication that Dodgers owner Frank McCourt is cheap is ludicrous:

    Mike Francesa was back from vacation yesterday and went on and on about how the Dodgers weren't going to go after Roy Halladay because their owner is "cheap".

    Where is he cheap?

    McCourt threw money into the trash for such players as Jason Schmidt; he spent in players to get and paid to keep Manny Ramriez and Casey Blake; he made a ghastly mistake in hiring Paul DePodesta as his GM (partially because he wanted to build a Moneyball style team based on stats and frugality and partially because his 13-year-old son had read the book and was enamored of DePodesta), but he corrected the mistake by firing DePodesta, paid lucratively for a big name manager in Joe Torre and allows his GM, Ned Colletti, to be aggressive in trying to fill holes.

    How is he cheap?

    The Dodgers could use another starting pitcher, but if they don't go out and get Halladay, it won't be because of money; it'll be because the price was too steep in terms of players.

• Athletics 14-Twins 13:

    I stopped bothering to flip to this game when it was 11-2, Twins. 

    I always find it funny when a team blows such a big lead because it seems like something the Mets would do. Just like when a team (I'd like to say it was the Expos, but can't really remember) drafted the wrong player who had the same name as the player they actually wanted to draft, it just sounds like something that would happen to the Mets.

    Most of the time, the players on the team trailing by such a big amount just want to get the game over with. Not that they stop trying to do well or to get hits, they know that the overwhelming likelihood is that they're going to lose. Only when they score a few runs and get within striking distance do they say, "hey, we got a shot here". Blowing that kind of lead is inexplicable, especially in a tough ballpark to hit homers like in Oakland.

• THE PADRES LOSSOMETER: 56

    There are pitchers with high octane fastballs that are straight and hittable if anyone can catch up to them (Rob Dibble comes to mind); then there are guys with "live" fastballs that move a lot and seem to jump at the plate and are hard to hit. Rick VandenHurk of the Marlins has the latter kind of gas.

    Granted, it was the Padres he was pitching to, but they're still big league hitters who wouldn't be in the big leagues if they couldn't hit a fastball. VandenHurk had them overmatched early in the game and if he "figures it out" so to speak, the tall Dutchman is going to be hard for the rest of the league to catch up to as well.

• THE PADRES LOSSOMETER: 55

    The Padres injuries aren't much of an excuse to their current predicament although they certainly wouldn't be this bad had Jake Peavy and Chris Young been healthy. I'll still be happy to take credit if they end up close to the number of losses I predicted (106).

    Looking at the numbers of the Padres players, one thing sticks out and that's how Kevin Kouzmanoff hasn't come anywhere close to putting up the absurd minor league numbers he did in the Indians organization. He's an occasional power threat who doesn't get on base and strikes out too much; he's a solid enough defensive third baseman. I haven't watched him enough to judge his flaws, but the rest of the league sure caught up to him.

    The saving grace for the deal that brought Kouzmanoff to the Padres is that Josh Barfield has spent almost his entire Indians career in Triple A after having a solid rookie year as the Padres second baseman. In addition to Kouzmanoff, the Padres got RHP Andrew Brown in the deal and then sent Brown to the Athletics for Milton Bradley in mid-2007. Overall, the Padres won the deal, but neither side got what they were expecting.

• THE CURSE OF CAMMI, Angels 1-Athletics 0:

    Finding pitching is always iffy given the nature of the job and the number of injuries that befall just about all pitchers everywhere, but isn't the biggest asset of the Moneyball system finding offense? If that's the case, then how are the A's so bad that they have a 21-year-old kid, Brett Anderson, pitch 6 2/3 perfect innings and can't score a run for him?

    Speaking of which, Jason Giambi is now batting .193.

    With the way he's kept Bob Geren as manager and is reluctant to dump a shot Giambi, has Billy Beane become so soft that he can't do what needs to be done to fix his flagging club? This isn't to imply that Geren and Giambi are the root of the A's problems, but keeping them while having "documented" (no matter what you think Moneyball is a document of, it is in a way, a document) proof that Beane's history of ruthlessness has been one of the main reasons for his success, his reluctance to dispatch people who aren't getting the job done is symptomatic of their current predicament.

• The Erin Andrews mess is a shame:

    I certainly wouldn't mind seeing a naked Erin Andrews, but the way it was done is apparently so sleazy, such an invasion of privacy that even the scumbaggiest of scumbags should hold off before trying too desperately to have a look at the illicit video.

    There's a certain amount of trust when you stay in a motel or hotel that no one is going to take such liberties and this is such a violation that she deserves every penny she gets in the lawsuit she's sure to file.

    I had a situation in a hotel in Estonia once (don't ask) and after said incident, I went down to the front desk and, leaning across to make my message crystal clear, I gently explained to the 20-something-year old manager that their "policies" might need a slight tweaking.

    Instead of saying, "You're absolutely right Mr. Lebowitz, we will reconsider the way we handle such matters," the kid argued with me telling me "hotel policy, blah, blah, blah." I said, "Listen," (the dialogue might sound like it would be better presented if I had a handful of his lapels, but I kept my fists pressed on the desk, pounding my rings loudly on occasion) "where I'm from, the people who are doing whatever job you do just humor their customers even if they disagree with them. If I were you, I'd start practicing my, yes Mr. Lebowitz, you're absolutely right Mr. Lebowitz, we apologize for the inconvenience Mr. Lebowitz."

    I got none of the above. 

    There were a couple of burly security guards watching closely and inching toward me, my fiancee told me later. Jeez, I wasn't gonna hit the guy. Getting arrested for assault in Estonia probably would've been a bad move.

    I doubt the hotel altered their policies. You have to be careful in hotels regardless of their rep is the point.

• A moment of grumbling:

    I don't want to complain much or sound like a dick, but if you look at my posting from this morning and then look at what some of the highly-paid, big name and credible-for-some-unfathomable-reason writers posted today, you have to wonder who's making the decisions as to what constitutes "quality" baseball writing. They're writing (mailing in) pablum which is quite literally worthless junk, and I'm doing what I do. You be the judge as to what's more valuable.  

• Pull the plug for the sake of mercy:

    Like an accident victim suffering from catastrophic injuries and irreversible trauma, the Mets need to pull the plug on their hopes for contention in 2009 if only to be merciful. Sometimes it's for the best.

    Another day, another loss, another injury. Sure, it was to a scrapheap pickup who'd fallen back to earth after a quick start in Fernando Nieve, but because it wasn't one of the remaining recognizable names in the Mets lineup doesn't alter the overall landscape; and that is that this season, for all intents and purposes, is over. No team----not the Yankees, Red Sox, Phillies, Dodgers, Angels or whoever----could withstand the loss of manpower that's befallen the Mets. Other teams may be better equipped with backups to keep their heads above water, but eventually these things take their toll and such is happening now with the Mets.

    You can see it in their body language; hear it in their comments. Even the ultra-positive manager Jerry Manuel and bright-eyed enthusiasm of David Wright are being superseded by the veteran skepticism of having seen it all from Gary Sheffield and Alex Cora. This doesn't mean players like Sheffield and Cora have stopped trying, but they know when things have reached the point of no return and that's where the Mets are.

    Looking at the standings in the division is bad enough as they've fallen ten games back in the loss column to the Phillies, but the Wild Card standings are even worse. The Mets don't even have the manpower to compete with flawed teams like the Marlins, Braves and Giants, and with the Cubs lurking and the Cardinals going to be hanging around for the duration, how can the Mets realistically expect to make a run and even be within shouting distance of a playoff spot come September? The answer is they can't. 

    It's time to accept the inevitable and move on. If that means trading Pedro Feliciano to a contender to get a couple of prospects, fine. If that means dealing Gary Sheffield, Alex Cora, Sean Green, Brian Schneider and any of the other ancillary players that have some value, then do it. Tim Redding got an 11th hour reprieve from being released with the injury to Nieve, but Jon Niese needs to come up to the big leagues and be assured a spot in the rotation for the rest of the season; they should recall Eddie Kunz and give him some innings in meaningful situations out of the bullpen; they should play Nick Evans relatively regularly to see what they've got, if anything. They have to look at Jeff Francoeur's swing and take steps to try and fix whatever's salvageable in that mess of talent.

    For all the Mets fans that call up sports radio and whine about the club not making any deals, there are many more fans who understand that what's happened here isn't really anyone's fault. Could the Mets have had better backups than Jeremy Reed? Yes, but with the injuries to the irreplaceable stars the club has endured, finding viable players to step in for all of them was impossible. There's no one to blame, no one to fire. The last two months of the season are going to be dark at Citi Field; that doesn't mean that 2010 and beyond have to be as bad. They have money to spend and a nucleus of talent to build around as long as they accept the truth as of right now for 2009, and that truth is that it's over. This season is done.

• Trey Hillman's job is safe...but is Dayton Moore's?

    Royals GM Dayton Moore has given manager Trey Hillman the dreaded vote of confidence amid the disaster into which the Royals season is rapidly degenerating----KansasCity.com story----and one would assume that he's telling the truth in that he and Hillman are in this together and the manager will not only have his job for the rest of this season, but in 2010 as well. The question then becomes whether Moore's job is safe, and if not, one would assume that Hillman, attached to the GM as he is, will be out the door along with Moore like a pair of latter day defiant ones handcuffed to one another with each going where his counterpart goes without much choice.

    The way the unrealistically high hopes for the Royals this season have unraveled so completely can't be lost on CEO David Glass and with the way the decisions Moore has made have blown up in his face, there has to be some consternation on what to do moving forward.

    After watching Leo Nunez throwing bullets for the Marlins over the weekend and with Mike Jacobs having the atrocious year he's having, and with Kila Ka'aihue at least deserving a chance to play regularly in the big leagues; with Coco Crisp ending up on the disabled list and Ramon Ramirez doing a great job for the Red Sox; with Kyle Farnsworth and Juan Cruz as heinous as they've been, you have to ask if Moore is going to be there to indeed make the decision on Hillman. I don't think there will even be a question if the season continues to plummet as it is now.

• The Pirates way of negotiating:

    I can just picture the office of GM Neal Huntington as he discusses the parameters of contract extensions for both Jack Wilson and Freddy Sanchez. The players' agents are in the office, Huntington hands them the proposal, the agents study them for a moment...and Huntington starts grabbing the papers from their hands screaming frantically, "Off the table!!! Off the table!!!!" Somewhere, in a hidden office, team president Frank Coonelly watches on security cam, nodding approval, tenting his fingers and laughing wickedly.

    How can any team make an offer on a Thursday and expect an answer by Sunday? Then if they don't get a response, they come up with this stuff? First of all, the idea that the Pirates wanted to keep Sanchez and Wilson was ludicrous on the surface. After having traded Nate McLouth and Nyjer Morgan for prospects, not even engaging in extension proposals with Adam LaRoche and soliciting offers for Matt Capps, the Pirates neither needed nor wanted Wilson or Sanchez for the long term.

    Then, considering the offers that were made----Sanchez for 2-years and $8 million if he negates an $8.4 million contract kicker for 2010 if he has 600 plate appearances in 2009; and Wilson, 2-years for $8 million when he has a club option for $8.4 million for 2010----it doesn't take any intuitive skills to realize that the Pirates, reeling from the criticism they received not just for the trades they've made under this current regime, but for the sub-par return on those trades, are trying to posture and save some face with their current veterans and remaining fans who were livid at the housecleaning maneuvers.

    Here are the quotes from Huntington (culled from ESPN) regarding the "decision" to pull the offers. Huntington's becoming a veritable machine for corporate crap:

"We've not received a counter at his point, so for our minds, they're not interested even in the foundation we've laid," Huntington said Sunday. "Typically in a negotiation you get a counter offer and that's how conversations continue, and we haven't gotten that."

"We made an offer, we put a deadline on it, as I've done with every offer I've made," Huntington said. "You can't leave it out there indefinitely and we're a little time sensitive here because of the looming [July 31] trade deadline."

"They don't feel we're even in the same ballpark, so it's not worth countering because they feel like years, dollars, the foundation is so far off what their expectations are, it's not worth countering, and that's understandable," Huntington said. "We've made a quick attempt to try to sign players for what we feel works for us; if it doesn't work for them, they don't accept."

"There's going to be somebody available, maybe not to the level of Jack and Freddy, but now we take the dollar difference between the investment in the shortstop or second baseman and apply it somewhere else," Huntington said. "We arguably feel we'll be a better team with two or three players, not just one."

    I have neither the patience nor the desire to dissect Huntington's quotes. I'd assume if you're reading this, you're bright enough to see through what's going on in Pittsburgh.

    Just a guess: if they don't trade Wilson or Sanchez, Wilson's contract option will not be exercised and Sanchez is going to have some pretty good ammunition to file a grievance if he doesn't reach the 600 plate appearances to automatically activate the 2010 option.

    In short, both will be traded; the Pirates won't get much for either; and they won't be ripped as fervently in the media for the deals because no one's going to care enough to get into a twist about anything the Pirates do now or in the future.       

• The Mets are excruciating to watch:

    In yesterday's 5-1 win over the Braves, it took not one, not two, not three, but four relievers in the eighth inning to cobble together a bridge (actually one of those zip-lines) and stagger through the inning to get to Francisco Rodriguez. Every game is like this because the team can't score and it's literally painful to watch.

    They have no power and no threats to hit the ball out of the park. Because the opposing pitchers know this, they're literally fearless to throw the ball in the strike zone because the likelihood of a Met----including David Wright----to hit one out of the park has become so remote that walking any of them is a punishable act. Amid all the talk about the cavernous nature of Citi Field, they have four fewer homers on the road than they do at home in the same number of games.

    Here's what I would do at this point: I'd bat Luis Castillo and Angel Pagan first and second (either/or) because, at the very least, they get on base and can run; I'd bat Gary Sheffield third if and when he gets back, bat Wright fourth and Jeff Francoeur fifth. Go the way of the 80s Cardinals who had no power, but a bunch of guys who got on base in front of Jack Clark.

    People forget that Tommy Herr----Tommy Herr----had 110 RBI on only eight homers in 1985 with Vince Coleman and Willie McGee hitting in front of him. That 101-win Cardinals team led the league in runs scored, had a bullpen by committee and rode three starting pitchers to the pennant. The Mets couldn't do any worse in the run-scoring department than they are now and they'd give the middle of the lineup some opportunities to knock in a few here and there.

    On another note with the Mets, I'd give Brian Stokes some more important opportunities out of the bullpen. He throws very, very hard and has a good changeup and slider. Every few appearances, he gets shelled, but he deserves a chance to get some important outs to see if the Mets have a truly valuable scrapheap pickup as a useful reliever in there somewhere.

• Baseball's most influential website? And it's not mine? How dare you!!!

    When I saw the story title----Professor builds baseball's most influential Web site----on the NY Daily News website, I thought for a moment it'd be some dingus who couldn't carry my laundry, but then I saw that it was Sean Forman, who started Baseball-Reference.com; I calmed down and said, "okay...okay" because without that website my life would be far more difficult in coming to my brilliant and flawless analysis taking into account my eyes and the numbers.

• The Yankees getting Roy Halladay would punctuate the absurdity:

    We've gone through this before, but the Yankees have contacted Blue Jays GM J.P. Ricciardi to see what it would take to get Roy Halladay. Non-Yankee fans are going bonkers about the possibility, but I'm not opposed to the idea. If anything, it would put an exclamation point on the absurdity of the way the Yankees claim to be heading in one direction, then do something else.

    It wasn't that long ago that GM Brian Cashman, in eschewing big contracts for free agents, tried to develop and integrate his own players from the newly cultivated farm system and use them as something other than fodder for trades in getting established and high-priced veterans. After the way all three pitchers----Joba Chamberlain, Phil Hughes and Ian Kennedy (what happened to him?)----flamed out, the checkbook became the Yankees most functional tool and they signed C.C. Sabathia and A.J. Burnett. Now they're interested in Halladay. 

    The Yankees have proven since 2000 that the number of stars present on a roster has little to do with how well or poorly they do in the playoffs. They've been nothing more than a rotisserie team of stat compilers and haven't achieved the only measuring stick they live by----a World Series win----since 2000 when they were a cohesive unit rather than a star-studded crew of mercenaries. Let them get Halladay and gut the farm system again. It'll only make them look worse if and when they lose in the playoffs.

• Rays 4-Royals 3:

    Think about this: the Royals were 18-11 on May 7th; since then they've gone 19-42. They have a $70 million payroll and a Cy Young Award-contending ace in a mediocre division; that's more than enough to be better than sixteen games under .500 in mid-July. It's gotten to the point where they're saying, "we're probably gonna lose; we know we're probably gonna lose; so screw it," and that's not good. 

    Three more ominous signs: Gil Meche is on the DL with a back problem (I predicted he'd get hurt in my book*);...

*Gil Meche has turned out to be a brilliant signing for Moore. Meche has been an anchor at the top of the rotation who in his two years with the Royals would have won around 16-18 games in each year if he’d had a better team behind him. Having pitched over 200 innings each season with the club, Meche, whose contract was ridiculed when he signed it, has earned every penny. The one thing to be concerned about with Meche is that he had several injury-interrupted seasons with the Mariners and he’s been so healthy over the past two seasons with the Royals, it might be a bit much to expect him to have another 200+ inning season. He’s due to miss some time due to injury and possibly fall back in his performance, especially with the bullpen depleted as it’s been in the deals Moore made to beef up the offense.

...they've got a rough schedule the rest of the season; and there was a Bruce Chen sighting last night. Who's next on the journeyman list? Doug Bair? Neal Heaton? Mike Morgan? Mike Stanton?

    You'd have to think that something will be done in Kansas City. I dunno what, but something.

• Padres 3-Rockies 1:

    Edgar Gonzalez got hit in the helmet last night on a Jason Hammel fastball and it sounded like a car crash.

• THE CURSE OF CAMMI, Angels 11-Athletics 6:

    It may not even make sense to trade Matt Holliday if the A's aren't going to get much of anything better than the draft pick they'll get when they don't re-sign him. I can't see anyone giving up much value for Holliday the way he's hit (or hasn't hit, whichever way you'd like to phrase it).

    Jason Giambi went 2 for 4 with a walk. His average is up to .195. Amazingly, his OBP is still .335. I dunno why teams are still pitching carefully to him. I'd dare him to hit my fastball if I were the pitcher and if he does, he does. I certainly wouldn't walk him if I could help it.

    Give Michael Lewis credit for this: he could twist the narrative so skillfully that a continental breakfast in a cheap European Motel would look like it was lovingly prepared by überchef Gordon Ramsay. Dunno if that's good or bad.

• Red Sox release Julio Lugo:

    When they signed him, I didn't know why. I certainly figured he had to be better than he actually was, but here's what I wrote in my book at the time:

I’ve never been quite sure from whence teams’ infatuation with Julio Lugo stems. He’s an okay player; relatively productive; but he, in my estimation, was in no way worth all of the money that the Red Sox threw at him. (This isn’t an indictment of the Red Sox because the Mets and Blue Jays were prepared to offer him a similar amount of money.) He’s got some pop in his bat; he’s an adequate fielder; but he played poorly after joining the Dodgers last season. Some of that may have been due to not having a regular position and being uncomfortable. My question about Lugo is whether or not he’s going to be able to handle the spotlight in Boston. His fielding, never that great to begin with, may not be up to snuff; and considering a clutch veteran like Edgar Renteria had endless problems with the pressure and funky infield in Boston, what is going to happen with Lugo? He’ll probably hit his 12-15 homers; make his 30 errors. If the Red Sox accept and expect that, then they’ll get what they paid for. I certainly wouldn’t have paid $8 million a year for him though.

    "From whence"? What am I? Shakespeare? Good grief.

    I wasn't that far off the mark with the errors, but he didn't hit. At the time the move was made, I felt the Red Sox were spending money simply for the sake of placating an angry fan base after their missed playoff year and collapse of 2006. My suggestion was that they simply keep Alex Gonzalez who was a vacuum cleaner at shortstop and hit just enough that he wasn't a liability in the lineup. No, Gonzalez didn't get on base as much as the Red Sox tend to prefer, but he had playoff experience (and success) with the Marlins; he was well-liked and he didn't seem all that bothered about playing in Boston. Gonzalez has wound up getting hurt as well, but he only signed a 3-year, $14 million contract with a mutual option for 2009 with the Reds; that would've looked better to the Red Sox on and off the field.

    Lugo comes off as very classy in this interview, but the more I think about it, the more I return to the references to Paul DePodesta when he was fired by the Dodgers and left "with class" as they say. What was he supposed to do? Show up at the office and start shooting?

    No one's going to trade for Lugo in the ten day window the Red Sox have before giving him his outright release, but someone will pick him up because he can play a multitude of positions, can run and is, first and foremost, cheap.

• The luck involved in signing and not signing free agents:

    Are you aware that had the Yankees not signed Carl Pavano, he most likely would've been a member of the Red Sox? How would that have looked? Or that the Tigers and Mariners had offered as much (and supposedly more) money to Pavano, but he decided to join the Yankees, much to their retrospective chagrin. 

    Did you know that, as mentioned earlier, the Mets and Blue Jays avidly pursued Lugo and offered similar money, but he wanted to play shortstop (so he spurned the Mets who wanted him to play second base) and to have a chance to win (so he rejected the Blue Jays)?

    And that the Mets were ripped in the media when they let a fading Edgardo Alfonzo leave for San Francisco, offering a perfunctory contract knowing he'd probably reject it, because they could see what stat zombies couldn't----that Alfonzo was breaking down physically and his numbers were declining rapidly?

    How about the deals that were head scratchers when they were completed, but turned out to be pretty good like the Royals signing of Gil Meche to a $55 million contract?

    The point is, you never know about deals such as these until after the fact. Teams make decisions----sometimes sensibly, sometimes not----people criticize them or praise them and then what happens happens. There's no way of knowing until the player plays. You can look at numbers, projections, ballpark factors and whatever, but there's no way to accurately judge until they play.

    Lugo was a disaster. J.D. Drew would be considered an albatross for the Red Sox if not for his post-season heroics and on base ability. The Yankees have been the butt of jokes because of Pavano, but no one could've expected Pavano to become such a mope who didn't want to play. 

    These things are chalked up as mistakes and the Red Sox were warned about both Lugo and Drew when they signed them, but much of what happens comes down to luck and other factors, good and bad. Ripping teams post-deal is easy, but as the Red Sox have done with Lugo, you just have to bite the bullet, shrug your shoulders and move on.

• Did the Red Sox alter Clay Buchholz's mechanics?

    When he first came up to the big leagues, Buchholz was a straight up and down pitcher, who tilted to the left to get his arm in position to come directly over the top. This led me to believe that he was a torn rotator cuff waiting to happen; but last night, he looked different. He's not bringing his hands over his head or being as deliberate; and his timing seems more synced up. Am I wrong? Did anyone else notice this? He looked great last night and if he keeps up that good work with this motion, the hype about him may prove accurate.

• Rays 8-Royals 7:

    You could almost see it happening. I flipped the game back-and-forth as I watched the Mets get their arses kicked (and I wouldn't get too excited if I were a Braves fan at brutalizing this Mets team as currently constituted); and it was 6-2 Royals; then 6-4 Royals; then 7-4 Royals; then 7-6 Royals; and finally, 8-7 Rays.

    The Juan Cruz signing was an example of the earlier point about a good idea that didn't work. Could the Royals lose close to 100 games? It's possible with the way they're playing. 

• THE PADRES LOSSOMETER: 54 

• Logically deficient in Pittsburgh:

    After the parades for the Super Bowl champion Steelers and the Stanley Cup champion Penguins, one thing the city of Pittsburgh won't have to worry about is finding the cash to celebrate anything for the Pirates (unless it's the departure of team president Frank Coonelly and GM Neal Huntington).

    Huntington, who invited the wrath of his entire team when he traded Nate McLouth and Nyjer Morgan earlier this year to add to the miserable trades he made last year when he sent Jason Bay and Xavier Nady to the Red Sox and Yankees, respectively, and got little-to-nothing in return, is coming up with a new rationale that makes no sense. (And please, I don't want to hear about Andy LaRoche. Thanks.)

    With the actions of the Pirates front office indicating that a fullscale housecleaning is underway, Huntington has suggested that the Pirates are leaning toward keeping shortstop Jack Wilson (age 31 with an $8.4 million option for next year) and second baseman Freddy Sanchez (also 31 with an $8 million contract kicker for 2010 if he makes 600 plate appearances this year) rather than dealing them to contenders. For what? I ask.

    The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reported, according to this ESPN Story that the Pirates have approached both players about multi-year extensions. Why? With the way the Pirates have cleared the decks of every veteran that had some value on the market aside from Wilson, Sanchez and a couple of pitchers, are they really going to dole out cash to keep Wilson and Sanchez? Both of whom are okay players, but not foundational types for a rebuilding team? 

    Let's say hypothetically that the players they received in the most recent deals----Lastings Milledge, Charlie Morton, Gorkys Hernandez----all become productive members of the Pirates and spur a leap into contention; by that time, both Wilson and Sanchez are going to be at least 34 and probably older. The days of players being productive into their late 30s are over, out the window with PEDs and greenies; now, players are starting to slide at about the ages of Wilson and Sanchez. Why would the Pirates keep them if they can get something, anything, for them. 

    It's as if the Pirates front office doesn't have a plan. They just "do" things that they think look good at the time and when the pressure from in the clubhouse and the fans that still give a damn starts to mount, they change course and come up with this senseless garbage. This organization is in disarray and they have no hope for the future until they chart a course and stick to it. Don't hold your breath.

• Selective prosecution and defense with the stat zombies:

    I find it fascinating how certain stat zombies dig for ways to defend the indefensible (the Padres); and the moderately defensible (the A's), but go bonkers about the screw-ups of the Royals. Why is it okay to look at stats, make a decision and have it explode in the face of the likes of Billy Beane, but Dayton Moore does some stupid things and they want to stick his head in the proverbial vise? And they rarely, if ever, say anything positive about the Marlins and Twins, who build a team with every conceivable tool at their fingertips, but are decidedly not stat zombies. 

    Your agendas are showing and it makes you look like you know less about the game than before (if that's possible).

• THE PADRES LOSSOMETER: 53

    Halfway to 106. Is 20-53 possible for the rest of the way? Maybe.

• THE CURSE OF CAMMI, Angels 6-A's 2:

    Jason Giambi, down to .191.

• Viewer Mail 7.17.2009:

Franklin Rabon writes RE my naming Frank Wren as the fifth worst GM in baseball (I edited it for time):

I don't know if you can say that Frank Wren is one of the 5 worst GMs in baseball.  He A) just hasn't done enough to be that far in either direction, good or bad; B) has made a few genuinely great moves and C) I don't think a couple of the issues you've brought up are genuinely big deals.

With regards to Glavine, Glavine's biggest complaint in "how it was handled" seemed to be that the Braves refused to admit that releasing him was about money.

John Smoltz's biggest complaint wasn't even "how it was handled" it was simply that the Braves refused to match what Boston was guaranteeing.  So I don't see how that is Frank Wren's fault at all.

Jeff Francouer was given EVERY opportunity to succeed in Atlanta and just didn't.  If anything Frank Wren saved him the embarrassment of being non-tendered in the offseason, which is EXACTLY what was going to happen had he not been traded to the Mets.

Frank Wren basically had to extend Chipper.  Chipper is still a useful player, sells a TON of merchandise and is on the field every day.  Losing Chipper would cost the team ticket and merchandise sells, bottom line.  And while he's not a 40 homer guy. or maybe even a 30 homer guy anymore, a guy who will, every season, walk more than he strikes out, hit over .300 and have over a .400 OBP and over a .500 SLG are valuable, even if they only play 130-140 games.

And you also failed to mention the outright ROBBERY of getting a pitcher, who from day 1 of the trade has been one of the better pitchers in all of baseball, Jair Jurrjens, for a guy who absolutely has done nothing since, Edgar Reteria. 

I like the McLouth trade, even if the Braves don't pass the Phillies.

The David Ross signing was a pretty good one as well.

Finally, I just don't see how you can just keep saying the Braves are awful.  If I recall correctly you predicted them to be 20 games under .500.

I'd like to make some sort of bet with you.  If the braves finish closer to first place in the NL East than they do 30-50 I win, opposite and you win.  Terms TBD in later correspondance.  Sorry for the long rant, keep up the good work.  Despite the disagreement here, still love your work and insight.  It's a borderline crime that while some of the jokers on ESPN are writing pure fluff and plagiarized pieces you're so underappreciated.

    I've given the Braves credit for the Jurrjens heist numerous times. As for the other deals, they gave up a ton to get Javier Vazquez and when dealing with Kenny Williams of the White Sox, I've found it best to trust his talent recognition skills. Vazquez had a career-year quality first half; he's going to slide back into the slightly above average pitcher he's always been. 

    The Glavine thing with me has always been that Wren would've been better off telling Glavine that the team didn't have room for him and they didn't think he'd make it back, and to gently tell him to take a hike. This whole thing could've been avoided. As with Smoltz, I'm not saying he was wrong; the Braves had to move on, but it's just symptomatic of the problems Wren had in Baltimore (which I did factor into his placement) in which he picked a fight over something silly with Cal Ripken Jr. 

    We can go back-and-forth about Francoeur forever. He needed to get out of Atlanta one way or the other. Wren and Francoeur didn't see eye-to-eye and that happens. I'm sure Wren had seen enough of Francoeur swinging at 8 of every 10 pitches no matter where they were, and Francoeur was tired of degenerating from the Golden Boy into the cause of all that is wrong in Atlanta. Parting ways was the best for all; and just like you've seen plenty of Francoeur to make the judgments you make (which may end up being correct), I've seen enough of Ryan Church to tell you that he's an okay player and little else and not the answer to the Braves outfield holes.. 

    Do you really believe Chipper Jones, at ages 38, 39 and 40 is going to stay healthy enough to play 130 games? I've never denied how great Jones is, but the severance contracts are where the Mets got into so much trouble. 

    I can't give that much credit for someone robbing the Pirates; it's like stealing from a disabled person; and I'm not getting into a twist about David Ross.

    I had the Braves at 75-87, which they're still in jeopardy of achieving. They're just a weirdly constructed team; a non-bat at first base, a patched together outfield and a shaky bullpen.

    Dunno what terms you'd wanna bet on, but I'll listen to anything (within reason).

    Ah, ESPN, where would we be without them and their "rumors" and "analysis" that they pull out of their asses. 

    You hear the talk show callers----Vinny from Queens; Tony from Rockaway; Mikey from Long Island----asking, no, demanding that the Mets do "something" to try and save the season. From making a move on Roy Halladay to going after Matt Holliday to trading Johan Santana, there's always some prescription from the barely knowledgeable and desperate to launch the Mets back into the playoff hunt; but not only would it be a mistake to make any kind of drastic changes, it would set the organization back even further for 2010 and beyond.

    The Mets are in a state right now that it's impossible to assign blame for what's happened. Not to GM Omar Minaya; not to manager Jerry Manuel; not to Minaya assistant Tony (The Epitome Of All Evil In The Mets Organization) Bernazard; not to Mr. Met; not to owners Fred and Jeff Wilpon; not even to Bernie Madoff, who "made off" with a chunk of the Wilpons' money.

    No team could withstand the series of injuries that have befallen the Mets. None. If the Red Sox lost Kevin Youkilis, Dustin Pedroia, Jonathan Papelbon and Josh Beckett, where would they be? Granted they're in better shape than the Mets in terms of reinforcements, but you can bet that they'd be behind both the Yankees and Rays in the AL East. It's the same for every other team in baseball. You just have to shrug your shoulders, look to improving slightly while not compromising the future and hope for a miracle which is unlikely to happen. 

    And what precisely are the Mets supposed to do? Their top prospect, Fernando Martinez, is injured and proved in his brief big league trial that he needs at least the entire 2010 season in Triple A; Jon Niese and Eddie Kunz have seen their stock fall to the point that it makes no sense to trade them; and the real young prospects like Ike Davis and Wilmer Flores (who's 17) can't be dealt now. What's left?

    The Mets, if they're so inclined, have little on the big league roster to sell anyway if they decided to bag the season. They could get a couple of prospects for the useful Pedro Feliciano; Luis Castillo's played well enough this year that they might be able to unload the contract without doling out some cash; maybe they could get a mediocre prospect or two for Brian Schneider. Aside from that, there's no point in doing anything of note. 

    No matter what the stat zombies say, they've improved themselves with the addition of Jeff Francoeur and the subtraction of Ryan Church. They've got the contracts of both Billy Wagner and Carlos Delgado coming off the books to the tune of $21 million. I'd pick up J.J. Putz's option if he shows himself to be healthy in August and September just to try and get something out of the trade with the Mariners and because Putz will want to have a big year in 2010 to get himself a long term deal from someone as a closer. There will be decent, reasonably priced first basemen available such as Adam LaRoche and Nick Johnson. Garrett Atkins has been atrocious this year for the Rockies and is arbitration eligible; he's played some first base and could be had for almost nothing. With the available money, the Mets could bring in some reasonably priced, veteran starting pitchers; and with the state of the economy, there's no telling what big names could suddenly become available at bargain prices. I'd even seriously consider bringing Gary Sheffield back; he's been a good guy in the clubhouse and would've been very productive if they'd spotted his playing time as his age and physical issues dictated. 

    This season is shot and I don't get the sense that most Mets fans are all that angry at anyone about it. Sure, you hear the ripping of Minaya for not having a superior set of replacements for the likes of Jose Reyes or Carlos Delgado, but there aren't very many viable replacements for players of that caliber who'd be willing to sit on the bench and wait (hope) that someone gets hurt. Injuries happen and you can't take anyone to task for it. The only thing you can do is move forward and doing something aggressively stupid would be similar to the maneuvers that got the Mets in trouble in the first place. 

    The one caveat I'll add is directed at manager Jerry Manuel. He's done some strange things, but I wouldn't say he's done a "bad" job. There's no way of knowing what would've happened without the injuries. That being said, if the Mets do decide to bring in a new manager, the only way I'd do it is if they're bringing Bobby Valentine back or Tony La Russa decides that he's tired of the Cardinals penny-pinching and is willing to come to New York (and bring Dave Duncan with him) on a three-year deal. Other than that, they might as well keep Manuel. 

    ESPN.com’s Rumor Central is providing a primer in investigative journalism as they “report” that the Giants would like to rid themselves of Barry Zito and his contract.

    No kidding.

    Here’s the clip:

DEPTH CHART: What to do with Zito?
Barry Zito | Giants
The Giants will face a sticky decision when Randy Johnson is ready to come off the disabled list.

Now in a middle of a pennant race, they must decide whether to bump the inexpensive and inconsistent Barry Zito from the rotation. The emergence of Jonathan Sanchez and Ryan Sadowski makes that a viable option.

The San Jose Mercury News says the Giants should consider trading Zito now or releasing him in the offseason. Zito has a no-trade clause, so the Giants would have to pay him even more to give up that option.

   

    I was about to suggest that the Giants and Blue Jays consider dealing Zito to Toronto for Vernon Wells. Wells is a pretty good player making great player money and the change to a team making a legitimate playoff run might wake up his bat…then I looked at the contracts.

    As bad as Zito’s contract is, he’s got $83 million guaranteed through 2013 and despite a 5-9 record and that he gets shelled if he's not perfect, he hasn't been that bad this year----2009 GameLogs. The Zito contract is nothing compared to Wells’s contract, which might possibly be the worst contract ever signed anywhere----even worse than the money for nothing (along with luxury perks) that the leeches as AIG received before and after the government bailout.

    Vernon Wells has the following yet to go (clipped from RotoWorld):

2009: $10 million, 2010: $21 million, 2011: $23 million (can opt out after season), 2012: $21 million, 2013: $21 million, 2014: $21 million, 2015: Free Agent   

    Good grief.

    That’s $107 million through 2014 for Vernon Wells. Vernon Wells in a post-PED baseball world.

    You look at Wells’s numbers and that contract and the question again arises: how is J.P. Ricciardi still there as Blue Jays GM? That contract alone is a fireable offense in and of itself without even looking at anything else Ricciardi’s done (and that rap sheet’s long too).

    About a week ago, I suggested that a way to get Wells’s contract off the books would be to demand that he’s included in any deal for Roy Halladay; that the number or prospects coming back to Toronto would be diminished in such a deal just to get rid of that albatross, but forget it. Even if they offered Halladay and Wells to the Dodgers for Brad Ausmus and a fungo bat, no one----and I mean no one----is taking that contract. They’re stuck with Wells for the duration and that’s that.

    The sports world is buzzing at the possible return of Brett Fav-ruh…or not. Or possibly. Or maybe not. Or could be; well, it depends on what he had for breakfast. Or what his wife says; or if he really wants to play. Is the Packers $20 million “personal services” deal still on the table? Does that include him suiting up and playing whenever he feels like it? Or doesn’t feel like it?

    You get the idea.

    ESPN is the biggest culprit in the whole Brett Favre saga of whether or not he’s going to come back for the fiftieth time after deciding that he can’t play anymore, but we’re all guilty because we pay attention to it. If nothing else, ESPN is the ultimate in content dictated by viewers and they’re responding to what the public wants.

    For a long time, the X-Games were the biggest thing on ESPN; then there was the poker tournaments; now it seems to be Mixed Martial Arts and the Ultimate Fighting Championships. In a few months, there’ll be another diversion to grab the attention of their targeted demographic. These aren’t criticisms; just facts. So with the coverage that Favre receives if he’s on a football field; on a golf course; appearing at a NASCAR event; doing a movie cameo; or taking his kids to the park, the only reason ESPN covers and promotes it so heavily is because people are interested and watching.

    Those that say they’ve had enough of Favre and don’t want to hear about him anymore aren’t going to appreciate what they have until it’s gone. What else is going to draw the attention of the moderate football fan who only watches on Sunday and has little interest in training camp or the draft? The NFL must be thrilled to have someone like Favre who’s so flighty yet isn’t running people over in his car, getting busted carrying a concealed weapon, juggling 20 girlfriends in addition to his wife and getting 15 of them pregnant.    

    Now the latest is that Favre threw for the Vikings offensive coordinator and is going to let the team know in two weeks if he’s coming back. Presumably, that comeback would be with the Vikings, but you never know. ESPN is treating this as if Favre is returning from Neptune complete with the update anchor on Mike and Mike in the Morning excitedly saying that (I’m paraphrasing), “we’ll know in two weeks time what Favre is going to do”. You can say, “who cares?” and in the cosmic scheme of things (sticking to the “back from Neptune” theme) you might not care. I certainly don’t, but I’m paying attention to it because it’s something interesting to watch like rubbernecking a car crash or a Padres game.   

    To see if Favre can play better than he did with the Jets and to see how the Packers organization and Green Bay proper react to Favre not just coming back----but coming back as one of their biggest rivals----is great theater. The only thing better would be if he came back with the Bears. Let’s just admit it, we watch it and ESPN covers it because it’s what the people want and given the list of things that people want and the lurid nature of much of the other desires that are kept hidden, following Brett Favre around is pretty low on the sleazeometer.

    With the way General Managers are ripped by everyone who disagrees with any small thing they do that's perceived as "wrong"; with the way managers have every twitch dissected, I decided to give my list of the best and worst (in my considered view) of GMs and managers.

• The five best General Managers: 

1. Larry Beinfest, Florida Marlins:

    Because he's running the Marlins and has to deal with the minimalist payroll and lack of fan support (except when they're winning the World Series that is), Beinfest doesn't get the respect he deserves. From procuring players off the scrapheap like Jorge Cantu and Dan Meyer; to extracting the best prospects like Hanley Ramirez from the big market teams when he deals his stars; to overt heists as in the trade of Jason Vargas for Matt Lindstrom and picking Dan Uggla in the Rule 5 draft, the Marlins put on a clinic on how to properly run a franchise whether they get any attention for it or not.

2. Theo Epstein, Boston Red Sox:

    The most impressive thing about Epstein isn't the two World Series wins he's presided over with the Red Sox; nor is it the way he's able to get value out of nothing when he was forced to deal Manny Ramirez and managed to bring back a replacement and more in Jason Bay; it's not even his ruthlessness in getting rid of players when they've outlived their use to the club. No, what's most impressive is that he was willing to abandon certain tenets of the Moneyball system----which had basically fueled his rise at such a young age----and ditched, for example, the closer-by-committee because it wasn't working in practice. The Red Sox throw money at their problems to cover them up and don't run their club by stats alone; it's clearly worked as they've built a productive juggernaut. 

3. Tony Reagins, Los Angeles Angels:

    Having learned his lessons well from former GM Bill Stoeneman and worked his way up organically through the organization rather than by being the product of inaccurate hype machines, Reagins leads by example, relies on his scouts and spends money on quality. The Angels are aggressive and willing to do anything to improve their club with no concerns about money or perception.

4. Ken Williams, Chicago White Sox:

    It's easy for someone to say, "I don't care what anyone thinks or says about me"; it's another thing entirely to mean it. Williams means it. The man is absolutely fearless when making a deal. He does what he thinks is right; brings in players and a manager that no one else would touch, and finds talent where it doesn't seem to exist. It's as if he had a crystal ball when he traded for Gavin Floyd and Carlos Quentin. Williams never lets failures like the acquisition of Ken Griffey Jr dissuade him from trying something unconventional. 

5. Billy Beane, Oakland Athletics:

    He's under fire because of this year's struggles and while I've been critical of him for his ill-thought-out decisions such as signing Nomar Garciaparra and Orlando Cabrera, his body of work is still too great to gloss over in the past twelve years. He finds talent and, in the past, hasn't been afraid to make aggressive moves. No matter what happens with him after this season, he's still one of the smartest GMs in baseball despite taking advantage of the high profile and reputation that he got from Moneyball's flawed and twisted portrayal.

• The five worst General Managers:

1. Dayton Moore, Kansas City Royals:

    Like a girl or guy that a person can't believe they once dated, I can't believe that I had such a man-crush on Dayton Moore when he took over as the Royals GM. He started off well enough. He was right in paying lucratively for Gil Meche and he observed the way the organization was run before making any capricious decisions, then he fired almost his entire inherited minor league operators. Somewhere along the line, he went veering off the road and the Royals have become a joke. They're going nowhere and fast and it's because of the mistakes made by their GM that have compounded mistakes made by previous GMs.

2. John Mozeliak, St. Louis Cardinals:

    The front man for the Cardinals' ownership throwing nickels around like manhole covers, Mozeliak is practiced in the art of speaking in circles to mask the fact that he's got no intention of doing anything to improve the club unless players fall into their laps and are cheap. He's alienated his Hall of Fame manager Tony La Russa and the club relies on that genius (and Dave Duncan and Albert Pujols) to carry them into contention. If La Russa leaves as a free agent at the end of the season, they're going to be in deep, deep trouble. 

3. Neal Huntington, Pittsburgh Pirates:

    No one really knows whether Huntington is really making the calls in Pittsburgh or if he's simply the front man for team president Frank Coonelly. Either way, the Pirates are constantly rebuilding, trading veterans and creating apathy in their remaining fans with their ineptitude.

4.  Kevin Towers, San Diego Padres:

    It's not all his fault given the dysfunction in the Padres front office in the past four years, but his drafts as GM before that were, to be kind, unimpressive. He's made some brilliant maneuvers like prying Adrian Gonzalez and Chris Young from the Rangers for Adam Eaton and Akinori Otsuka, but the team's terrible and the farm system is almost totally barren. He's also doled some terrible contracts with no-trade clauses that have held up the rebuilding process because they're hostages to those contracts.

5. Frank Wren, Atlanta Braves:

     Wren has a bad reputation for the way Tom Glavine and John Smoltz left; how Jeff Francoeur was completely screwed up; and for his off-season of indecision and random pursuits like a desperate guy at last call. Doling a lucrative contract extension on the injury-prone and aging Chipper Jones will hamstring the club's finances for years. Considering how the Braves insist they're contenders even when they're not, I'd expect at least two more huge gaffes from Wren within the next month that will be felt in Atlanta for a decade. 

•  The five best managers:

1. Tony La Russa, St. Louis Cardinals:

    Through sheer force of will and strategic brilliance, La Russa gets the most out of his entire roster no matter how tattered and limited they are. It helps to have an Albert Pujols in the lineup every day, but his work in patching together that flawed roster and keeping them in contention and more counteracts any criticism he receives for his supposed overmanaging. 

2. Joe Torre, Los Angeles Dodgers:

    His presence and cachet has always been there----I dunno if I was the first one to refer to him as the Sinatra of the baseball world----but he finds a way to coax his teams to the top of their division year-after-year. Their starting pitching staff and injury-riddled bullpen would give the Dodgers an excuse to be hovering around with the rest of the also-rans permeating the National League, but they're rolling toward a division title, Torre's 14th straight playoff appearance. 

3. Mike Scisocia, Los Angeles Angels:

    Not only does he have control of his clubhouse and the respect of his players, but he wins every year no matter what. The way that he's guided his club back to first place after the tragic death of Nick Adenhart is an even better example of his excellence and professionalism.

4. Ron Gardenhire, Minnesota Twins:

    The Twins organization teaches one way to play throughout their organization and Gardenhire exemplifies the merit system in running his team. It's simple: you don't play the Twins way, you don't play and that Gardenhire is able to pull that off in today's game makes him one of the best and most unappreciated managers in baseball.

5. Lou Piniella, Chicago Cubs:

    Piniella's in control of his clubhouse and finds a way to get the most out of his players. He's had some serious playoff meltdowns with both the Mariners and Cubs, but losing in the playoffs is better than the alternative of not making the playoffs at all. He'll have the Cubs fighting for a playoff spot by the end of the season.

• The five worst managers:

1. Trey Hillman, Kansas City Royals:

    Another regrettable man-crush. Hillman's resume was flawless when he took over the Royals, but he's been overmatched, inconsistent and bottom-line clueless. The team isn't any good, but Hillman's bizarre maneuvering only makes things worse and costs the team games they should win.

2. John Russell, Pittsburgh Pirates:

    He's babysitting a perpetually rebuilding team, but he's made some utterly bizarre decisions in using his bullpen and in other strategies. Russell has his hands full trying to placate the remaining veterans as they squawk about the trades. It's not his fault, but he's not proving himself to be a very good manager so far.

3. Bud Black, San Diego Padres:

    The start of the Padres downfall can be traced to one decision: Bud Black allowing Jake Peavy to pitch on short rest against the Diamondbacks in September 2007. Peavy got shelled and the move sent the Diamondbacks into a rage-fueled frenzy at the implication that the Padres could send a compromised Peavy out to the mound and still beat them. The Padres missed the playoffs and fell to 99 losses last year. It's not all Black's fault, but his inexperience as a manager has shown in his three years at the helm. 

4. Ron Washington, Texas Rangers:

    The Rangers have played well this season and in Washington's time as their manager, they've never quit on him despite repeated rumors of his impending demise. That being said, there are times that I watch the Rangers and haven't the faintest explanation as to what Washington's doing or why. It's a positive to have the players play hard, but sometimes a semblance of a strategy is needed and that's missing with Washington.

5. A.J. Hinch, Arizona Diamondbacks:

    Hinch should be an incomplete, but the only managerial experience he has is over the past couple of months with the Diamondbacks. The basis of Hinch's hiring was to provide, in GM Josh Byrnes's words, "organizational advocacy" whatever that means. Hinch is a smart guy, but a total lack of experience and such backing from the front office makes it hard to win support in the clubhouse with the veteran players who loved the previous manager, Bob Melvin. 

• The agendas are showing and I don't wanna hear them anymore!!!!

    Here's a stream of consciousness list of things that have been repeated to the point of being sickening and IT WILL STOP OR ELSE!!!!!

    I dunno "or else what?" Just OR ELSE!!!!!

The Joba Chamberlain starter/bullpen debate:

    The argument of the stat zombies that "a good starter is better than a great reliever" doesn't work with me. If a guy's better suited to be a reliever than a starter, then he should be a reliever. I'm just tired of hearing about it. The Yankees are gonna do what they're gonna do.

    GM Brian Cashman's been so obstinate up to now that he's going to hold out as long as he possibly can, not because he's doing what's best for the greater good, the player and the team, but because he wants to be right and receive credit for being right, and that's not good. I've lost interest and when they make a decision and stick to it, then everyone will move forward.

    Another thing I find fascinating is ESPN's "Rumor Central". The "Rumors" they come up with are becoming similar to the "facts" that Mike Francesa blurts out when they're not facts at all, just something he sorta made up and is running with as if he has intricate knowledge that no one else has. He did it last year with the idea that Moises Alou would play first base for the Mets and said, "it's been discussed around here (meaning New York) for a few days." Yeah, it was discussed----by him. Or the idea that the Angels were "admitting" their mistake in letting Francisco Rodriguez go. Maybe privately, but Francesa made it sound as if the Angels were pointing at new closer (and All Star) Brian Fuentes and saying, "Man, this guy sucks!!! We shoulda kept K-Rod." Despite my best efforts, I found nothing anywhere that the Angels said publicly indicating regret for letting K-Rod walk. 

    Here's the ESPN "rumor" regarding Chamberlain:

DEPTH CHART: Joba bound for pen?

Well, if Joe Girardi listens hard enough to the clamor in New York, that's where he'll send his struggling fifth starter. Just listen to former Yank Goose Gossage: "This guy was their savior two years ago when they didn't have a set-up guy. They wouldn't have made the playoffs without Joba. He'd be the perfect [set-up] guy. If you could impact three or four ballgames a week instead of one ... I think you're wasting a tremendous talent."

    Does this qualify as a "rumor"? Goose Gossage providing his opinion that he's said over and over again?

Pedro Martinez joins the Phillies:

    Much like the stat zombies who go on and on about how much "better" a player Ryan Church is than Jeff Francoeur, we're seeing a small scale media frenzy about Pedro Martinez signing with the Phillies for the rest of the season. Having seen both with the Mets, I can tell you that: A) Church is an okay player and nowhere near the sheer talent of Francoeur, numbers be damned; and B) Pedro Martinez's body breaks down to the point that the Phillies aren't going to know whether they'll get 8 or 80 pitches a start. 

    Pedro still has the knowledge of pitching and the ability to change speeds, but with his fastball a shell of what it was, the intimidation factor is gone. His control is no longer that great (probably a byproduct of the injuries); he gives up a lot of fly balls, which will be a problem in Philadelphia; and----people seem reluctant to say this----he got rocked last year. 

    He's a crafty veteran; won't cost all that much for the Phillies; and with their offense doesn't have to be that great or durable as long as he gives them six or so innings and allows 3-4 runs, but don't expect the 2000 Pedro, or even the 2005 Pedro. 

    Another thing I don't want to hear about is Pedro's "leadership". Pedro's leadership didn't do all that much good for the Mets in 2007 and 2008. Maybe comedy relief is a better term.

    And this is almost one of those joke news stories you see on a satirical website or newspaper. The Phillies have signed Pedro...and immediately placed him on the disabled list with a right shoulder strain. Really.

    Hell, I'll take the MLB minimum if they'd like to stick someone on the DL.  

    Here's a question: do the Mets get a draft pick from the Phillies for this signing since it came after the June draft? How's that work? Anybody know?

Scott Rolen is not having a "great" year:

    Where this myth that Scott Rolen was having a "great" year came from is a mystery. The biggest factor for Rolen is that he's been stunningly healthy for the first time since 2006. His defense is great; he's gotten on base and hit for a high average, but he's got 6 home runs. For a former 30 homer man, that's not "great".

    The Red Sox are supposedly interested in Rolen with Mike Lowell out. The cost-slashing Blue Jays would probably be thrilled just to get someone to take Rolen's contract (nearly $12 million for next year) and the Green Monster would probably return a semblance of Rolen's power numbers, but he's not having a "great" year.

The indignation from all corners of the universe about PED usage:

    Like the financial meltdowns, Ponzi schemes, predatory lenders and other aspects of how this country (and the world) got into its current state, everyone lent a hand (and had a hand out) whether they were wallowing in the muck or simply picking crumbs off of the ground in the aftermath. Now we see broadcasters, baseball officials, team executives, managers, coaches and players decrying the use of PEDs to boost the power numbers, the ratings and paychecks.

    Everyone was involved, so don't whine about it now. It was tacitly approved by everyone and nobody cared about the consequences until after the fact. Every player that spoke up was shouted down or backtracked due to pressure from everyone else. It happened. It's probably still happening in some way, shape or form and no one protested. Don't join the "clean up baseball" movement now and act indignant at the players who did what they were allowed to do; what they were encouraged to do; and in some cases, forced to do to keep their jobs.

The Moneyball movie:

    I don't care if the dig up Alfred Hitchcock to re-write the thing, there's no movie!!!! Moneyball hasn't woooooooooorrrrrrrkeeddddddddd!!!!!!!!!

    Stream of consciousness over. Now onto other matters.

• The All Star Game:

• Viewer Mail 7.15.2009:

Jane Heller at Confessions of a She-Fan writes RE my Trey Hillman/Sarah Palin post:

Leave it to you, Prince, to post an entry in which both Sarah Palin and Trey Hillman figure prominently. Never dull here.

    Oh, PAULLEBOWITZ.COM is where the party's at.

    If the Indians had cooperated I'd be doing real well with my preseason predictions. I've said that Indians GM Mark Shapiro is my doppelganger, but after this year you'd be hard-pressed to determine which of us is the evil twin and which is the foundation for all which is good, right and holy. Even I can't tell after their 2009 debacle. Anyway...

• The Rays will be the team left out in the American League East:

    They've got a lot of games against some bad-to-mediocre teams like the Orioles, Royals and Blue Jays, but so do the Yankees and Red Sox. This is based on the completeness of the teams in front of them; that the Rays pitching is still not as good as that of the other two teams; and that they don't appear inclined to do anything about it if you go by their statements of not having any intention to add significant payroll. 

    Everyone who was freaking out over the Rays and dubbing them a budding dynasty ignored the fact that they still have a very young, inexperienced and emotional starting rotation.*

*Speaking of which, did Joe Maddon do anything at all with Matt Garza the other day as he was removed from the game and stormed off the mound, showing up his manager? Frank Robinson would've yanked him back by the scruff of his neck as would Lou Piniella and Joe Girardi. The inmates are running the asylum over there and that's a downward spiral waiting to happen.

    I don't want to hear about their bullpen ERA. They're going to lose games that they should win because of the pitching staff gacking them up and it's going to cost them in the playoff race. By mid-September, they'll be a non-factor except in helping determine who wins the AL East and that doesn't matter all that much anyway one way or the other.

• Roy Halladay will not get traded until the winter:

    I can't believe that J.P. Ricciardi is going to get what he wants for Halladay unless some team panics. In these economic times, I can't see it happening. This was always a foundational type announcement anyway. Ricciardi let it be known that he'd entertain offers for Halladay to take advantage of the daily news cycles to camouflage the fact that Halladay's on the market and prevent the day-to-day abuse he'd receive in the winter for doing what needs to be done and trading his star. He's setting the stage for after the season and wait for the offers to come in.

    This could take a Johan Santana-type turn and have every interested party making their moves and biding their time to see how the market shakes out, which means Halladay will be a Blue Jay until next February. There's also a possibility that Blue Jays ownership will fire Ricciardi and let someone else make the move. It would take a pretty strong personality to be willing to take that abuse on walking in the door.

• The Mariners will be sellers:

    They need to sell high on Jarrod Washburn and sell period on Erik Bedard. Both are impending free agents and they're not going to get much for either. Depending on the economy, the Mariners aren't going to go crazy to keep Washburn after the season and if he really wants to return to Seattle and the team fades out, they can come to an understanding that they'll get a couple of prospects for him in-season and re-sign him in the winter to a short-term deal. 

    I'd inquire about Brandon Morrow if I were another team's GM. The Mariners' Jack Zduriencik didn't draft him, won't be as invested in his future, and might be willing to move him for the good of the pitcher and the organization.

    Speaking of the Mariners, I love how the stat zombies are doing exactly what a chunk of them ripped me for in the early part of the season----patting themselves on the back. My self-congratulations was for my picking the Marlins in the NL East; theirs is for Russell Branyan. 

    Branyan's having a great year.

    Too great.

    It's his career year at age 33. He still strikes out a ton and, trust me, his batting average will be back down to the .240s by season's end. He's having his big year, should end with 30+ homers and might convince some unsuspecting team to sign the journeyman in the Jack Cust-mold to a multi-year deal, and it'll be a mistake because he's more likely to fall back into the player who kept getting released, sent to the minors and traded all over the place than he is to repeat this anomaly of a season.

• The Twins will overtake the Tigers in the AL Central:

    Stupid Indians. Grumble....

    I have deep concerns about the Tigers pitching staff in both the starting rotation and the bullpen. The rotation's carried them into first place, but will they be able to maintain the load in August and September? Edwin Jackson's never been worked this hard, nor has Justin Verlander. Manager Jim Leyland's riding them out of necessity because he doesn't trust his bullpen (with good reason). 

    Their lineup has some black spots with Gerald Laird (who's hit better than anyone could've thought), Adam Everett and Magglio Ordonez. Will GM Dave Dombrowski mortgage more of the Tigers farm system (if they even have anyone worthwhile left) to try and find some pitching help? It's a bad idea. Leyland's got his contract extension, they've played far better than the disastrous predictions suggested and should stay the course and be happy with a season over .500.

    The Twins have black spots in the lineup of their own, but they have two super-duper-stars in Joe Mauer and Justin Morneau to carry them, a good bullpen and serviceable starting rotation. Add in that they're always ready to make deals that are sometimes surprising----good and bad----and they'll hang around and take advantage if and when the Tigers pitching is exhausted.

• The Marlins and Phillies will go down to the wire in the NL East:

    Both have a lot of games against the Nationals, Braves and Mets to add to their win totals. The Marlins are also going to be playing the Padres while the Phillies have the Giants and Rockies, no easy marks. I've kept on saying it: if the Marlins are hanging around contention into mid-season, their young pitching will have gained enough experience to have a second half run. They've always been able to hit and there's talk that they might be buyers in the market.

    On another note about the Phillies, if you think Pedro Martinez is the answer, you didn't watch him with the Mets in the past 2 1/2 years. You never know which pitch, which movement, which anything is going to send his fragile body to the disabled list for a month (or more). I don't want to hear about his velocity hitting 93 either. He's not the solution, although he will create some buzz if he can last more than two innings without getting hurt.

• The Braves will do something stupid:

•  Big changes are on the way for the Royals and Athletics:

    Royals GM Dayton Moore may claim that he doesn't care what his critics say, but he's going to have to do something even if it's only for appearance-sake. That could be firing his manager or it could be doing something drastic like offering Gil Meche around the league. The team is going nowhere, is being criticized by stat zombies and non-zombies and is in horrendous shape on and off the field.

    They were 18-11 on May 7th and everyone who thought they're turned the corner and picked them to contend was doing cartwheels; since then they've gone 19-40. Something's got to be done in Kansas City. 

    As for the A's, it seems like Billy Beane is under some serious fire for what's gone on this season. Will he fire Bob Geren? If he hasn't done it yet, he probably won't. The only way a managerial change is made is if Beane steps down after the season and David Forst walks in and brings in a new manager. That's if Forst is the guy who takes over; they might bring in a GM from outside the organization. 

    Aside from that, Matt Holliday is going to get traded and they're not going to get all that much for him. I don't think anyone on that entire roster is off limits and there's every chance that Jason Giambi's going to get released. It's going to be a bloodbath as Beane starts to take steps to save himself and his reputation from this cesspool. It may already be too late.    

    I generally don't like doling out awards for a half-season of work because anything----from a total collapse to an Orel Hershiser-style hot streak----can happen, but the more I've thought about it, certain players do deserves some recognition for their good work from April until the symbolic "middle" of the season.

• American League

MVP: Joe Mauer, Minnesota Twins:

    Even having missed 25 games, Mauer's numbers are absurd. He's batting .373; has a .447 OBP; already has a career-high 15 homers; and has walked as many times as he's struck out; and he's providing Gold Glove defense.

Cy Young Award: Zack Greinke, Kansas City Royals:

    The team's in disarray, can't hit and has a rotten bullpen before getting to closer Joakim Soria, but Greinke has still won 10 games and could've won five more. He's stumbled slightly from his unhittable start which has let Roy Halladay and Justin Verlander get back into the conversation, but Greinke's been the best pitcher in baseball over the first 3 1/2 months of the season.

Rookie of the Year: Ricky Romero, Toronto Blue Jays:

    Romero's drawing comparisons to Johan Santana because of his changeup and poise. He seems to enjoy what he's doing out there and has a plan. Most importantly, he throws strikes.

Manager of the Year: Mike Scioscia, Los Angeles Angels:

    How many managers could handle the injuries, the faltering bullpen and, most tragically, the death of Nick Adenhart and still get their team in a position to win the division? It would've been easy and understandable for the Angels to cash in the season after Adenhart was killed, but they pulled together like always and are again at the top of the AL West. Much of that is due to the work and leadership of Mike Scioscia, the coaching staff and the entire Angels organization.

• National League:

MVP: Albert Pujols, St. Louis Cardinals:

    On the one hand, it's fun to wonder what Pujols would do if he was playing in a bandbox ballpark and surrounded by power bats as he would with the Phillies or Yankees; on the other, it makes it more unbelievable that he puts up the numbers he does basically on an island in the Cardinals lineup with teams knowing that he's the main threat and being careful with him. He doesn't get overanxious and strike out and the sheer number of balls that he rockets back up the middle is an indicator of how dialed in he is all the time. The elephant in the room is always going to be there though. One can only hope that Pujols is playing clean.

Cy Young Award: Dan Haren, Arizona Diamondbacks:

   Haren could realistically have 17 wins at the All Star break. He's on a team in turmoil with a bullpen that is only recently getting itself straightened out. Like Pujols, Haren is on and island; he's missing his other half of the Diamondbacks strategy of building around two aces with Brandon Webb injured and Haren's still been masterful.

Rookie of the Year: Colby Rasmus, St. Louis Cardinals:

   The 22-year-old Rasmus has played regularly and has the most homers among rookies in the big leagues. He needs to work on his plate discipline, but in a moderately weak rookie class, he's been the best in the NL in 2009.

Manager of the Year: Joe Torre, Los Angeles Dodgers:

   Nothing has stopped the Dodgers this year. Not the Manny Ramirez/PED debacle; not a questionable starting rotation; not injuries to important bullpen cogs. Torre's also managed to soothe over any of the lingering issues between veterans and rookies and forged a cohesive unit and the team with the best record in baseball. 

    Both Bruce Bochy and Jim Tracy should receive serious consideration for this award. The decision with the subjective Manager of the Year award has to come down to whether the award is for results or overachievement. You can make a viable argument for any of the three managers I mentioned.  

• They're still human beings with families and friends:

    I don't want to get into sentimentality or sound like I'm becoming maudlin, but I've been thinking about this since Gov. Sarah Palin's resignation and the outright glee that certain opponents (some within her own party and many amongst those who plucked her from obscurity to become the punchline she currently is) have taken in her apparent downfall. (Scoff at your own risk, she will be heard from again.)

    I'm certainly no fan of Sarah Palin. She was unqualified, inexperienced and arrogant to think that she could charm her way through a presidential campaign as the running mate of a 72-year-old man in shaky health and get away with not knowing anything. I'm not talking about not knowing minute policy details either; if someone had asked me about the Bush Doctrine, I probably would've vapor locked as well as would half of congress. I'm talking about not knowing stuff you'd know simply by reading a newspaper for ten minutes a day. After her collapse, however, there was a meanness to the coverage that went over the line from baseline reporting and providing opinion to a celebration of issues that are really no one's business.

    It would be the best thing for the country if she really did leave politics and chose to never wink her way into the disturbing fantasies of Rich Lowry (Editor of the National Review)...*

*Here's a clip from Countdown with Keith Olbermann regarding Lowry's "stimulus response" to Gov. Palin's debate performance in October if you don't know what I'm talking about. Fast forward to about 1:30 on the bar to understand----if you dare----and haven't eaten yet.

...but while she's a Jesus-nut who fakes her way through interviews and speeches with catchy buzzwords that are a camouflage for that which she does not know (and actually works on those who want to be taken in by it), she's still a mother; she's still a person who has family and friends who are unhappy with the media portrayal of her that not only attempts to destroy her politically, but personally as well. She brought it on herself by accepting the vice presidential nomination, but that's not an excuse for personal attacks that are just as vile no matter which side of the aisle you're on. Ross Douthat wrote a Op-Ed in the NY Times about Palin last week that explains why it would've been better off for her political aspirations had she refused the offer.

    The reason I bring this up is because I got a web hit yesterday from Texas regarding Royals manager Trey Hillman and his job status. Since I'd written a few weeks ago that Hillman was overmatched in the job, I'm not defending him any more than I'm defending Sarah Palin, but it makes you realize that even though these people are making good money and doing a job that most of us would love to have, they have a personal life too. I can't help but wonder if it was someone close to Hillman who was checking to see if he may be on the verge of getting fired. He's done a bad job and it's especially worse when the actual manager of the team isn't even the best manager on his own coaching staff----John Gibbons is----but it doesn't alter the reality of people being people.

    There's a difference between those that are making statements that this person should be fired or that person should be fired without having the faintest clue as to what they're talking about or what the job they're referring to entails, and those that have looked at the situation and come to a conclusion that a change would be best for the good of the organization. Being cruel to be kind is different from being cruel to be cruel.

    Most of the people who advocate the firings can't actually do anything. They've never picked up a baseball. All they know is what the stat sheets and numbers say as if the participants are robots without other things on their minds. This is why I gave Joe Maddon a pass for his lineup screwup a few weeks ago even though I don't like the way he manages; he made a mistake that I could see myself making; that anyone could make. I'd rather have a manager who does what he thinks is right based on his own experiences than a frightened automaton.

    If Jim Leyland chooses to use one pitcher over another even if the numbers say he should've chosen differently, he has a right to make that decision based on looking at the pitcher's face and knowing----knowing----that the percentage move wouldn't work because the pitcher's body language said he wasn't going to get the job done. Managers who do things strictly by the book because they want to have an excuse to give to the press are rarely successful or last in the job unless they're installed by upper management to do exactly that, and even then they get dumped at a moment's notice just to make a change for change's sake. Jeff Torborg managed that way; as if he wanted to have reasons for doing what he did that no one could argue with numerically, rather than what was good for the team.

    It's funny how those that don't know anything about the game of baseball other than what the numbers tell them revert to the little weasels that most of them were before the new era of numbers, numbers, numbers came into vogue and made things worse. Like Karl Rove, they were nobodies who couldn't do nothin' and now have an outlet to get back at the kids who could actually play the game. (And don't think for a second I was one of the cool kids, either.) Rising to power isn't the same as being qualified to hold that power.

    One of the main problems (of the dozens) that I have with Moneyball isn't the advocacy of a different way to run a team or an organization. It's the meanness. It's the implication that if you don't have an Ivy League degree or aren't doing what the numbers say above all, then you're a moron who doesn't deserve to have a place in baseball. Thankfully, that time is passing.

    There are managers/general managers who need to be replaced. Trey Hillman is one of those managers. His resume when he got the Royals job was impeccable. A former farm director, scout, minor league manager and championship-winning manager in Japan, Hillman looked great. It hasn't worked. There's a difference between being cruel to be kind in telling the truth and being vicious; many of these so-called "experts" are vicious for the sake of it, but wouldn't know what to do themselves if they were in the position that the people they think should be fired are in. They'll never look at it from that perspective because their agenda and lack of fundamental understanding of anything but numbers on a page precludes it. They might be better off if they put themselves in the position of others for awhile, rather than looking for vengeance for their own issues.

• Nationals fire Manny Acta:

    Worse than being fired is having to announce the firing yourself.

    Manny Acta told ESPN Deportes's Enrique Rojas that he's been fired as Nationals manager. After a couple of weeks as it sinks in, Acta will probably realize it's for the best that he get out of that situation. Let them bring in a new manager (and probably general manager) after the season and start fresh. Acta will get another coaching job somewhere and he's young enough and talented enough as a bench boss to get another managerial shot. I thought he was a solid manager when I watched him who did the best he could with what limited talent he had on his roster. After dealing with the present and former juvenile delinquents that former GM Jim Bowden insisted on bringing into Acta's clubhouse, anything else will seem like a trip to the Cayman Islands. 

    Jim Riggleman takes over as Nats manager. Riggleman has carved a nice little career for himself as the guy who takes over for the fired manager. He did it last year for the Mariners and now he's doing it again for the Nats. There's not much he can do with that team, similarly to the little he could do with the Mariners last season. What he can hope for is to not lose 115 games. I don't think they will. 104 is the number I have in mind as of now, July 13th.

• Viewer Mail 7.13.2009:

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

At this point, it's not a matter of the Yankees reining in Joba with a pitch count. He can't get himself out of the 5th inning. He's screwing this up all by himself.

    Maybe he does need Jorge Posada to pop him one. Seriously. After the new street boss, Derek Jeter, orders it of course.    

• John Franco on pitch counts:

    Former Mets reliever John Franco co-hosted WFAN's midday show this week and when the discussion turned to pitch counts, Franco expressed his feelings (he's against them) and brought up an interesting but some rarely mentioned points.

    Starting pitchers tend to warm up until they feel loose. Some have a certain number of pitches they throw before they deem themselves ready for a game; others just keep going until they feel sufficiently warmed up. Everyone has their little quirks. If you add up the number of warm up throws a pitcher takes before the game----say about 40-50----then the pitches he throws in a game, in addition to the eight warmups he gets when starting an inning, once he gets yanked after 100 pitches and six innings, he's actually thrown around 200 pitches. 

    I know what you're thinking. That the intensity is less when he's warming up than it is when he's actually trying to get hitters out, but he's still using the same motion and putting his shoulder and elbow into an unnatural position. Whether he's going at 60%, 75% or 80% doesn't change the repetitive and damaging nature of throwing a baseball. So, when you have a pitcher like Joba Chamberlain, who's treated like he's a breakable artifact from the Ming Dynasty, he's really throwing around 200 pitches whenever he starts. So is it that big a deal if he's asked to throw ten or fifteen more pitches in a game? 

• Speaking of Chamberlain:

    No one has ever specifically said when the reins are going to be removed from Chamberlain. The Yankees have all sorts of charts, graphs and historical retrospectives guiding them on how to keep Chamberlain healthy, but they look like they're ignoring the historical retrospectives on getting him to be effective. It doesn't do much good if he's healthy into his late-30s and pitching as he is now. 

    One thing that has to be remembered about any physical activity is that if the body is trained to shut down at an arbitrary number like 100 pitches, that's all it will be able to withstand for the duration. So the likelihood of a Chamberlain getting hurt when they do start stretching him out is greater the longer they go with this silliness. 

    They Yankees are hurting Chamberlain's career. They don't let him figure out how to get out of jams on his own; they're not handling his arrogance and recalcitrance in dealing with his veteran catcher Jorge Posada (who knows a little bit more about getting big league hitters out than Chamberlain does); and they're babying him to the point of destroying him. This has nothing to do with the starter/bullpen debate. It has to do with the mishandling of a talent because of fear of criticism and they're going to regret it.

• This is funny:

    I dunno if I agree with the premise that Mets GM Omar Minaya is the source of all that's wrong with the Mets as Bill Madden asserts in his column, but what's funny is the comments after the fact. Here's the column and the comments are on page 3. "Nails" is particularly entertaining. In a selfish sense, I'm glad I'm not the only one who gets attacked with that kinda stuff. I've found the more passionate someone is in advancing their position, the more they have invested in it for one reason or another. 

• It's a bad sign when players rip a GM on the way out the door: 

    You can say what you want about the Braves under John Schuerholz----that they underachieved; that they were arrogant; that they folded at crunch time whenever someone stood up to them in the playoffs----but you rarely, if ever, heard players let Schuerholz have it on the way out the door. Now, with Schuerholz as president of the club and Frank Wren as the GM, such is no longer the case.

    John Smoltz, Tom Glavine and now Jeff Francoeur are all walking away from what was once considered a superiorly classy organization and shaking their heads as they make cryptic comments about the GM's people skills. Wren hasn't exactly done a great job in running the team either, but when the players are unloading as they leave and the GM hasn't won anything at all in his three years as a GM, he'd better be a bit more affable with the players. (He was also the GM in Baltimore for the Orioles and got into a public spat with Cal Ripken Jr as Wren followed "team policy" and didn't hold a chartered plane for the club's star. Smart move. He was fired after the season.)

    Wren and Francoeur didn't see eye-to-eye and it's easy to understand the frustration with a talented player who doesn't appear to be listening, Francoeur was mishandled by the Braves when he started to slump after he was promoted as the organizational savior. (For the record, Francoeur looked to be genuinely trying to be more patient last night in his first game with the Mets; it's unlikely to continue and they're going to have to start tweaking some things after he's comfortable in his new venue.) Glavine and Smoltz don't have much of an argument with the Braves moving on from their veteran heroes, but those situations were screwed up as well; and despite the mid-season maneuvers for Nate McLouth and Ryan Church, the Braves are not a very good team. That they have a GM who some players dislike is an issue.

    Winning covers up a lot of animosity. Players used to rip the Red Sox and Theo Epstein on their way out the door (specifically Pedro Martinez, Nomar Garciaparra and Shea Hillenbrand----grain of salt?) but winning two championships allots a bit of leeway to the GM when he makes a decision. The Braves don't have the cash to overpay for a player if he doesn't want to enter a tense situation. A GM that has a reputation for being the baseball equivalent of Harvey Two-Face isn't going to help in recruiting players who have a choice in where to play.

• Do the Royals have a stat zombie in their organization?

    As everyone knows, I'm no stat zombie.

    I have very little patience for most stat zombies because you can't have a debate with them; they start getting all pompous and arrogant; move the goalposts when their numbers don't work and rarely admit when they're wrong; and if you're not a stat zombie and happen to be right about something, well, that's just dumb luck.

    That being said, do the Royals have anyone in their organization to at least ask if their plans make sense statistically?

    This past off-season, they made a series of moves that were stupid both practically and financially. Any stat zombie would've told them not to trade Leo Nunez for Mike Jacobs; not to sign Kyle Farnsworth and Willie Bloomquist, etc. I, being non-infected, would've told them the same thing. So now, the Royals, whose shortstop position might have been better served if they'd just left the position blank rather than writing the names Mike Aviles and Tony Pena Jr down on the lineup card, have traded for Mariners shortstop Yuniesky Betancourt. Royals GM Dayton Moore is predictably being roasted again.

    According to the zombies, Betancourt can neither hit nor field. I wouldn't go that far. He's shown some pop in his career and could provide ten or so homers if he plays regularly; a team with a solid offense could carry Betancourt at the bottom of the lineup and be happy if he caught every ball near him and added the 50 or so extra base hits he's had for the Mariners in the last couple of years. He's not as bad as the zombies are saying and he's way better than what the Royals were putting out there (which is small consolation), but a team like the Royals, who are 14th in the league in runs scored, have to be a little more discriminating in what they do to solve their issues.

    As a stopgap for two minor leaguers, I wouldn't get into a twist about the Royals dealing for Betancourt, but their decisions have shown absolutely no concern about any kind of statistics at all. People think I'm against stat zombies being involved in baseball in any way, shape or form and that's not the case. Every organization needs a couple of these guys to give a point-of-view that the eyes don't see.

    I wouldn't put them in charge of an organization (we've seen the results----check the Padres of San Diego and the Dodgers of DePodesta); but I'd keep one or two of them in a boiler room, chained up and fed occasionally, and I'd have them around so as not to make a bad situation worse, as the Royals seem to be currently doing under Moore.

• THE PADRES LOSSOMETER: 52
• JASON GIAMBI IS NOW BATTING .192       
  

• Jeff Francoeur's potential is too good to pass up:

    That's especially true when all you're giving up is Ryan Church.

    I love how the stat zombie forums amount to the main zombie going on and on about one player's (in this case, Church's) numbers in comparison to the heinous numbers of Jeff Francoeur and dub the trade a mistake for the Mets and a win for the Braves. Then the comments start rolling in and they essentially amount to sycophantic fawning and brainless agreement.

    Francoeur has been atrocious since 2007 when he looked like he was evolving into a superstar, but the only way a team like the Mets can get a player of Francoeur's abilities is if he's playing poorly; and to get him for a journeyman like Church? It was a no-brainer, and not the Paul DePodesta-style "no-brainer" in which the executive doesn't have a brain, but a no-brainer in which Mets GM Omar Minaya didn't even have to think about it before pulling the trigger. You aren't going to get a player with the natural abilities of a Francoeur (especially for Church) if he's playing well. 

    Church is an okay player. That's it. He's okay. He's a fourth outfielder on a very good team; has a great arm; some pop; and can run. He's also 30-years-old; is vulnerable to lefties; and hasn't hit enough to justify the Mets turning down such a deal. Given the way Frank Wren has run the Braves into the ground since he took over as GM, he certainly doesn't deserve a rubber stamp for any deal he makes being a "winner" before the fact. 

    As bad as Francoeur's been in the past year-and-a-half, he's 25; has limitless ability; needed to get out of Atlanta; and is arrogant and feisty enough to want to really stick it up the Braves' asses by going on a tear for the Mets, the team the Braves hate more than anyone. If he doesn't listen to reason from the Mets on the value of being a bit more patient, he won't be any better in New York than he was in Atlanta, but the risk of the deal is so low and the upside so high that it had to be done. 

    There have been many, many ultra-talented players who didn't make it for one reason or another. Two names that pop into my mind are Jeff King and Ellis Valentine. Then there are players who were stagnating in their previous homes and needed a change of scenery to fulfill that massive potential like Paul O'Neill (another hometown product who needed to get away from his hometown). Which will Francoeur be? Only time will tell, but getting away from Atlanta and going to a livelier, more passionate place that will embrace his personality rather than shake their heads at him can only help. Contrary to the zombies' assertions----as they continue ignoring talent and basing their argument on the numbers----the Mets didn't give up anything of note to get Francoeur. That's not knock on Ryan Church, it's just the way it is. 

    There are times to take a risk on talent and giving up Church is not a risk for the Mets. The Braves are going to learn very quickly that the holes in Church's game aren't going to be covered up by the good things he does. Their outfield, which had been one of the worst in the league for much of the season, will now be better with Church/Matt Diaz, Nate McLouth and Garret Anderson playing regularly, but in the future, they might rue the day they let Francoeur get away for so little in return.

• Viewer Mail 7.11.2009:

Franklin Rabon at fjrabon@gmail.com writes RE Jeff Francoeur:

Paul,

First, let me say this isn't some "after the fact" criticism of Jeff Francouer.  It's something I've told a lot of my friends for a while.  From everything I've seen, I have to think he just doesn't see the ball as well as he did very early on in his career.  Also, let me add, this isn't just me guessing that vision is a problem.  Jeff was actually hit in the eye by a pitcher in the minor leagues and his doctors actually told him that there was a high probability that his vision would get substantially worse.

I'm also saying this because its not just at the bad pitches he swings at that cause issue.  He also takes a lot of very good pitches to hit.  From someone who has watched Francouer for years now, it just looks like when the pitch is coming out of the pitchers hand, he guesses if its going to be a strike or a ball.

This is also why he doesn't seem to get as good of jumps on balls in the outfield as he used to and can't seem to read pitchers moves.  Jeff's a fast dude, he was going to play in the secondary at any division 1 college he wanted (he committed to Clemson).  Yet, he has fewer stolen bases than Brian McCann, and barely has the same range as matt diaz.

So while I do think he has a lot of issues in his head, I think its also not totally in his head, its also in his vision, which is why its so frustrating for him.  I think he's not 100% hardheaded, he just has a hard time picking the ball up.

I could of course be completely wrong, but if it was as simple as just not swinging at everything he sees, I think he would have shown SOME improvement in thed last 3 years, instead he's just gotten worse and worse and worse.

    I'd never thought of the obvious thing in having his eyes checked a la Ricky Vaughn in Major League. It's not a bad idea. Vision problems can be fixed and if that's the case, it's more of a steal for the Mets.

    Who knows with Francoeur? Maybe he doesn't realize that he's not seeing as well or he's one of those macho guys who doesn't want to be seen as weak and finding an excuse for his struggles. Perhaps his desire to shove it to the Braves will overcome any reluctance to wear glasses on the field if that is indeed the problem. The first thing I'd do if I were the Mets would be to give him an eye exam. 

• Let the buyer beware with Google:

    My problem with Google Ad Words has been solved and not in a good way.

    I called them on Wednesday (after having to search for the phone number because they don't provide it themselves; I guess they're busy counting their money) and the person I spoke to said he was looking into the issue as to why my ad was no longer running. He told me he'd email me within 24 hours. 48 hours passed and I called again; this time I spoke to a woman who told me that the ad wasn't running because of Google's "reviewing the ad" based on a number of factors, none of which were available to me, and unilaterally deciding to stop running it.

    I didn't start yelling. Give me at least a bit of credit for that, although I began to get heated.

    With the number of adult website ads and overt scumbaggery the type of Kevin Trudeau-fame that they run without remorse, is there some particular reason that they no longer wanted to accept my money for a harmless baseball site? And what makes things worse is that if I hadn't checked my traffic and my Google account, I wouldn't have known any of this because they don't even bother informing you that they've stopped running the ad. They just sorta do it.

    Not giving a reason for this decision leaves open a limitless number of possibilities of why this decision was made. There could be some stat zombie sitting there deciding he doesn't like what I'm saying; Google is located in Northern California, so there's possibly a Billy Beane fan over there who wants to silence me; or there could be just some anus who wants to mess with people. Not giving a reason is the same as giving any reason.

    Google isn't going to be filing for bankruptcy over my terminating my dealings with them, but they'd better understand that if they treat people this way, they're not going to have many friends when the inevitable collapse happens to them as it happens to ever other billion dollar enterprise that forgets what it was that got them to their current position in the first place.

    Here's the Google phone number if anyone's interested in calling them, just to say hello: 1-866-246-6453.

• Jonathan Sanchez's no-hitter:

    I watched the ninth inning and when Everth Cabrera stepped up to the plate, I just had a feeling he was going to do something stupid and he almost did when he squared to bunt. Right before the pitch, I looked at Cabrera's body language and saw something that made me say, "Don't do it!"

    Whether Cabrera really had an intention of bunting for a base hit or was just trying to distract Sanchez is irrelevant. Had he bunted there and gotten a base hit, not only would he have needed an armed escort from the ballpark, he would've needed an armed escort out of San Francisco; Aaron Rowand might've beaten him to death; and his Padres teammates probably would've been almost as angry about it. 

    We've gone over this before. There are times when it's appropriate to try and break up a no-hitter with a bunt. If the teams are both contenders; if the game's close; etc. But in a game involving the going-nowhere Padres----who were trailing 8-0, and for whom the game is totally meaningless----swing the bat. You do not want to break the no-hitter up that way in that situation, nor do you want to be the most-wanted man in Northern California since the Night Stalker for doing something dumb.

• THE PADRES LOSSOMETER: 51

• Angels 10-Yankees 6:

    How the Yankees are trying to sell the idea that Phil Hughes belongs in the bullpen while Joba Chamberlain belongs in the starting rotation after last night's (and Sunday's, and most of his starts) performance is fascinating. He was awful last night. Not only was he wild in the strike zone, but the Angels looked like they were running up to the plate to get their whacks at him. That's a far cry from the frightening force he was out of the bullpen in 2007.

    It ain't workin' boys.

    I've been back-and-forth with this in understanding (but not really defending) the argument for both sides of the starter/reliever coin, but he needs to go back to the bullpen now and stay there. I've seen enough.

• THE CURSE OF CAMMI (soon to be the CURSE OF CRACK if Aaron Sorkin comes up with a script to rival Steve Zallian's), Rays 6-Athletics 0:

    Don't be surprised if Jason Giambi (now down to .193) gets released outright after the All Star break.

    It's starting to feel in the wind that there's a real possibility that Billy Beane might be forced out after the season. I doubt they'll fire him openly, but making him leave to "pursue other opportunities" or whatever semantical gymnastics they use for firing someone without the embarrassing word "fired" still elicits the same result----a change. Michael Lewis will then be seen curled up in the fetal position, whimpering audibly and wondering how it all went so wrong.   

    You don't have to look at the standings to realize that if the Mets and the Braves make a deal, that neither is at or near the top of their division.

    Right before tonight's game against the Cinicnnati Reds, the Mets traded Ryan Church to the Braves for multi-talented, but rockheaded Jeff Francoeur. Church was stagnating with the Mets; didn't have the best relationship with manager Jerry Manuel and needed a change of scenery. He's the type who'll go to play for Bobby Cox and be a productive, though unspectacular player. He is an upgrade over the atrocious outfield the Braves have been fielding on a nightly basis. 

    I've been critical of Francoeur for his arrogance; for his impatience at the plate; for his rockheadedness. All the while I was levying those apropos criticisms, I loved his talent. Jeff Francouer doesn't have All Star ability; he doesn't have MVP ability; he has multiple MVP ability if someone, anyone can get through his thick skull to stop swinging at every pitch he sees. 

    I love this deal.

    Church was an ancillary, moderately productive piece while Francoeur is the type of guy that GM Omar Minaya rolls the dice on because he's not a stat zombie who's going to focus on his faults, but is a talent evaluator who looks at Francoeur's ability and salivates at being the executive who gets him to fulfill his potential. It's a low risk, high reward deal for the Mets and a "cutting their losses" move for the Braves. It could be a franchise-reviving move for the Mets if they find some heavy duty, industrial tools to bust through Francoeur's thick head.  

• While he's no genius, I don't think Billy Beane should be fired:

    It's stunning how quickly your friends and admirers desert you when things fall apart.

    Stat zombies everywhere wallowed in the validation of their point-of-view when Moneyball became a hit; that they had a charismatic, smart and charming vessel for their worship in Billy Beane made it all the more appetizing to come out of their holes and begin not only chortling, but working as hard as possible to ridicule and taunt those that don't believe stats are the end-all/be-all of baseball existence. Before Moneyball, all they had was the bearded, shy and somewhat obnoxious Bill James; pompous Ivy Leaguers and condescending weasels who were desperately trying to convince one-and-all that "their" way was best. Now, six years after the book's publication and hideous failures, the Beane-supporters are abandoning the sinking ship like rats.

    This clip posted by Dave Szymanski from Baseball Think Factory exhibits the mindset: 

A’s - Acquired Hairston (and why the A’s might need a new GM)

Oakland A's - Acquired OF Scott Hairston from the San Diego Padres for P Craig Italiano and P Ryan Webb

Hairston's been an excellent hitter for the Padres since he was picked up from the Diamondbacks for Leo Rosales a couple of years ago, hitting 270/329/522 in just under 700 plate appearances. While Hairston was a good deal economically for the Padres, the Padres have a complex ownership situation, with Moorad buying the team from Moores and His Messy Divorce over a 5-year period, so they want to cut costs drastically even before taking into account the condition of the economy.

The A's are in dire straits offensively, partly thanks to some inconsistent leadership from Beane over the last year or so. Rebuilding made a lot of sense in 2008 but the team did a 180 and made a few win-now moves when they sensed an opportunity. That was premature, however, and the team cannot be expected to score runs if they're not developing offensive prospects, no longer picking up Ken Phelpsers, and not signing elite offensive players. Yes, the team should be better, but where are the high-upside chances on offense? Jack Cust gave the A's two solid seasons and hopefully a third if he finally has one of his insane 1.200 OPS hot streaks, but what other freely available talent have the A's taken advantage of on offense? They're not even using the talent they actually have. Eric Patterson is completely wasting his time in the minors and Aaron Cunningham of the 325/390/589 AAA line must be wondering by now what the #### he has to hit to get a shot on a team that's allegedly trying to win now with an offense that scores less often than your average chess club president.

The Hairston pickup is good, assuming the PTBNL isn't a real prospect (or the rumored Sean Gallagher after the DL). Webb's the better prospect, who throws hard and sort of knows what he's doing, while Italiano also throws hard, but is rather clue-impaired.

Still, you get the sense that the front office the last 18 months or so has been reduced to making decisions merely on the tactical level, a la Dan O'Dowd. A lot of the moves the A's have made have been positive in a completely isolated sense, such as the Holliday trade, but don't seem to fit into a long-term strategic framework. As I suggest in the title, maybe it's time the A's move another direction in regards to team management. I think Beane's been a great GM for the team overall, but after an extremely long stint, one has to wonder if the A's wouldn't be better off if they had someone making personnel decisions that had a few more big ideas that they're just itching to implement. Creative energy can become stagnant, no matter how talented the individual in question is.

2009 ZIPS Projection - Scott Hairston
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI BB SO SB BA OBP SLG
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year-to-Date 197 26 59 14 1 10 29 17 45 8 .299 .358 .533
Rest-of-Year 171 22 45 11 2 9 20 15 37 3 .261 .324 .503
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total 368 48 104 25 3 19 49 32 82 11 .282 .342 .519

Year-to-date totals include minor-league translations, if applicable.

    Beane's done a bad job this year; there's no question about that. And while he reveled in the attention bestowed upon him by Michael Lewis during and after the book, and the A's were horribly overestimated (by myself included) before this season, he hasn't done a Paul DePodesta-like job of trashing the place entirely.

    In DePodesta's case, the argument that he didn't get enough time with the Dodgers only makes sense if he was going to change the direction he had the club headed; his impending hiring of the noted clubhouse arsonist Terry Collins as new Dodgers manager indicated that he was going to continue drifting out to sea and take the entire Dodgers organization with him. Had he not been fired, the Dodgers might have fallen to a Pittsburgh Pirates-level of baseball purgatory and he had to go. Despite the mistakes and poor performances, Beane doesn't deserve to be fired.

    The problems that created the need for a Moneyball-style strategy are still present in Oakland. They don't have the money to compete with the Angels in their division; they don't have a new ballpark on the horizon and bringing in someone else isn't going to suddenly make the issues that created the Beane-myth disappear.

    Two questions have to be asked when making a change in the front office:

1) Could someone else do a better job?

2) Is the situation so far gone that it can't be salvaged?

    I don't believe anyone else could do a better overall job than Beane has done with the A's. While not being as brilliant as he was portrayed, could another GM have made the playoffs five times in the past nine years under those payroll constraints? Add in that the young pitching they have in the organization is eventually going to mature so they'll be viable contenders again, there's no reason to fire Beane. The offense is atrocious, but that can be remedied with one or two smart and/or lucky maneuvers. 

    One positive from the stat zombie abandonment of their demagogues is that you finally learn who your friends are and that you do not want to enter a dark alley with a stat zombie at your back, not because they're wimps, but because you're going to turn around waiting for someone to back you up and there'll be little more than a tumbleweed floating by, soon to be stained with your own blood.

• Marlins 14-Diamondbacks 7:

    If anyone's expecting a "Florida 14-Phoenix 7" football game joke, forget it. I've gotten tired of it.

   Those Marlins can hit, hit and hit some more.

• THE PADRES LOSSOMETER: 50

• Viewer Mail 7.10.2009:

Norm makes some predictions RE Moneyball entitled Moneyball-the fiasco:

• A hallucination as narrative gets a one-time hallucinogen-using screenwriter:

    Don't be surprised if the Moneyball movie (if it's ever made) comes out looking like a 1969 Jefferson Airplane video.

    This is because the news broke a few hours ago that Sony is going to give Moneyball another shot sans Steven Soderbergh and Steve Zallian (and Cammi)----Bloomberg.com Story----and has hired Aaron Sorkin to re-write the script.

    For those of you who are unfamiliar with Sorkin, he's the guy who wrote the screenplays for A Few Good Men and Charlie Wilson's War and was the creative force behind The West Wing. In addition to that, Sorkin was arrested in California trying to board a plane carrying a bag containing, among other things, crack cocaine and a metal crack pipe.

    I dunno if Sorkin knows much of anything about baseball, but he did write a play called The Farnsworth Invention. Could it be about Kyle? Are the flying projectiles (the towering homers Kyle Farnsworth allows) covered by insurance if they injure one of the theatre-going crowd?   

    Who knows where they're going with this? Perhaps the Bill James character will show up as a Yoda-type puppet and speak backwards, "Calculate slugging-plus-on base percentage you must." Then Demetri Martin will be dressed in tie-dyed shirts and portray Paul DePodesta as a hippie who expresses his affinity for certain players through interpretive dance.   

    This project seems doomed; and it doesn't help that the flawed and twisted narrative of the book itself is now going to be scripted by a guy like Sorkin who sends the dial on my "CREEPY-OMETER" off the charts. (And remember, I was the one who thought there was something creepy about Eliot "Black Sox Scandal" Spitzer; I didn't know what, but it was something and turned out to be accurate.)   

    It somehow fits.

    A sleazy, creepy guy is screenwriting a book that's disguised as "revealing" how to build a baseball team while the author of said book doesn't know anything about baseball to begin with and was skillfully advancing his agenda. I still hope they make the movie, because the potential for a train wreck is enormous and growing exponentially with every attempt they make to save it.

• I vaguely remember someone suggesting this as a possibility:

    The following is clipped from ESPN's Rumor Central:

UPDATE: A fit for Halladay (and Wells?)

Latest word is that whoever trades for Halladay will also have to take on the onerous contract of Vernon Wells. This according to the NY Post. ESPN The Magazine's Buster Olney listed the Phillies as the early 5-2 favorite in the Roy Halladay sweepstakes. A package for the Blue Jays' ace will almost certainly include several top prospects. But, the Philadelphia Daily News points out, the Phillies have no intention of including 21-year-old right-hander Kyle Drabek in any deal. "It'd be tough for me to trade Drabek," manager Charlie Manuel said. The Daily News also lists right-hander Jason Knapp and outfielder Dominic Brown as potential untouchables, regardless of the availability of Halladay. If the Phillies don't budge, would they have enough to offer the Blue Jays? Let's look everywhere else as well.

    Here's what I wrote yesterday:

There are a few approaches Ricciardi could take as he sifts through the offers from three-quarters of the teams in baseball who'd like to get their hands on Halladay:

A) He can ask for the world and probably get it.
B) He can lower the demand in terms of players and insist that the team getting Halladay must----must----take Vernon Wells's contract along with him.
C) He can grease the skids and prepare the fans for a deal in the winter rather than trade his ace now.

    I don't think anyone knows what's going to happen or how this deal----if it's consummated----will be configured; but to give odds on where Halladay might be going is nonsense. No one knows, and a chunk of this is Blue Jays GM J.P. Ricciardi preparing the fans for the inevitable dealing of Halladay, which may not happen until the winter. I wouldn't be surprised at anything, nor would I believe Halladay's joining a new team until I see him wearing a different uniform. I'd advise you to take the same tack.

• Viewer Mail 7.10.2009:

Jane Heller at Confessions of a She-Fan writes:

Speaking of books, I'm reading Marty Noble's biography of Munson now, and it's interesting. Not riveting, but more than I knew before about the Yankees captain.

    It's funny you mention Marty Noble. He co-wrote Len Dykstra'a book after the 1986 World Series. He famously kept asking Dykstra, "Is this how you really want it?" again and again because the book was making Dykstra look like a fool. Dykstra didn't care and the book came out looking like it was filled with stuff Dykstra actually said rather than a writer cleaning it up. It was somewhat admirable if you think about it.

• Lenny Dykstra files for bankruptcy:

    If you thought Michael Jackson's financial issues were messy, take a look at this from the Associated Press:

The former Mets outfielder Lenny Dykstra has sought bankruptcy protection in Los Angeles, citing more than $31 million in debts.

Dykstra, whose lifestyle included a lavish house, a jet and a Rolls-Royce, says he owes millions of dollars to his 20 largest creditors, many of them banks.His filing follows at least two dozen lawsuits over his business and financial dealings.

Dykstra, nicknamed Nails for his rough-and-ready style, is a former All-Star who spent 12 years with the Mets and the Philadelphia Phillies. He won a World Series with the Mets in 1986.

    At the very least, Michael still had the money available to flow in from his songs, plus the publishing rights to the songs by the Beatles that are worth an untold amount; unless people suddenly clamor for a re-issuing of Dykstra's book----Nails----that he, er, uh, "wrote" after the 1986 season, he'll have a hard time coming up with the money to support himself, let alone paying back those loans. 

    When Dykstra's myth of financial wizardry was at its height, I said to my mother, who remembered Dykstra and the 80s glory days of the Mets well, "If you were gonna pick one guy from that team who'd wind up as a multi-millionaire businessman away from baseball, it would've been Ron Darling; if you were gonna pick one guy to end up penniless, it would've been Lenny Dykstra." 

    I used the example as a way to say that you can never tell what someone's capable of based on their lifestyle and personality, but I guess sometimes you can tell. Those that pegged Dykstra as ending up penniless were apparently right.

• Speaking of books that these celebrities, er, uh "write":

    Another thing you can never tell is whether someone who speaks too quickly or sounds incoherent and logically impaired will be able to write or not. It could be that they have trouble expressing themselves verbally, but find a voice from the nether regions of their brains to get it down on paper. Then there are people who "write" books based on a fleeting bit of celebrity and the massive percentage of the public who thinks they actually did "write" the books.

    It's a little harder than it looks folks, to not only write enough of one's thoughts down to fill a 200 or so page book, but to make it coherent and readable. This is why when you hear the likes of Dykstra, Gov. Sarah Palin; those radio imbeciles Chris Russo and----yeesh----Joe Beningo, saying how they're "writing" books, I can promise you that they're not. They're doing interviews with some poor and underpaid soul who has the Herculean task of organizing their ramblings into something that doesn't look like the indecipherable hieroglyphics on the page as it sounds when it's coming out of their mouths. Chances are if someone sounds like a moron when they speak, they'll sound like a moron when they write as well.

• Marlins 7-Giants 0:

    Like a pubescent teenager whose voice starts changing, looks gawky and greasy, the Marlins young pitchers had their issues as they found their way in the big leagues; but now they're maturing right before our eyes. Chris Volstad looked great last year as a rookie, has been up-and-down so far this year, but put it all together yesterday to log his first career complete game shutout against the Giants. 

    People laughed and scoffed when I said the Marlins were going to be a force this year, but with the way their lineup can bash; a horse at the top of the rotation in Josh Johnson; Ricky Nolasco finding his groove after a wake up call demotion earlier this year; and Andrew Miller, Sean West and Volstad developing with every start, that team is going to be a bastard to play after the All Star break. Watch.

• Blue Jays release B.J. Ryan:

    B.J. Ryan's time with the Blue Jays was like a play with four acts. First there was the bewilderment at the 5-year, $48 million contract J.P. Ricciardi bestowed upon him; there was the unappreciated, Cy Young Award-caliber year he had in 2006; there was the Tommy John-surgery Ryan needed in 2007...*

*About which Ricciardi lied to the media when Ryan went down in spring training saying it was a back problem as they were deciding what to do. Disingenuousness is a crucial Moneyball tenet.     

...there was the drastically diminished stuff and velocity in Ryan's return last year as he managed to pitch serviceably; then there was the collapse that relegated him to mop-up duty and finally, being cut from the squad entirely. Was it an entirely bad contract? I'm not so sure.

    People have never realized how brilliant Ryan was in 2006. He saved 38 games; had a 1.37 ERA; struck out 86 in 72 innings; allowed 42 hits and only 3 homers. Had the Blue Jays contended that year, Ryan would've been a viable Cy Young/MVP candidate. In 2007, he got hurt and his dominance from 2006 was never going to return.

    Could the Blue Jays have looked at Ryan's quirky motion and decided that his across the body, stiff-legged delivery was a torn elbow or shoulder waiting to happen and passed on him? Yes. But they decided to spend some money on a closer and eschewed the other options like Billy Wagner in favor or Ryan. It worked for two of the 3 1/2 years he was there. You also have to factor the reluctance of players to go to Canada unless they're overpaid. I'm not defending Ricciardi for the signing, nor for the lying, but Ryan was good for two of the four years and got hurt. What can you do?

• Google Ad Words update:

• THE CURSE OF CAMMI, Red Sox 5-Athletics 4:

    Jason Giambi is now batting .195.

    Red Sox fans can show their love for Nomar Garciaparra, but considering how shot he looks, I doubt there's any knowledgeable fan who wishes he were still playing for them.

• THE PADRES LOSSOMETER: 49 

• Michael Lewis served Rob Neyer pancakes; he served the rest of us horseshit:

    I'm biased because based on reading and hearing Michael Lewis, not only do I think he's patently unqualified to write the "seminal" book on the new age in baseball, but his overall writing is agenda-driven and twisted to appeal to those who like their stories nice, neat and easily explainable with no margin for anything other than what he wants to present----sort of like the stat zombie.

    Anyone who does know something about baseball and isn't looking to prove his own point-of-view at the expense of the truth has to realize that whatever Lewis says in defense of Moneyball, he still turned himself into a pretzel to advance the "stat zombies are brilliant; everyone else is a moron" theory. The following is Rob Neyer's posting regarding Michael Lewis and Art Howe:

Last night (as you might recall), I linked to Steve Kettmann's piece about the aborted "Moneyball" movie, and excerpted (among other things) these passages:

"Moneyball" famously made Howe out to be both a rube and a clown, a kind of latter-day Dudley Do-Right with a jutting jaw and a "philosophical expression" permanently plastered on his face. It's actually funny to go back and reread some of these sections now, armed with the following crucial piece of information: Lewis talked often with Beane and calls the book the fruit of a "year-long open-ended conversation" with Beane and two deputies, but Lewis never once talked to Howe. He was perfectly happy to take Beane's version of a given conversation and run with it, to the point of ludicrousness.

--snip--

"Michael Lewis never interviewed me one time," Howe told me recently, reached by phone at home in Texas. "He had a slant. That was the unfairness of the book. That was my disappointment. Soderbergh wanted to tell the truth. He just wanted to have a true baseball story. I thought this might give me a chance to have my side of the story out there."

Naturally and somewhat blushingly, I asked Lewis -- who, I should mention, has served me pancakes in his kitchen -- if he might expound a bit, as I'd like to set the record straight.

He did:

It's no big deal, and I'm sure Howe told him that. The funny thing is Kettman didn't think to call me to ask if it was true. In other words, he did what Art Howe -- and he -- is accusing me of. Accusations of journalistic bias are the last refuge of the scoundrel. When I interviewed Howe I was genuinely trying to figure out what the hell was going on, and what role he actually played. He helped to convince me, with his total absence of anything interesting to say, that he was, from the point of view of the A's front office, a trivial part of their success.

You can believe who you want. I'm going to believe the guy who feeds me pancakes.

    I also linked to Kettman's article the other day, but didn't mention how Art Howe was slandered. I just mentioned the inevitable backlash the book has engendered even six years since its publication.

    Whether or not Howe had really spoken to Lewis is irrelevant (sort of like the bizarre pancake-story) because it doesn't diminish the fact that, as in most narratives, there had to be an antagonist for Billy Beane's protagonist and Howe was as good a choice as anyone. As the prime example of the old-school way of thinking, complete with the requisite moderately successful major league career, Howe was the perfect foil to say, "look, these guys are idiots!"

    I have no reason to believe that Lewis is lying about having spoken to Howe; who knows what Howe meant and what Lewis meant? Howe might've spoken to him for five minutes and seen it as not speaking to Lewis at all; Lewis might have seen it as an in-depth interview; what's the difference? Lewis's speaking to the man and providing the image of Howe are two different things. This wasn't simply a man who was "trivial" to the A's success; Lewis cast Howe as an imbecile and brutally and intentionally diminished the good work Howe has done in his career as a manager.

    Is Art Howe a strategic wizard? No. Is he a great manager? No. But his resume isn't just a case of a guy who was in the right place at the right time to bulk up his won/lost record working for the "genius" Billy Beane. Howe's managerial career was at least as successful as that of another journeyman manager who never won anything before 1996 when he took over the Yankees----Joe Torre. Howe's career is packed with young players who came to the big leagues and learned to play major league baseball with Howe as a manager. This cannot be ignored no matter what's said about him.

    To diminish his work as "trivial" is fine, but if you read Moneyball, Lewis went a bit further than "trivial" in ripping Howe apart. But then, what can you expect? As Moneyball becomes antiquated, Lewis tries futilely to defend his twisted book and subtly "explain" (that means alter to suit his purposes) what he actually meant. As the years pass and the proponents of stats and stats alone fail one-by-one, his protestations and lackluster defenses are falling on deaf ears to those that know more about baseball than he does. That would be just about everyone. 

    Pancakes. 

    Good grief. It sounds like Charlie Murphy's story from Chappelle's Show of when he wound up at Prince's house to play basketball in the eighties.

    Game........blouses.

• The fork in the road for J.P. Ricciardi:

    The news that the Blue Jays have begun laying the groundwork to deal Roy Halladay shouldn't come as a shock to anyone. Their financial issues that forced the laying off of some 30 staffers in the winter are going to seem like a pittance to what they'd have to pay Halladay to keep him after next year when his contract expires; that the Blue Jays are in a division that is, and shall remain for the foreseeable future, impossible for them to contend makes it sensible that they take their best asset and deal him while he's still at the top of his game and his age doesn't preclude another team from giving up the house in terms of players to get and then paying the nine figure sum to keep Halladay.

    The one thing that should be a bit surprising is that Ricciardi is injecting some reality into the disenchanted fan base of the Blue Jays, who got overexcited after the team's hot start. If you looked at his comments after the team ripped through the first month-and-a-half of the season, there was always an underlying sense of foreboding that Ricciardi knew that it was a mirage. The Yankees and Rays both got off to bad starts and the Blue Jays, bottom line, can't compete in that division. If they were in any other division in baseball, they'd be buyers instead of sellers at the deadline, but they're in the AL East and with that comes a big dose of truth serum. The Blue Jays are unlikely to ever be players in that division as long as Halladay's at the top of his game, so moving him either in the next month or in the winter is their only option as they go back to the drawing board. 

    There are a few approaches Ricciardi could take as he sifts through the offers from three-quarters of the teams in baseball who'd like to get their hands on Halladay:

A) He can ask for the world and probably get it. 

B) He can lower the demand in terms of players and insist that the team getting Halladay must----must----take Vernon Wells's contract along with him.

C) He can grease the skids and prepare the fans for a deal in the winter rather than trade his ace now. 

    It would take a lot of balls for Ricciardi to be pleased with getting a lesser package just to get out from under Vernon Wells's albatross of a contract, but while I've been critical of Ricciardi in the past, he's neither stupid nor fearful. His got a temper; he's made some ghastly mistakes in personnel; and he's reluctant to accept blame for what he's done wrong, but he does have the balls to make a bold move.

    I don't think that Ricciardi is going to let partisan politics affect his dealings if the best offer comes from either the Yankees or Red Sox. Keeping those two teams out of the bidding, if only for cosmetic purposes, would hamper his ability to extract more from any other team. What difference does it make if he trades Halladay to the Red Sox or Yankees anyway? The fan support in Toronto hasn't been all that great even as the team was playing well and people will forget relatively quickly if a package from the Yankees included Joba Chamberlain and Austin Jackson; or if the Red Sox anted up some package which combined three or four of the following: Michael Bowden, Jacoby Ellsbury, Daniel Bard, Justin Masterson and Clay Buchholz.

    One team that hasn't been mentioned that could be a player in the Halladay sweepstakes is the Colorado Rockies. They're in the Wild Card hunt; Halladay's from Colorado; he could go home for a year-and-a-half and see if his sinker is resistant to Coors Field; and leave if it isn't. Plus they have the prospects to do it. Would Dexter Fowler, Ubaldo Jimenez and Troy Tulowitzki get it done? Possibly. And the addition of Halladay would make the Rockies real contenders to come out of the National League.

    The Blue Jays are all in with Ricciardi if they let him make this deal. I've wondered openly why they've kept Ricciardi for this long given his laundry list of mistakes and controversies on and off the field, but he's the guy now. If he deals Halladay, the repercussions will be felt for the next ten years in Toronto, positively or negatively. It's a chance for him to redeem himself for the past 7 1/2 years. Like the gambler who's only got one $100 chip left, it doesn't do him any good to hang onto it considering how much he's already lost, so he might as well go for it all to try and win his money back. If he gets the right pieces and/or manages to get someone to take Wells along with Halladay, he's got a shot at redemption.

• If Carlos Delgado is the new yard-marker, the Mets are in more trouble than anyone thought:

    This is a seasonal death knell if I ever heard one.

    In a series of announcements yesterday regarding their litany of injured players, Mets GM Omar Minaya moved the goal posts again. With Jose Reyes, Carlos Beltran and John Maine not anywhere close to returning, Minaya made the following statements, clipped from an article in the NY Times:

Minaya said he hoped Reyes and Beltran would be back before first baseman Carlos Delgado returned from hip surgery. Delgado is scheduled to return in mid-August.

John Maine threw off flat ground Tuesday as he rehabilitates his injured shoulder, Omar Minaya said. Minaya said he hoped Maine could return before Carlos Delgado does.

    Good grief!

    First the injuries were "tweaks" that required monitoring; then they were day-to-day; then they received cortisone shots; then it was try to play through it; then it was a precautionary and clerical trip to the disabled list; then it was traveling to various doctors to see if anyone could figure out what's wrong; then it was the All Star break; now Delgado's return is the re-entry date? Carlos Delgado? A 37-year-old who had surgery to repair his hip labrum? An injury that seems to have a high rate of setback even for younger players?

    If there was a sign that this just isn't the Mets year, that's it. Anyone who's advocating that Minaya trade one of the few marketable youngsters they have for a free-agent-to-be like Aubrey Huff----for whom the price is going to be steep----they can forget it because it would only make things worse.

    Speaking of the Mets...

• Injuries are a reason, not an excuse:

    The way the Mets are playing, they look noncompetitive. It's as if they've accepted beforehand that they don't have the horses to compete because they're fielding an expansion-team level lineup and once they're behind by two runs, they pack their bats away and get ready to go home. The injuries are a reason that the team is struggling, but not an excuse.

    Teams win games with lesser talent because they do the small things correctly, but the Mets aren't even doing that. Judging by the latest news with the injured players, it's going to get bad at Citi Field for the rest of the year. Very bad.

• THE PADRES LOSSOMETER: 48 

• Is it just the Yankees or are all young pitchers like this?

    Joba Chamberlain's laissez faire reaction to his atrocious start on Sunday almost mirrored the comments made by Ian Kennedy last year when he stunk up the joint and, with a team fighting for its playoff lives, sort of blaahed it away as if to say, "yeah, I didn't get the ball where I wanted to, whaddaya gonna do?"----Prince of New York blog, 8.9.2008. The Yankees veterans, manager and front office were not as forgiving as they shipped Kennedy to the minors. Now Chamberlain, who's not listening to anyone and is pitching terribly, is coming up with similar nonsense after the game on Sunday:

"It's a win at the end of the day," Chamberlain told reporters. "I didn't throw well at all, but at the end of the day, 10 to 8, the Yankees win. There's really not much to be mad about."

"I did a good job today [of attacking hitters], I felt like," he said. "They're great hitters. I threw good pitches and they put good swings on it. They've been doing it all year. They're going to continue to do it."

"At the end of the day," he said, explaining why the boos didn't bother him, "the sun comes up, and I've still got a job. I give everything I have every time I go out. If that's not enough, then I don't know what is."

    This isn't a young pitcher trying to find positives during negatives; this is a guy who's become so wrapped up in the hype surrounding him that he thinks he knows everything and his talent is going to carry him through even if he doesn't perform. With a clubhouse full of veterans (some of whom----Jorge Posada----have been known to lose their tempers and take swings at their teammates) I'm surprised no one's taken Chamberlain to task publicly by now; it's not simply a young guy saying something dumb; these comments were insulting to the intelligence of anyone who's watched Chamberlain ignore his fastball, relentlessly shake off his catchers and do whatever he wants with no repercussions.

    If you're looking for a reason that Chamberlain's velocity has been down, the simplest explanation could be the most accurate----he's not throwing it enough. Tom Seaver said years ago that when he was a young pitcher on the way to the big leagues, a veteran major league utility infielder named Ernie Bowman was hanging on in the minors and gave him a piece of advice: "Kid, you got a good fastball, but to keep it, you gotta throw it. Don't save it for Christmas."

   Of his 86 pitches on Sunday, he threw 15 sliders, 13 curveballs and 1 changeup. With Chamberlain's power fastball, that's way too many off-speed pitches. I think he just doesn't listen and the problem has to be rectified if they're going to keep him in the starting rotation. (We're not getting into that again. Frankly I'm tired of the argument. The Yankees are gonna do what they're gonna do.) 

    I have no idea how smart Chamberlain is, but judging from his behavior and his comments, he's not the brightest bulb in the box. It was fine for pitchers like Greg Maddux, Mike Mussina and Seaver to come to the big leagues, stand up to their catchers and tell them that they were going to call their own games. They went to the mound with a plan. Chamberlain thinks he has a plan, but is outsmarting himself and he's so oblivious to reality that it's either a testament to his arrogance, his immaturity or both.

    You can find the pitch data that I cited above at BrooksBaseball.net. Dunno if he's a stat zombie, but his site's useful if you have the inclination to look up such things.

• At least an umpire finally came out and said it:

    He's going to get in trouble for it and Joe Girardi and Derek Jeter had every right to be livid at the explanation, but at least an umpire openly said that if the ball beats the runner to the base on a tag play, he's going to call the runner out. 

    Umpire Marty Foster provided this absurd logic to Jeter and Girardi yesterday after Jeter was thrown out trying to steal third base in the first inning; Girardi, predictably and understandably, got ejected. The umpires have interpreted rules in their own way forever----from the floating strike zone to the neighborhood play at second base to calls like yesterday's. Baseball has tried to get the umpires to call the strike zone according to the book in recent years, but things eventually settle back into whatever the umpires deem as "their" strike zone.

    In case you haven't noticed, after the umpire resignations years ago, no umpires have been fired due to poor job performance. The crackdown and accountability on umpiring performance and behavior has been non-existent. Foster's going to get a stern talking to and maybe a fine, but anything else in terms of punishment would be a shock; and it won't be because of what he said, but because he verified that which was well-known and kept intentionally quiet. 

• Zduriencik in a box:

    I have no doubt that Mariners GM Jack Zduriencik would like to trade Jarrod Washburn and Erik Bedard (if Bedard can stay healthy for two straight starts). Both are free agents at the end of the year and would bring back something of value especially since Washburn's pitching well and has post-season experience. Zduriencik is hamstrung in what he can reasonably do while the Mariners are only 3 1/2 games out of first place. They're in limbo; probably not contenders for the duration, but too close to first place to throw in the towel and sell it to the fans. Over the long haul, they'd be better off getting some prospects for their two free agent-to be starters, but right now, they can't justify dealing them.

    While he can trade the disastrous and obnoxious Bedard and no one would blink, he wouldn't get much of anything for him, so it doesn't make sense to trade him. Washburn isn't this good, but he's having a solid year as free agency beckons and while he'd bring back a couple of prospects, it's not worth it to trade him now either.

    Long story short, Zduriencik is in a box floating around the limbo of an undefined team. I don't know what I'd do in this situation. I'd listen to offers, but have nine million factors running through my head at once on what to do. My guess is that no one's going anywhere unless the Mariners deficit in the division approaches double-figures and if that happens, it won't be until late-August; then you'll see some movement.

• Customer service-Google style:

    It took me awhile to notice, but my traffic was down from what it's normally been since I started my site; then I checked my Google Ad program and it hasn't gotten one hit since July began. Usually there are 10-25 or so hits from the ad per day. I understand my budget isn't gigantic like some entities on Google Ads, but there's no way to contact customer service aside from Emailing them. I've sent three and gotten no response whatsoever. Then they make you jump through a bunch of hoops like "Frequently Asked Questions"; "General Issues"; blah, blah, blah. Then, you can try a forum with other complainants and bitch to each other while still receiving no help from Google.

    I said in two of the Emails that if Google's not interested in my business, maybe I'll take it elsewhere. And...nothing. It's nice to know they're willing to take your money, but when you need some form of baseline customer service, there's no way to contact them or get help until they deign to respond. They're got a short amount of time left with me only because I don't want to go through the hassle of moving the ad, but eventually my aggravation-quotient at the lack of response will trump my reluctance to make the change and they'll lose my monthly payment. 

• Has this guy ever watched a baseball game or does he simply wait for the numbers to be spat out of the players' asses?

    A few weeks ago, the stat zombie Dave Cameron went on and on about how the Mets must "regret" trading (among others) Jason Vargas in the deal for J.J. Putz. Anyone's who'd ever seen Jason Vargas pitch wouldn't have made such an assertion and, since that statement, Vargas (who'd gotten off to a good start) has been atrocious----GameLogs. Now he's going on about the "mistake" the Padres made in trading Scott Hairston.

    Scott Hairston is a useful guy to have around; he's got some pop in his bat, but is he going to be in San Diego if and when the Padres return to contention? Can they justify playing him in this lost cause of a season in which they have three young outfielders----Tony Gwynn Jr; Kyle Blanks; and Chase Headley----that the club has to decide on whether or not they themselves have a future with the Padres as regulars?

    They got two minor league arms for Hairston, a player they didn't need in the short or long term. Plus, he's arbitration-eligible next year; no way the Padres were going to go to the arbitration table with Hairston and pay him what he was going to win. It was either trade him, sign him or non-tender him. They did the right thing in getting something for him now.

    I'm curious as to whether Cameron was in love with the Padres just as the other stat zombies were last season and watched in disbelief as they lost 99 games. This is a guy who can't get enough of the likes of Paul DePodesta, but is now subtly starting to criticize the club that employs the Ivy League-educated "genius" who, according to the Moneyball script discovered----EUREKA!!!----that on base percentage and slugging percentage are inextricably linked to baseball success.

    My advice to Cameron: if you're gonna jump ship, then jump ship. I did it with Dayton Moore and Trey Hillman. It's cleansing. Try it.

• Viewer Mail 7.7.2009:

Jane Heller at Confessions of a She-Fan writes:

Forget the "Moneyball" movie and go see "Public Enemies." It's too long, but Johnny Depp is great and the cinematography is gorgeous.

    Johnny Depp's cool and nearly----but not quite----as good looking as I am.

    I can't abandon my ripping of Moneyball though. I'm trying to become their "public enemy". Dunno how well I'm doing.

• THE PADRES LOSSOMETER: 47

• Ryan Braun makes David Wright's case for him:

    Ryan Braun made some comments that were, at best, ill-advised. At worst, they have the potential to create a clubhouse-wrecking rift for the Brewers. The quotes for the ESPN article follow:

"We're at the point right now where it would be important for us to go out there and acquire somebody," Braun said.

"I know [Melvin] is trying to make our ballclub better. I know he recognizes the importance of making a move and making it soon, but at the same time I think everybody's recognized there's a lot of teams that are still in the race."

"No matter who is in there, we have to find a way to throw the ball better for us to have success," Braun said. "I think when you're constantly behind in games, it's not easy and it's not fun."

    This is not the way to endear oneself with his pitchers. It's especially egregious when it's coming from someone like Ryan Braun who, before he was moved to the outfield, was fodder for a near mutiny by the pitching staff when he made 26 errors in 112 games as a rookie third baseman. 

    Such statements are more than just frustration, they're apt to create tension within the clubhouse that won't be repaired by the inevitable apology and/or "clarification" that's being crafted as we speak. I'd fine Braun if I were the Brewers, for whatever good that does (none). 

    David Wright of the Mets has been criticized in some quarters for his lack of leadership as the club has floundered, but I'd rather have Wright feel his way through grasping at the leadership mantle than to say something to alienate himself from pretty much the entire organization. Braun's lucky he's as good a hitter as he is. He's going to get away with these comments on the field; off the field is another story because no matter how good a player is, he can't say stuff like this and have it just forgotten by the objects of the rant----the pitching staff. 

    All things being equal, Braun had better become the defensive equivalent of the pre-PED Barry Bonds or he's going to hear about it from the pitchers. And he'll deserve it.

• Athletics acquire Scott Hairston from Padres for two minor leaguers:

    Hairston's got some pop in his bat and is a useful guy to have around. What the A's need him for is anyone's guess. 

    The Padres received right-handed pitchers Ryan Webb and Craig Italiano. Webb, 23, has posted high ERAs in his entire professional career, but has good strikeout numbers. Italiano, 23, has struggled as well, but also has good strikeout numbers. Webb was a career-long starter before converting to the bullpen this year. 

    The move made sense for the Padres, who are smartly committing themselves to playing their youngsters Kyle Blanks, Tony Gwynn Jr, and Chase Headley in the outfield. What the A's are doing is a mystery.

• A small window in Steve Zallian's Moneyball script:

    I dunno how closely scriptwriter Steve Zallian follows baseball, but the snippets of his Moneyball script indicate that he's no expert. There was a scene in American Gangster that put his lack of baseball knowledge and/or laziness into perspective.

    The Denzel Washington character, Frank Lucas, pulls some strings to get his nephew a tryout with the Yankees because of the teen's powerful fastball; in the script, the teen doesn't go to the tryout, deciding he wants to be a drug lord like his uncle. When Lucas asks why he didn't go to the tryout, Billy Martin is mentioned as one of the parties who was going to have a look at the kid. Neglected is the fact that Martin was managing the Tigers and Rangers in the early to mid-70s when Lucas is portrayed as running his operation in the early 70s. He didn't get to the Yankees until mid-1975. I hate to nitpick, but this is an easy bit of research to do to make sure the time-line is somewhat accurate. This is a pretty good clue as to how the script degenerated into what it was.

• THE PADRES LOSSOMETER: 46

    With the season at its official halfway point, let’s see who’s doing better in their predictions so far. The stat zombies who’ll go to their graves defending PECOTA or The Real Most Interesting Man in the World, The Prince of New York:

• American League East

Paul’s predicted order of finish: 1) New York Yankees; 2) Boston Red Sox (Wild Card Winner); 3) Tampa Bay Rays; 4) Baltimore Orioles; 5) Toronto Blue Jays

PECOTA’s predicted order of finish: 1) Boston Red Sox; 2) New York Yankees (Wild Card Winner); 3) Tampa Bay Rays; 4) Toronto Blue Jays; 5) Baltimore Orioles

Order at the halfway point: 1) Boston Red Sox; 2) New York Yankees (Wild Card Leader); 3) Tampa Bay Rays; 4) Toronto Blue Jays; 5) Baltimore Orioles

The Yankees and Red Sox have had the results as expected after both endured slow starts.
The Rays are the stat zombies’ darlings with their wonderful and misleading run differential, but they keep on losing and playing inconsistently. I had them at 82-80; PECOTA had them winning 92 games.
I had the Blue Jays falling to last place at 70-92 but their hot start will pretty much prevent that even though they’ve stumbled for the past month and a half. PECOTA had them at 81-81 and that’s looking accurate.
The Orioles have been a tougher assignment than in years past and some of their young players are starting to contribute. Andy MacPhail’s work in rebuilding the farm system is paying off.

• American League Central

Paul’s predicted order of  finish: 1) Cleveland Indians; 2) Minnesota Twins; 3) Chicago White Sox; 4) Detroit Tigers; 5) Kansas City Royals

PECOTA’s predicted order of finish: 1) Cleveland Indians; 2) Minnesota Twins; 3) Detroit Tigers; 4) Kansas City Royals; 5) Chicago White Sox

Order at halfway point: 1) Detroit Tigers; 2) Minnesota Twins; 3) Chicago White Sox; 4) Kansas City Royals; 5) Cleveland Indians

Both PECOTA and I had the Indians winning the AL Central and everything that could've gone wrong has gone wrong for the Indians. They’re probably going to lose 95 games.
The Twins are hovering around .500 just as PECOTA and I predicted.
The White Sox have been up-and-down, but are over .500 and in that division they could hang in contention for the duration. PECOTA had them at 74-88; I had them at 81-81.
The Tigers are riding the starting pitching of a resurgent Justin Verlander, a maturing Edwin Jackson and young Rick Porcello. The weak division will allow them to contend for the rest of the season. PECOTA and I both had them falling under .500 with win totals in the mid-70s.
The Royals are terrible; poorly run and constructed. I had them at 72 wins; PECOTA had them at 75.

• American League West

Paul’s predicted order of finish: 1) Los Angeles Angels; 2) Oakland Athletics; 3) Texas Rangers; 4) Seattle Mariners

PECOTA’s predicted order of finish: 1) Oakland Athletics; 2) Los Angeles Angels; 3) Texas Rangers; 4) Seattle Mariners

Order at the halfway point: 1) Los Angeles Angels; 2) Texas Rangers; 3) Seattle Mariners; 4) Oakland Athletics

The Angels character has shined through after the death of Nick Adenhart and they’ve stayed in contention despite a decimated bullpen. Their guts will carry them to the division title.
The A’s are well on their way to losing 95 games. PECOTA had them winning the division at 82-80; I fell for the pre-season hype and had them winning 84. That’s not happening.
The Rangers have matured faster than anyone could’ve expected with a 44-35 record; their pitching may be short as the season moves on, but they have a load of young talent permeating the organization and a bright future even if they fade out. I had them hovering around .500 before falling to 78-84; PECOTA had them at 73-89.
The Mariners weren’t as bad as their record indicated last year in losing 100 games, but the way things have gone for them, they’re stuck in limbo. I get the idea that new GM Jack Zduriencik would like to clear out some marketable veterans like Erik Bedard and Jarrod Washburn, but can’t as long as the team’s hovering around contention. I had them at 73-89; PECOTA 70-92.

• National League East

Paul’s predicted order of finish: 1) Florida Marlins; 2) Philadelphia Phillies (Wild Card Winner); 3) New York Mets; 4) Atlanta Braves; 5) Washington Nationals

PECOTA’s predicted order of finish: 1) New York Mets; 2) Atlanta Braves; 3) Philadelphia Phillies; 4) Washington Nationals; 5) Florida Marlins

Order at the halfway point: 1) Philadelphia Phillies; 2) Florida Marlins; 3) New York Mets/ Atlanta Braves; 5) Washington Nationals

The Marlins are going to win that division. Mark my words. PECOTA had the Marlins winning 74 games,  but their young talent and power bats have kept them afloat even with the starting rotation struggling and Matt Lindstrom unable to handle the closing role consistently. If you’d like a team that truly maximizes their money and deserves to have a book written about how they do it, the Marlins are the team to look at and it wouldn’t have to be twisted to suit an author’s purposes.
The Phillies have gutted their way to first place thanks to the rest of the division being terrible. PECOTA and I had them finishing with 88 wins.
The Mets deserve a pass because no team could withstand the catastrophic injuries to almost the whole team, but I didn’t think they were going to make the playoffs anyway; PECOTA had them winning the division. Any preseason predictions are null and void considering the injuries.
The Braves are doing their annual “we think we’re contenders” bit of wheeling and dealing with getting Nate McLouth, but they’re not contenders. I had them at 75-87 and am sticking to it. PECOTA had them at 88-74 and winning the Wild Card. Forget it.
I had the Nationals at 70-92; PECOTA at 77-85. The Nationals are going to lose close to 110 games.

• National League Central

Paul’s predicted order of finish: 1) Chicago Cubs; 2) Cincinnati Reds/St. Louis Cardinals; 4) Milwaukee Brewers; 5) Houston Astros: 6) Pittsburgh Pirates

PECOTA’s predicted order of finish: 1) Chicago Cubs; 2) Milwaukee Brewers; 3) St. Louis Cardinals; 4) Cincinnati Reds; 5) Houston Astros; 6) Pittsburgh Pirates

Order at the halfway point: 1) St. Louis Cardinals; 2) Milwaukee Brewers; 3) Chicago Cubs; 4) Cincinnati Reds; 5) Houston Astros; 6) Pittsburgh Pirates

The Cubs have had nothing but problems, but are still the class of that division. The Brewers and Cardinals should’ve buried them when they had the chance. Both PECOTA and I had them with a win total in the mid-90s. They probably won’t get there, but they could still win the division.
The Reds and the Cardinals have hovered around .500 and in contention. PECOTA had the Reds at 79 wins and the Cardinals at 80; I had both at 85.
The Brewers got off to a very good start, but have settled to hovering around .500. I had them at 81-81; PECOTA had them at 83-79.
The Astros have played better than expected just like last year. I had them at 75-87; PECOTA at 66-96.
The Pirates are within striking distance of first place despite their dealings in which they’ve dumped Nate McLouth and Nyjer Morgan to “build for the future”. Both PECOTA and I had them with win totals in the mid-60s and I still think that’s where they’ll end up despite their relatively respectable first half.

• National League West

Paul’s predicted order of finish: 1) San Francisco Giants; 2) Los Angeles Dodger/Arizona Diamondbacks; 4) Colorado Rockies; 5) San Diego Padres

PECOTA’s predicted order of finish: 1) Arizona Diamondbacks; 2) Los Angeles Dodgers; 3) San Francisco Giants; 4) Colorado Rockies; 5) San Diego Padres

Order at the halfway point: 1) Los Angeles Dodgers; 2) San Francisco Giants (Wild Card Leader); 3) Colorado Rockies; 4) San Diego Padres; 5) Arizona Diamondbacks

I had the Giants winning 89 games and the division title; their pitching has carried them to the Wild Card lead and if they get a bat, watch out. PECOTA had them at 79-83.
The Dodgers have played great ball from the beginning of the season to now. I had them at 85 wins; PECOTA at 84. They’ll end somewhere in the mid-90s.
The Rockies got off to that atrocious start that got manager Clint Hurdle fired and have played great under Jim Tracy. I had them at 81-81 and hovering around contention until late in the season; PECOTA had them at 78-84.
The problem with a team like the Diamondbacks----who’ve built the entire basis of their club on two Cy Young Award-caliber starting pitchers----is when one gets hurt as Brandon Webb has, they’re screwed. They’re going to lose 95 games.
The Padres have played far better than anyone reasonable could’ve expected. I had them losing 106 games, but they won’t. PECOTA had them at 74-88. They’ll probably end up with around 68 wins.

• More on the shelved Moneyball movie:

    Steve Kettman writes about the movie epic that never was, Moneyball, in the NY Daily News. The backlash against Billy Beane and the book is becoming increasingly prevalent now; the main problem with that is that the bandwagon jumpers who leeched onto the stat zombies will just as quickly abandon ship.

    With the way the Athletics have played this year and how the book's assertions are proved to be the figments of the skillful manipulation to meet a flawed hypothesis by the author Michael Lewis, it's going to be just as trendy to rip Beane and that's not any more accurate than the book. Beane's still a smart guy and excellent GM, but no one could've lived up to the portrayal in that book. No one. Speaking of which...

• THE CURSE OF CAMMI, Indians 5-Athletics 2:

    Maybe I should start a Jason Giambi-batting average watch since he's down to .197.

     I doubt there'll be any more books about how brilliant the A's are. The "secret" to building a team based on statistics is a key to seeing how the A's have fallen to their current depths. They have a starting rotation that's too young to account for a starting lineup that has two regulars hitting under .200; and an overall roster that looks like an expansion team. No calculations are needed to decode the 33-46 record.

    On the Matt Holliday front, Jayson Stark writes the following:

Clubs that have spoken with the A's say they aren't quite ready to send Matt Holliday packing yet. But when they do, the price is "two prospects with tremendous upside -- one who's ready to come in and play now, and one that will get there next year. And they want pitching." What's still unclear is how much of the approximately $6.75 million left on Holliday's contract the A's are willing to pick up.

    I'd wait Beane out if I were an interested club. Faced with the idea of giving up two prospects for a rental that hasn't hit as expected, I'm not sure who's going to take the risk. A team like the Reds, who need a bat desperately and have a small enough ballpark for Holliday's power to return, might be the best fit for Holliday and the A's.

    The days of teams doing something stupid for a rental are probably being hindered by the economy. Beane might have to settle for Homer Bailey and a low-level prospect to salvage something for Holliday. If I were an opposing GM and he dictated the demands that Stark suggests, I'd tell him to call me back when he's serious and hang up the phone. I'd faint if he managed to find someone to meet those demands.

• Why is everyone always waiting, hoping and praying for a Braves return to glory?

    Bill Madden (whom I respect) wrote the following in the sidebar of his column:

While the Mets have taken comfort hanging close to first place because the Phillies can't get out of their own way, Bobby Cox's Atlanta Braves may be the team they should be most concerned about. Atlanta's starting rotation has taken on a new dimension with the emergence of rookie Tommy Hanson. And now it appears the staff could get another boost come August as Tim Hudson - "Tommy John" surgery - is set to begin re-hab assignments on July 19. Said one NL scout: "The Braves have the best pitching in the division. If they get one more hitter, and Chipper (Jones) can just stay healthy, they could run away with it in the second half."

    Run away with what?

    The "boost" the starting rotation is going to receive from a Hudson return will be meaningless because the starting rotation is not the Braves problem. They can't hit and their bullpen is, at best, shaky. If they stay in the race, it'll only be because the Phillies are playing down to the Braves' level, not the other way 'round; and the Marlins aren't just better than the Braves, they're a lot better. I'm sick of hearing about the Braves; their glory days are behind them. Accept it.

• And Sarah Palin as Dr. Evil:

    Who knows why Gov. Sarah Palin has chosen to hastily resign. It could be something calculating; it could be because of a pending scandal; it could be for some reason no one's thought of. I find the speculation that she's leaving to bone up on current events to prepare herself to a legitimate presidential run silly. If she lived to 200 she'd never be able to make up for her religious fanaticism and overt lack of knowledge on even the most basic current events.

    The interview they keep showing between Palin and Sean Hannity is unintentionally satirical. The woman doesn't know anything!!! She regurgitates buzzwords and and peppers it with pithy, down-home quotes designed to charm people; but there are those out there who don't want to be charmed again as they were with George W. Bush's yee-ha, everyman persona. The easily manipulated, bumbling clown as president isn't going to happen again, at least in this generation. And the comparisons to Ronald Reagan are absurd because contrary to popular lore, Reagan wasn't stupid.

    The interview with Hannity follows if anyone's interested; keep in mind that when she discusses socialism, that if Gov. Palin were presented with the works of Karl Marx and Ayn Rand side-by-side in a blind taste test, she would be unable to identify which philosopher wrote what. That should indicate how well she knows what she's talking about. In short, she doesn't!

• Mistakenly high expectations, a dose of reality and huge blunders are inextricably linked to change on the horizon:

    "Real" reporters----like the most wonderful human being to ever live anywhere, anytime; keeper of all that's right and holy in the world, Geoff Baker----despise the infiltration of "their" domain and hate people who do what I do; and they revile it even more when those of us who do this have the audacity to be good at it and are, in comparison to the majority of them, far more rational and out-and-out better than the aforementioned "real" reporters.

    The animosity could be due to the lack of "dues paying" and not having to sit around and wait for an unintelligible quote from Manny Ramirez or some snide remark from Erik Bedard; or it could be from some other source. Truth be told, I don't care. I prefer doing it this way because my mind isn't clouded (usually) by the influence of the decision-makers; and I don't have the emotional aspect of liking or disliking the subjects of my writing to unduly influence my analysis. With that, I have the opportunity to be detached and objectively analyze what I see. Considering the way the Kansas City Royals season is unraveling, I'm in a position to speculate that a drastic change has to be on the way if only because someone wants to save face or possibly save his job. 

    One thing the stat zombies and I agreed on before the season started was that the expectations of a jump into contention for the Royals had no basis in reality. Their acquisitions----Kyle Farnsworth, Willie Bloomquist, Mike Jacobs, Coco Crisp----made little to no sense; and even the moves that did make sense like Juan Cruz haven't worked. Manager Trey Hillman is overmatched; the GM Dayton Moore has wasted the money the Royals have spent; as they're languishing 13 games under .500 and 10 1/2 games out of first place in the weak AL Central. Just imagine where they'd be without Greinke's Cy Young-contending start. 

    With the way things have collapsed, the only thing that has to be determined is how far they're going to go to shake things up. Moore is already under fire and the Hillman hiring hasn't worked. Will he fire Hillman? He has an experienced manager as Hillman's bench coach in John Gibbons and Gibbons, despite an up-and-down record as Blue Jays manager, was a very good strategist for whom I can dole out the following compliment (from me anyway): I never watched a John Gibbons-managed game and said the words, "what is he doing?" That's a pretty low threshold for picking a manager, but it's where we are in the baseball world. 

    GMs lose their loyalty pretty quick when they're on the hotseat themselves and while a different manager couldn't do that much better with the Royals roster, Hillman has cost his team several games with his gaffes. The Royals could also go a different route and fire a couple of coaches. One would think pitching coach Bob McClure would be a likely candidate, but the amount of good that would do for a flawed club is negligible.

    It's too late to save this season for the Royals, whose high expectations were ridiculous; but it's not too late for Moore to do something to try and save his job. The question is whether it's something little to create a ripple, or big to create a splash.

• THE CURSE OF CAMMI, Indians 15-Athletics 3:

    Jason Giambi's batting average had fallen below .200 before last night's 1 for 4. 

• THE PADRES LOSSOMETER: 45

• Not everyone can be a superstar:

    After the back-and-forth about Phil Hughes's future in the bullpen, I got to thinking about the intrinsic silliness of "higher ceilings" and "upside" and all the other nouveau terms that are used today to extol the attributes of one player over another; it left me wondering exactly what would be wrong with a pitcher like Hughes if he's made into a starter, sticks in the rotation and is good. Not Cy Young Award contender good (although in a career of eating innings and beating the teams he's supposed to beat, he'd probably contend for one or two CYAs in his career and, with a little luck, win one), but just plainly and simply good. Not a journeyman like Tim Redding or a dominator like Johan Santana, but an above average pitcher. Is there suddenly something wrong with that?

    What has to be understood when analyzing a player and comparing him to someone who's got more ability is that they're diminishing what it is a certain workmanlike pitcher does. The comparisons between Joba Chamberlain and Hughes are not as easy as "Chamberlain has more dominating stuff, so he's better". What about Chamberlain's unpredictability on and off the field? What about Chamberlain's hardheadedness in not listening to his veteran catcher Jorge Posada? What about Chamberlain's more stressful motion? If Hughes can be relied on to make his starts, throw strikes, work with his batterymate, and pitch deeply into games, doesn't that put him in a class or better with Chamberlain? 

    Another thing that has to be taken into account is the competition. Not every hitter is Albert Pujols in that you cannot make a mistake with him because he's going to hit it out of the park. The main difference between big league hitters and Triple A hitters isn't that the established big leaguers have a secret formula that's allowed them to stay in the big leagues and produce; nor is it increased discipline or better luck; it's that they're more apt to crush a mistake than a minor leaguer is. Even the average big league hitter misses his share of pitches that are very hittable over the course of a game. Does that make the pitcher any better because he made a pitch that should've resulted in a rocket, but didn't because the hitter was a shade off kilter?

    Rob Neyer wrote a posting about the Diamondbacks Mark Reynolds "hitting his stride" because he's got a high "line drive percentage" and that Matt Williams once predicted that Reynolds would hit 50 homers one day. Reynolds, despite striking out a ton, has been having a big power year with his homers. Then I looked at the pitchers he'd homered against. The list is available here and aside from Matt Cain and Zack Greinke, it isn't all that impressive. So, is it something Reynolds is doing differently? Is he hitting his stride? Or is he just not missing pitches from mediocre-to-bad pitchers like Glendon Rusch, Eric Stults, Renyel Pinto, Kevin Correia, Brandon Backe, Brian Moehler, etc, etc? 

    There's nothing wrong with fattening one's stats against the weaker animals in the big league jungle. Pete Rose made a record-breaking career out of such greed and ruthlessness; but to compare one player to another by saying such crap as "his fastball's straight and his curve is inconsistent" is mining for excuses to satisfy one's own agenda.

    I still believe in Phil Hughes's stuff (again, he reminds me of the late Darryl Kile); but what if he's another pitcher who misses becoming a top of the rotation starter and becomes a 210 inning, 12-15 game winner (or more with the Yankees), middle of the rotation guy? Is anyone going to complain after the way so many hot prospects show up and flame out completely? There's something to be said for reliability and consistency. With the number of workmanlike players in the big leagues, their lack of All Star-quality ability doesn't ruin them. These "experts" can go on and on about their "upside" and then abandon ship when the players don't produce immediately, but that doesn't diminish their contributions in the least. There's a place in the big leagues for guys like Jeff Suppan, Livan Hernandez and Emilio Bonifacio, whether or not they fit into the calculations of the stat zombies and armchair experts.

• Here's a shock, that Cuban defector may be older than he says:

    That was quick.

   Yesterday I mentioned the lusty pursuit of the Cuban defector Aroldis Champman and questioned the sanity and baseball sense of those that have the audacity to suggest that he's "a left-handed Strasburg" (good grief); now, in today's NY Times, as a casual aside to the reporting of a possible Yankees pursuit of the pitcher, there was the following sentence:

His age was reported Thursday as 21, but reports in March at the World Baseball Classic said he was 26.

    The guy could be 32 for all we know. Here's a wild guess: someone's going to pay a lot of money for this Chapman character and that someone is going to be sorely disappointed when they unwrap the package and see that he ain't that good. Given the history of these imports and the hype that's surrounded them, I feel safe in this prediction despite never having seen Champman throw one pitch under any circumstance. I may be wrong, but history's on my side.

• And I ain't talkin' Biblical:

    David Wright's batting average is such a false positive that I'm sick of hearing about it. Batting .338 with a .425 OBP and 20 stolen bases ain't cutting it with the Mets lineup in its current shape. As much as it's discussed that Wright's having a "weird" year, it's not mentioned as prominently how he's become so vulnerable to: A) the power fastball; B) the high fastball; and C) the low and outside breaking ball in the dirt. He's having a year that is going to look good on paper, but isn't good at all considering what the Mets need from him now.

    All of this isn't Wright's fault. Left alone on an island in the Mets' depleted lineup, he's the main threat that the opposition has to worry about and they're more than happy to let him keep getting his base hits to right field to boost his batting average or to simply walk him because they know that the likes of Ryan Church and Fernando Tatis are more vulnerable and a quarter of the power threat than Wright. 

    Wright also seems a bit psyched out by Citi Field. The Mets new ballpark looks big, plays big and is big; but that doesn't excuse Wright's becoming more of a pesky slap hitter with speed than the basher he was before this year. I wouldn't be as concerned about the missing power numbers as others are; part of it is due to him pressing because of the absence of Carlos Delgado and part of it is due to the new park. Once he starts hitting shots off the wall instead of over them, I think the Mets will live with it if he's driving in runs. So he won't hit 30+ homers; if he hits 20 and accounts for the same amount of runs with hitting and getting on base, it's fine.

    The thing that is a concern is how he's unable to catch up to fastballs. He's late on the really good power pitchers and once he's got two strikes on him, he's fodder for the breaking ball out of the strike zone. The book's out on him now. Get ahead with a fastball and let him whiff on the high fastball or the breaking ball in the dirt. These are correctable flaws and if Wright's ever going to become the threat he once was, he has to fill those holes no matter who's batting behind him.

• Anatomy of a downward spiral:

    Former Yankees post-season hero Jim Leyritz was arrested on charges of battery against his former wife----ESPN Story. This is another sad chapter in Leyritz's post-baseball collapse. After the DUI crash in which he's about to be tried for vehicular manslaughter, you'd think things couldn't get any worse, but here we are. The Florida authorities had better keep Leyritz locked up for his own good because with the way things are going, would anyone be stunned if we woke up one morning and read about Leyritz's suicide? 

• Don't these guys ever learn?

    Here's a quote from Buster Olney's blog on ESPN about this left-handed flamethrower who just defected from Cuba. The title of the posting is Aroldis Chapman: A left-handed Strasburg, which should tell you all you need to know about the ridiculousness, but here's the clip:

The most intense bidding of the winter will not be over Matt Holliday or Jason Bay. It will not be John Lackey who is going to have the most bidders frothing after him.

No, it will be Aroldis Chapman, the 21-year-old pitcher who reportedly defected from Cuba while traveling with the national team in the Netherlands.

To put his talent in perspective: Some evaluators view Chapman as a left-handed Stephen Strasburg. "He's pretty special," said one official.

He has a fastball clocked at 101 or 102 MPH, and a plus curveball and plus slider, to use the scouts' vernacular.

But unlike Strasburg, his market will not be restricted to the one team that drafted him. It may be about six months before his situation is settled to the point where teams will be able to make bids. But when that can happen, you can expect a Daisuke Matsuzaka-like feeding frenzy to ensue.

Jose Contreras signed a $32 million deal with the Yankees earlier this decade, but he was much older than Chapman. Matsuzaka was 25-years-old when the Boston Red Sox committed $103 million in a posting fee and contract to sign him. Chapman's situation is incredibly unique, because he's so young, so talented -- all of his best years presumably in front of him -- and so well known among evaluators.

    Please.

    Mentioning Contreras and Matsuzaka alone should remind Olney and these propagandists that these expectations are impossible to meet and absurd on the surface. How many of these imports live up to the hype? Matsuzaka hasn't; Contreras hasn't; Hideki Irabu didn't.

    Orlando Hernandez and Livan Hernandez lived up to their billing; Ichiro, although overrated and overpaid, does put up the average, speed and defensive numbers that were promised. Who else has there been? 

    Do they even know whether this Chapman is really 21? Or is some unsuspecting team going to sign him to a lucrative contract and realize that he's actually 27 as happened with Alexei Ramirez? Do they know how many innings he's pitched in Cuba? Do they have any idea what they're getting when they unwrap the package of the latest phenom? It hasn't been lost on me that the best performers from Japan and Cuba have been the players who no one even realized were coming and didn't expect anything from at all. Hideo Nomo, Hideki Okajima, the Hernandez brothers all were considered ancillary pieces, while the "franchise cornerstones" have been anything but.

    I don't want to hear this silliness anymore and I would not, under any circumstances, get into a bidding war that's going to cost $40-50 million dollars at least. Then if I hear the words "Scott Boras" representing this Cuban, I wouldn't even bother to watch the guy throw because the overwhelming likelihood is that he's not going to be worth it.

• Viewer Mail 7.2.2009:

Jane Heller at Confessions of a She-Fan writes RE the fall of Moneyball (in every conceivable sense):

I thought of you when I read that Moneyball piece this am. What a mess. As for Phil Hughes, I have to disagree. I like him in the pen a lot and don't see the harm in using him there. 

    Immersed as I am in my own morass of ego, I figured everyone, everywhere thought about me for at least an hour a day and didn't need Moneyball to remind them.

   Regarding Moneyball, I have to quote the Joker (altering the reference to myself vs the stat zombies) when he was in the police interrogation room with Batman in The Dark Knight:

Batman: Then why do you want to kill me?
The Joker: [laughs] I don't want to kill you! What would I do without you? Go back to ripping off mob dealers? No, no, NO! No. You... you... complete me.

Joe at Statistician Magician writes RE Phil Hughes in the bullpen:

Paul, The Yankees can move Hughes to the rotation next season if they wish. Joba > Hughes in terms of potential. Hughes still has a lot of it, but he makes more sense in the pen right now. As far as avoiding Burnett? They could have done that. I, as you probably know, did not really like that signing anyway. But who knows how Hughes would have reacted had he started in the rotation? They still should have brought in a veteran starter instead of Burnett--one of course that is cheaper.

    I don't consider you to be a full-blown stat zombie Joe, but sometimes you get infected with their crud and start moving the goalposts just like the most insufferable among them. On what basis is Chamberlain "greater" than Hughes in terms of potential?

    Chamberlain has better stuff and a vast array of pitches, but he has a violent motion; is hard-headed and a bit full of himself; and his personality is such that he's a potential off-the-field problem. Is he ever going to be a guy they can count on to, more often than not, go out and give them seven innings in a game and 200+ innings in a season? Or are they going to have to hold their breath and hope he hasn't reached his pitch count by the fourth inning?

    Hughes is more polished, has gentler mechanics and the personality befitting a starting pitcher. And why is it okay to have Hughes in the bullpen when the stat zombies haven't been able to shut up about how Chamberlain must be in the rotation? It's selective application of stats because it suits the argument and is conveniently dumped when it doesn't work. The "ignore the issue and it'll go away" doesn't fly with me.

    Which is better, a Chamberlain who might win 13-15 games and always be a question as to when his body's going to give out or he's going to implode on or off the field, or Hughes, who they can count on to be ready to pitch and has been proven to have better control on and off the field as a starter? It's insanity. Chamberlain is always an option to be a permanent reliever; Hughes isn't.

• THE PADRES LOSSOMETER: 44

    Did you see this? A swarm of bees held up the Padres-Astros game in San Diego this afternoon. Just when you thought things couldn't get worse for the Padres, they have to deal with a Biblical plague. What's next? The Four Horsemen? And I don't consider Sandy Alderson and Paul DePodesta members of that elite group of party crashers. The Four Horsemen actually meant to wreck the place; they didn't come in with a book of numbers and loads of pomposity and do it inadvertently. 

• Lost money on a doomed project is inextricably linked to an ill-thought-out movie being shelved:

    The NY Times has combined the Business and Sports sections to save money, so when I grabbed the Business section this morning, I saw the Cammi-conquesting face of Brad Pitt with a look as if he's pontificating while sitting on the toilet...*

*Is he in Billy Beane-character? You tell me.

...in the first of what will likely be many, many more articles detailing how a project like Moneyball----with so many big Hollywood names contributing to it----fell apart so rapidly. 

    Much like the brilliant and philanthropic Billy Beane assistant and stat zombie poster boy Paul DePodesta "discovered" in his research as was revealed in the original script for the movie----EUREKA!!!!----that on base percentage and slugging percentage are inextricably linked to baseball success, the fallout from such a project is inextricably linked to the Hollywood folk feasting on each other in a game of cover your ass.

    If this film was actually made, it wouldn't have worked no matter how they did it. (Although I've got an idea directly following this portion of my posting. I'm sure it'd work with a segment of the population, some of whom are well-known and for some unfathomable reason, respected baseball writers.)

    Regardless of how it's spun, there was never a movie there.

    Get it?

    No movie.

    I find it funny how director Steven Soderbergh is obsessed with realism and accuracy when there's nothing realistic and accurate in the book to begin with. The following quote from the article is laughable (hence, I laughed because nonsense is inextricably liked to making me laugh):

Two weeks ago, a mismatch in personal style and expectations collided. Mr. Soderbergh, a week before filming was to begin, delivered his own revision of the script.

One reason was to win the approval of Major League Baseball, which was not happy with some factual liberties in Mr. Zaillian’s version. Such approval is crucial in a baseball film that intends to use protected trademarks.

“Typically, on a film like this, we look at it for historical accuracy,” said Matthew Bourne, a vice president of Major League Baseball for public relations. “We’ve been in touch with Soderbergh and Sony, and they’ve been receptive to our requests.”

    Historical accuracy? What historical accuracy? I'm going to say this very slowly so those that are not interested in the truth can have a chance of comprehending:

    The...book...is...not...accurate.

    It...is...twisted...to...suit...Michael...Lewis's...purposes.

    And...Moneyball...HASN'T WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRKED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

• A movie that might work in a Brokeback Mountain sorta way:
  

    During the Padres loss to the Astros last night (THE PADRES LOSSOMETER: 43), the broadcasters were talking about Padres starter Walter Silva and how before the Padres found him in the Mexican League thanks to the recommendation of the Gonzalez brothers, he worked in...Outback Steakhouse. The same restaurant chain that employed the waitress "Cammi" from the original Steve Zallian script for Moneyball in which the Brad Pitt version of Billy Beane wound up taking her to bed in a break from his wheeling and dealing.*

*FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO CAN'T READ OR COMPREHEND: THIS IS FICTION AND HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH EITHER BILLY BEANE OR WALTER SILVA!!!!! IT, LIKE MONEYBALL, IS NOT REAL!!!!*

    Once I latched onto that, my mind, runaway train that it is, veered out of control. What if there was a romance between a player who worked at the chain restaurant and----unbeknownst to either----had a brief and intense encounter with the genius GM of a baseball team and the two wound up working together----through no fault of their own, just circumstances----and tried to resist the romantic feelings that wouldn't go away?

    They could even find a place for "Cammi" and insert some social commentary as she needs health care because of her interlude with the bi-curious GM and her current, bare-minimum health coverage doesn't pay for the Valtrex she so desperately needs. 

    It's not my type of deal, but we're talking Hollywood. Anything goes and this is a better moneymaker than the original idea for a Moneyball movie.

• So now it's Phil Hughes as a reliever, is it?

    Yankees GM Brian Cashman must be pulling out the remainder of his hair.

    Phil Hughes was moved to the bullpen out of necessity and now there are all these articles from the "experts" who are watching his increased velocity and great curveball and saying, "Hmmm, how about Hughes as the eighth inning guy?"

    It's nonsense. If anything, Hughes's personality profile and stuff make him more of a prototypical starter than Joba Chamberlain could ever be. The main thing that makes Chamberlain such a viable candidate for the bullpen isn't his stuff, it's his attitude. Chamberlain is the type of pitcher whose troublemaking potential is only going to increase with his fame; if he has the time on his hands that he'll have as a starter, that's only more opportunity to seek and find disaster. 

    I've never thought of Hughes as anything more than a long-term starter. He's not a reliever and just as the stat zombies argue that Chamberlain should be a starter, they should be even more vociferous in their opposition to Hughes being relegated to the bullpen, and in this case, I'll join them. Chamberlain's violent motion is a factor. Hughes is smooth, free and easy with his pitches; Chamberlain's motion is destined----no matter his role and how the Yankees baby him----to get him hurt.

    As frustrating as it must be to the Yankees hierarchy, who are genuinely trying to do what's best for the careers of their young pitchers to keep them healthy, this is their own fault. If they were determined to have Chamberlain in their starting rotation, they should've saved a spot for Hughes as well, then they wouldn't have had to spend the money they did on A.J. Burnett. It all stems from overthinking and reliance on these arbitrary numbers that dictate how many pitchers a youngster should throw. 

    Have you ever thought about the pitch counts that are attached to these youngsters? Isn't it odd that the "optimal" pitch count falls squarely on an even and recognizable number like 100? If it's so scientific, what are the odds of the studies winding up directly on such an number? If there was any real, hard core research going on, wouldn't you think that the number would be something like 89 or 94 or 112? Why 100? What's so scientific about 100? 

    The truth is that the number "100" was something they pulled out of their asses for the sake if expediency. They're protecting themselves by pointing to studies, charts and graphs to explain why their pitchers are going to stay healthy over the long term by limiting their workloads so they can shrug and shake their heads if the pitchers get hurt.

    Would you like to know how to keep a pitcher healthy? Here's how you keep a pitcher healthy:

Get him in great physical condition:

    I'm not talking about having a guy who can run a marathon or win a bodybuilding contest. Greg Maddux looked like a guy who should've been working at 7-Eleven. I'm talking about a pitcher being in shape so that his mechanics aren't affected by weariness. I'm talking about doing his light dumbbell shoulder exercises to strengthen his rotator cuff. I'm talking about tube exercises to strengthen his elbow ligaments. I'm talking about getting his legs and back strong and flexible so he can bear the brunt of pitching. It's when his mechanics go wrong that his shoulder and elbow are taking too much of the stress from their pitches and that's when they get hurt.

Teach him proper mechanics:

    Some pitchers throw awkwardly as a matter of course. Not everyone can have picture-perfect mechanics like Nolan Ryan, Roger Clemens, Tom Seaver and Maddux; but pitchers like Chamberlain can be watched and taught to maximize their ability while minimizing the risk of injury. Chamberlain's motion is such that you can bet that wherever and however he's used, eventually he's going to get hurt. It's no one's fault; it's not due to abuse and it won't be prevented because they're treating him as if he's got a sash around his torso that says, "Caution. Handle with care." It's because he's a pitcher and every team has a disabled list full of pitchers because it's part of the job that most of them end up getting hurt. 

Have a pitching coach that can instinctively sense when something's not right:

    Having printouts and studies a la Rick Peterson is great; and having pitching coaches who can regurgitate stuff they've heard from others to make it sound like they know what they're talking about is wonderful; but that can't replace someone who knows. Someone who can examine a pitcher, knows the pitcher and just senses when something's out of whack.

    If you're good at something and know its ins-and-outs, you know what I'm talking about. Everyone's sensed when something's amiss; everyone's had a "funny feeling" even if their brain is screaming at them that there's nothing to worry about, their subconscious is screaming louder that something's off. It has nothing to do with sounding good or smart; it has to do with knowing what you're seeing and that's sorely missing in today's coaching because teams are afraid to be wrong and get criticized.

    Cashman is in love with getting verifiable numbers and people who come at him with charts and graphs. If you have a mathematical formula why something works, then he's going to look at you differently than if you simply say you "know" without backing it up with data. This is why he hired that strength coach Marty Miller, who'd had no baseball experience and was working at a country club in Florida when Cashman found him and then fired him when the players started getting hurt and rebelling. Everything looked good on paper, but didn't work in practice. They're treating these pitchers too gingerly and it's these controversies aren't going to go away until they finally say, "screw it" and let the pitchers pitch.

    No one's suggesting leaving the pitchers out there for 150 pitches a start, but this nurturing is reaching the point where they're never going to be able to kick them out of the nest because they won't be able to fly. They've been trained to throw 100 pitches and that's all they'll ever throw. Then they'll get hurt and leave the "experts" scratching their heads and going back to the drawing board for a new "system" that's not going to work any better.

• Ken Griffey Jr. deserves more credit for playing clean:

    I only watched bits and pieces of the Yankees' 8-5 win over the Mariners last night, so I don't know what else the Yankees broadcasters said about Junior earlier in the game, but when he came to bat in the top of the seventh inning, Ken Singleton and Michael Kay were talking about how pitchers couldn't make even the slightest mistake with Ken Griffey, Jr. in years past because he'd take them out of the park; now, he can still go deep, but he's a shell of what he once was. This got me to thinking of the audacity of continually ranting and raving about Alex Rodriguez as hits homer number whatever and passes blah, blah blah on the all-time list when no one really knows how many of those homers (if any) were hit without steroids and/or growth hormone. In a dirty era, Ken Griffey Jr. has never been treated as reverentially as he should have for being clean.

    There are those who criticize Junior for never having made it to the World Series; for his diva-like behaviors; for forcing his way to Cincinnati when he wanted out of Seattle the first time; and for his moodiness, but how many superstars of his level are truly the humble, do no wrong, spartan athletes as they're portrayed for marketing purposes?

    Even the Übermensch types like Joe Montana, Larry Bird, Michael Jordan, Wayne Gretzky, Jim Brown, Peyton Manning, Derek Jeter, Brett Fav-ruh and Tiger Woods aren't as wholesome as advertisers indicate. Many times, behind the scenes, they're as or even more difficult than the out-and-out troublemakers of whom they're supposedly the antithesis. These players are difficult because they can be difficult and don't want their talents wasted on players and in situations that aren't benefiting their careers.

    Junior's career has been a natural and by-the-book progression for a historic player who did it without the use of PEDs. The game was easier to him than almost everyone else because of sheer talent and no, he was never a fanatic for physical fitness, but that only feeds into his old-school persona that would've been more at home thirty or forty years ago than today.

    It probably irritates Junior that he's never received his proper respect while players who couldn't carry his jockstrap if they played naturally were receiving the accolades, but the knowledgeable baseball people realize how difficult it was to do what Junior did even if the masses are still mesmerized by the absurd numbers and cartoonish bodies that permeated the steroid era. It only makes Junior's career look that much better.

    On another note from the Yankee game, I saw something I'd never seen before. When Kenji Johjima singled in the top of the eighth inning, he stood on first, crossed himself and pointed toward the sky in a miniature and more subdued version of Francisco Rodriguez's over-the-top celebrations. I've never, ever seen a Japanese player do that. Ever. There's assimilating to the culture and then there's stuff like that. It was weird.

• The Giants are creeping up on the Dodgers:

    Since I picked them to win the AL Central, it's been disappointing that the 2009 Indians have played similarly to the 2008 Padres. On the other hand, I've been pleased that the Giants have played about as well as I expected because of their great starting pitching. They're on track to come close to the 89 wins that I predicted. I had them finishing ahead of the Dodgers and was resigned to the Dodgers taking the NL West after their great start; but in case anyone hadn't noticed, the Giants have crept to within six games of the Dodgers and unless the Dodgers get a boost from the pending return of Manny Ramirez, the Giants depth in pitching could tighten things up in the division.

    There's been much discussion about Dodgers manager Joe Torre's abuse of his relievers, but I don't think Torre's doing much differently from what he's always done. Their starting rotation is very, very short and that weakness along with the overwork of the relievers could give the Giants the opening they need. Bruce Bochy's never gotten the respect he's deserved as a manager...*

*Specifically from former Padres CEO Sandy Alderson who kicked him out the Padres door to hire the cheaper and more compliant Bud Black. Nice work. Did you know that Alderson was a Marine lawyer and went to Dartmouth? And that he hired Billy Beane with the A's and installed him as GM? And that it was Alderson who began using the work of the exalted Bill James and stats in running his club? You should because he pretty much prefaces everything he says with these facts.

...and if the Giants can pry a power bat from someone in the next month (they have the prospects to do it), that Giants team is going to be very, very dangerous. The Dodgers had better be careful because as the sign on the side view mirror says, "Objects are closer than they appear".

• Viewer Mail, 7.1.2009:

Gabriel Gutierrez at rock_bard@hotmail.com writes RE the steroid scandal:

Have you seen the rumored list?
http://rotoinfo.com/read_article.php?articleId=318
Even if it's just a rumor, it might have more truth than some statements by the players. I gotta say, I'm surprised about the Alomar brothers.

    I hadn't seen that.

    Judging by some of the names and the way their power numbers have mysteriously disappeared and they've physically collapsed with back and joint problems, it can't be shocking to anyone. No matter what, I don't think anyone can be surprised at one name----no matter who----being present on one of those lists anymore.

    In recent days, Mike Francesa's been sorta, kinda implying that he's very suspicious about Albert Pujols after he saw him up close as he's repeating over and over again that (I'm paraphrasing) "Pujols is a huge man." I think they should just publish a list of who's clean. That might be easier and would likely result in a shorter list.

Norm DePalma writes RE steroids:

the reason steroids usage is different is because of the physical danger to all baseball players.

it is unfair to non-steroid using players---they are pressured to risk their bodies and lives and use steroids to try to keep up with the steroid users.

    Are steroids any more dangerous than all the painkillers and cortisone shots the players take to get out on the field? If you look at the old-school bodybuilders from the 70s and early 80s like Arnold, Frank Zane, Franco Columbu, Lou Ferrigno and Lee Haney, none of them have had any major health problems that we know about and are directly related to steroid use. People don't want to admit the truth that steroids aren't dangerous if they're used under a doctor's supervision and are administered correctly. It was when guys like Lyle Alzado came up with their own PED cocktails with an HGH stack and never went off the cycle that things got out of control.

    If MLB management wanted to curb the problem, all they had to do was outlaw it, weather the public storm from the inevitable fight with the union (and they could have if they were smart and put it out to the public what the fight was really about----the players insistence on being able to use PEDs) and tell the players if you get busted once, you're suspended for 50 games; twice and you're gone forever. It would've stopped.

    It suited everyone to get the home run numbers up. Baseball's front office was worried about bringing money in; the team owners didn't care how the players were suddenly looking like the linebacking corps of the 1970s Steelers; the GMs and scouts had to find players that could produce, one way or the other; the managers were worried about their jobs; and the players wanted to be able to compete and get paid.

    It is unfair to the non-steroid users, but so was one guy using a hollow bat; or a pitcher throwing a spit or scuffball and getting away with it. It all received a wink and nod because everyone was benefiting; then when the pressure started to come from congress, they did something about it. As much as we romanticize these people, it is and always will be every man for himself.

• THE CURSE OF CAMMI: Tigers 5-Athletics 3