• THE RUINATION OF JOBA:

    This.

    Is.

    Ridiculous.

    In case anyone missed the latest chapter in THE RUINATION OF JOBA (all part of the Joba Chamberlain saga, penned by the Yankees and eventually resulting in the exact opposite of their paranoid intentions), the new "strategy" went into effect yesterday.

    As a concession to the horror show he's been since the club started with the five, seven, nine or whatever number of day's rest is the order of the day in their ambiguous and nonsensical attempts to regulate the pitcher's innings and keep him healthy, Chamberlain started on the normal rest for a starting pitcher----four days----against the White Sox, threw 35 pitches over three mediocre innings in which he allowed two runs and four hits...and was yanked. 

    Is this how he's going to prepare for what is ostensibly going to be a game four start in the playoffs? Are they really expecting Chamberlain to suddenly regain his feel and rhythm in a month's time if they need him to perform in a make-or-break start in a game four? And what if they're sitting in the ALDS down 2 games to 1? Are they going to have the sheer and unthinking arrogance and/or idiocy to think that Chamberlain is going to give them what they need to save them from elimination? I can tell you right now that someone with Chamberlain's personality is going to be so amped up for a playoff start that he's going to overthrow and have no control to begin with; if he has no feel because he hasn't pitched enough over the second half of the season, he's going to get shelled. Then what?

    This is ridiculous.

    Have the Yankees really lost their minds in this regard? Have they become so thin-skinned that they're letting the possibility of injury cloud any and all common sense in thinking that this is the way to develop a young pitcher?

    The nonsense knows no bounds. Chamberlain must be a laughingstock around the league by now. If I was in the opposing dugout, I can't tell you the breadth and depth of abuse that would be launched at Chamberlain with each and every pitch.

"Hey, that's seven pitches. Take him out!!" 

"Hey, Joba!! Where's your plastic bubble?"

"Protect the franchise even if he can't get anyone out!"

"Shake your fist now, phenom!!!" 

     The Yankees players cannot be on board with the way this one player is being placed above them as if he's more important than they are. I'd love to hear what Derek Jeter, Andy Pettitte, Jorge Posada and Mariano Rivera really think about this when they're alone and not parroting the company line. The remaining warhorses from the Joe Torre championship years were willing to sacrifice everything for their championship rings; that was worth any time they chopped off of their later careers by extending themselves further than was "optimal" and was one of the main reasons that they so continuously abused their main competition from those years, the Indians and Braves. Do they like the way Chamberlain plays by a different set of rules than everyone else?

    Manager Joe Girardi has either been indoctrinated into this garbage or he's become adept at spouting the bulletpoints the front office has drilled in to his buzzcut head. Girardi is widely quoted in the game recap from the NY Times as if he's coming up with this "plan". More nonsense. Joe Girardi's power with the Yankees is non-existent. He does what he's told; he repeats the company line; and he uses the pitchers when he's told, why he's told and how he's told. There's one person to point to in all of this and that's GM Brian Cashman. No matter what happens in the future with Chamberlain, Cashman broke/built it, so he owns it. 

    Not only is this hindering Chamberlain's development as a pitcher, it also might hinder his development as a human being. What they're saying to him isn't simply that his arm is special and he's under these restrictions for his own good, they're telling him that the normal rules don't apply to him. One of the reasons widely proffered for another prodigy who was babied and allowed to get away with things because of his prodigious skills was Mike Tyson. Tyson, like Chamberlain, wasn't one to look before he leaped; nor was he highly educated or emotionally mature. Bluntly, I don't think Chamberlain is particularly bright and even if he's able to develop as a pitcher because of this, what about Joba the person? 

    This has the potential to devolve into something like a "TV Land" scenario. When I was a kid, the episode of The Brady Bunch in which Peter's changing voice resonated with me to the point that I thought the day I turned 13, my voice was going to automatically change as if a switch was flipped. I was pretty dumb then. Not much has changed I suppose. But life doesn't work that way.

    The point is that the Yankees are taking this "prescribed innings limit" for their young pitchers so literally it's as if they think they've got a bunch of robots and if they plug in the required numbers of innings, pitches, exercise regimen and whatever other crud they've concocted, Chamberlain's success is guaranteed.

    Sorry fellas.

    This is reality. Not a machine or a neatly-tied Hollywood fable.

    In fact, this is looking like it has the earmarks of a Rod Serling morality tale from The Twilight Zone, but what if Chamberlain is safe in his vault during the nuclear holocaust like Burgess Meredith and emerges with enough time to read and breaks his glasses? What then? I'm not hoping this happens, but truthfully, it'd be pretty ironic if Chamberlain was treated like this invaluable and breakable entity, and got hurt anyway.

• If Dave Duncan is available, the Mets should open the checkbook:

    According to several published reports----St.L Today; NY Times----Cardinals pitching coach Dave Duncan is so disenchanted with the direction of the Cardinals organization and the way his son Chris was treated by the club, he may leave the organization even if fellow free agent-to be and longtime cohort Tony La Russa stays. If that's the case, the Mets should be sitting and waiting to see if Duncan comes available and get him by whatever means necessary. It'd be a cheaper alternative than spending a load of money on a new GM, manager or players and if anyone, anywhere is capable of fixing Oliver Perez, it's Duncan.

• Speaking of the Mets, here we go again...again...again:

    Now we have a fourth voice promoting Billy Beane for the Mets job, except the column has a couple of more nuggets...and they're even more stupid and ill-informed than the prior ones. 

    In yesterday's NY Post, Joel Sherman----who sometimes makes sense; sometimes goes off the reservation----first compares the current Mets to the Orioles under Peter Angelos; then suggests that they bring in what would basically be a "baseball czar" to front the organization and work with Omar Minaya rather than the club dismissing Minaya outright and eating his salary; then he not only joins Will Leitch, Kevin Kernan and Buster Olney is suggesting Beane to the Mets, but he also floats Sandy Alderson for club CEO. 

    Oy.

    First of all, let's just say Beane is interested in giving up his ownership stake in the A's and moving elsewhere; and let's just say that he's willing to come to the Mets. With the talk that the Mets aren't going to be spending a load of money on free agents this off season (due to Bernie Madoff or that they don't want to spend a load of money again on this current failing group) does Sherman really believe that the Wilpons are going to not just pay Omar Minaya the $5+ million over the three year contract extension kicking in next year, but also pay Beane what one would expect to be at least $3 million a year for four or five years?

    So they're going to be paying nearly $5 million a year for a dual-headed GM even if only one is making the major calls and the other is still around only because he has a contract? They could get anyone for that amount of money and most would have better records that Beane's accrued over the past couple of years. Branch Rickey and Connie Mack would rise from the dead if that type of money was waved over their graves. And this is before even getting to the fact that Beane and New York would plainly and simply not work.

    Then we get to Alderson.

    The myth of Sandy Alderson as this all-seeing, all-knowing, powerful and decisive baseball whiz is one of the biggest fallacies in the game today. Never mind the blind audacity in promoting him for a job----in New York no less----after the way his heavy-handed arrogance and pomposity alienated the media and demolished nearly the entire Padres franchise in his four years at their helm, his "success" in running the Athletics is a fictional tale worthy of J.K. Rowling.

    Sandy Alderson's success with the A's was based on two things: A) the combination of Tony La Russa and Dave Duncan; and B) money.

    Because he won a World Series as a GM Alderson is automatically accorded credibility, but that title was won in 1989 and that A's team had one of the highest payrolls in baseball. Alderson's track record is a familiar one around these parts and pre-Moneyball. He did well when the ownership spent money on players; things fell apart when he had to rely on his wits to win without big name/big payroll players. La Russa and Duncan rejuvenated the careers of the mainstays on those A's pitching staffs, Dave Stewart, Bob Welch, Dennis Eckersley along with ancillary parts like Mike Moore, Rick Honeycutt and Gene Nelson. To think that Alderson had anything to do with that team is ignoring reality. He acquired Rickey Henderson from the Yankees for nothing; but the 1989 Yankees were running into each other like headless chickens; that deal was similar to stealing from a homeless quadriplegic.

    This idea that Alderson was the brains behind the ascension of Beane is just as ludicrous. Alderson leaped onto the Moneyball train as soon as it came into vogue and he eagerly took the credit for the stat-based building of a team. 

    One problem though.

    The A's began winning under that system two years after Alderson was already gone.

    Alderson took credit for training Beane and introducing him to the work of Bill James, but if Alderson knew that the sabermetric way of running a club was going to work, then why didn't he implement it himself in the early 90s when the limitless budget of former owner Walter Haas dried up and Steve Schott took over and limited the payroll? What was he waiting for? He didn't get around to it? It didn't occur to him? The A's under Alderson in his final years running the club were rotten bottom-feeders who didn't contend once and were familiar also-ran, poorly constructed and just plain bad.

    Alderson and his attitude would be an even worse mix with New York than Beane's would. 

    What's most laughable is the source providing this garbage.

    Joel Sherman is the same guy who ravaged Art Howe as Mets manager before his plane had even landed and he'd pulled on the uniform. In retrospect, Sherman was right. Howe was the wrong guy for New York and the Mets if they wanted to contend; but he might very well have been the right guy to integrate the then-rookies Jose Reyes and David Wright into the big leagues instead of an intimidating lunatic like Lou Piniella screaming at them and scaring the life out of them if they made a mistake. Developing those youngsters cannot be discounted and Howe had done a similar job with young players with the A's and Astros. 

    The idea that Howe deserved no credit for what the front office gave him in terms of players with the A's as he won 100 games for two straight years and, with a little luck, might've won a World Series or two, is the exact same thing as giving Alderson credit for building that late 80s A's team that won because of La Russa and Duncan and the owner's money, not due to anything that Alderson did. And Alderson's true management abilities were exhibited with startling clarity when he went to San Diego and formulated a back-channel, survival of the fittest atmosphere as he seemingly fomented the turf wars that went on between the stat zombies and the scouts and resulted in the 99-loss monstrosity from 2008. 

    Yeah, bringing him to the Mets is a great idea.

    I really wish that the Wilpons would do what I suggested last week. Come out and say that Minaya is running the club. Period. He's in charge of the all-around club. Or fire him. And if they fire him, bring in a young, smart guy who knows both scouting and numbers. I've listed the names before and Billy Beane and Sandy Alderson are not among them.

    Nor should they be.

• THE PADRES LOSSOMETER: 76
  

• Does this man deserve a contract extension?

    By now, if you've read this site for any length of time, you know how I feel about Paul DePodesta's tenure as Dodgers GM in 2004-2005. He wasn't there long, but he packed more destruction into those 20 months than anyone could imagine in the most apocalyptic scenario they could come up with. That being said, the argument could be made----weakly and probably easily batted down----but made that Dodgers owner Frank McCourt pulled the plug too soon on DePodesta before going with a polar opposite in philosophy by hiring Ned Colletti.

    My feeling is that McCourt made the right move in firing DePodesta before he could do any more damage; that the impending hiring of twice-failed (and victim of two player mutinies) retread Terry Collins as manager and the continued dismissal of any viewpoint other than what popped up on his computer would've done two things: A) the quality people who helped turn the Dodgers into what they were under former GM Dan Evans----assistant GM Kim Ng and scouting guru Logan White to name two----might've up and left; and B) the Dodgers organization would've been so badly wounded that it would've taken a turn into the direction of the late 70s Mets or of the first ten years of the Devil Rays before it was even safe to try and clean up the toxic wasteland.

    But at least there would've been a viable argument to give DePodesta to the 2006 season before making a change.

    With the Royals GM Dayton Moore, there's not even that.

    The Kansas City Royals, according to numerous reports, are in deep discussions for a contract extension for Moore.

    Why?

    With a solid resume in scouting and excellent reputation, Moore took over the Royals in 2006 and steered the organization in the right direction. Before making any capricious moves to clean out the house before seeing if anything was salvageable, he waited a significant time before essentially replacing the entire minor league/scouting operation with people of his choosing.

    He made some ridiculed by retrospectively smart signings to give the club credibility such as pitcher Gil Meche. He rehabilitated the reputation and performance of Zack Greinke by getting him comfortable pitching again out of the bullpen after a bout with depression and inserted him back into the rotation. He acquired Brian Bannister who, despite his mediocrity, has some use and got him for nothing. He acquired Kyle Davies from the Braves for oft-injured Octavio Dotel. And he hired a young manager with an impressive resume of his own in Trey Hillman. His drafts were also said to be much improved over the previous several regimes having run the club into the ground.

    The team played solidly over the second half of 2008 and appeared to be on the rise.

    Then things went off the rails in no small part to Moore's errors in scouting and judgment.

    Admittedly, I loved the Hillman hiring when I only saw what he'd done in his career on paper. (Inadvertently, this is a prime example of why the stat zombie way of doing things----looking at numbers and ignoring anything and everything else----is a foundation for failure.) But once he started managing a big league team and made mistakes so glaring and egregious and was neither able to handle the media nor consistently stick to one particular style of running his club, it became clear that he was a floral basket that looked great initially, but became poisonous and rancid if it was left out in the open too long. Like a beautiful girl who turns out to be remarkably annoying and obnoxious, you can only look at the packaging for so long before realizing that a mistake has been made.

    Moore's hideous lapses in talent recognition came into focus this season as his "improvements" from last winter actually sabotaged whatever good he'd done in his first 2 1/2 years on the job. Anyone could've told him (and most did) that Kyle Farnsworth was a nightmare waiting to happen; Willie Bloomquist is a guy you can get for nothing or find on most Double A squads and aren't considered legit prospects; that Horacio Ramirez would have trouble getting people out in an Independent League; that trading useful, hard-throwing relievers Ramon Ramirez and Leo Nunez for journeymen Coco Crisp and Mike Jacobs respectively were two monumental lapses. That Kila Ka'aihue deserved a chance to play in the big leagues after a minor league career in which he'd done nothing but hit and get on base.

    But Moore couldn't see it. He can't see that Hillman is not only overmatched on the field, but off of it as well. And what's worse is the players from his team and others know it.

    With this contract extension apparently a done deal, the Royals can't hope to turn things around unless they get extremely lucky and Zack Greinke continues this level of work and Luke Hochevar and Davies develop in the best possible scenarios; unless Alex Gordon becomes an MVP candidate; and unless Hillman suddenly learns how to run his team.

    In short, like DePodesta with the Dodgers who used an almost diametrically opposed basis for formulating his team, Moore's decisions have neither worked in theory nor made sense in practice. To give him a contract extension when his current deal is set to expire after next year is just as senseless and just as much of an invitation to disaster far worse than what the Royals are now, and it's going  to be harder to clean up for whoever replaces Moore and puts on the Haz-Mat suit and sifts through the contaminated wreckage once Moore's work is done.

• Correction RE Ron Mahay joining the Twins:

    Yesterday I wrote that Ron Mahay was traded from the Royals to the Twins for a minor leaguer. He was actually released by the Royals.

• Inexcusable, Part II:

    Just like there was no excuse for the Braves to have the Padres come into Turner Field and win the first two games of their series with the Braves, it's just as bad that the Padres walked into Land Shark Stadium and won the first two games of their series with the Marlins. No excuses for the Marlins. None.

• Piniella shares substantial blame for the Cubs disappointing season:

    It's all well and good that Cubs manager Lou Piniella has openly taken his share of the blame for the way the Cubs season has fallen apart, but generally when someone takes the blame for such a thing, there are consequences attached. What are the consequences for Piniella? He's not getting fired and even if he did, he'd collect his $4 million for next year or get more money from some desperate team (the Mets?) looking for a big name manager with a history of success and a big personality to distract from the prior year (or three). Taking responsibility is easy; serving the sentence isn't.

    Piniella is still wildly popular among many in the media because he's good copy and has the propensity to explode. Bill Madden of the NY Daily News especially has a close relationship with Piniella and writes of the Cubs in his latest column. Poor chemistry in the Cubs clubhouse is the most prominent cause of the team's misery; and they've had some injuries that they couldn't overcome.With that, the manager has made his own mistakes to help the cause into their current circumstances.

    The decision to trade for Kevin Gregg is widely seen as a mistake on the part of GM Jim Hendry, but was it Hendry that forced Piniella to make Gregg into the team's closer? Piniella has never had the greatest judgment when it came to pitchers (he insisted that Mike Hampton couldn't get big league hitters out, which prompted the Mariners to trade the 20-year-old to the Astros for Eric Anthony); and it was understandable why he wanted Carlos Marmol to be the set-up man for Gregg based on the important outs generally being recorded before the ninth inning, but Gregg was always known to be too wild and too prone to the longball to close for a contending club.*

*Here is another example of the fallacy in the stat zombie insistence that "anyone" can accumulate the misleading save stat. It's true that anyone can garner the saves; it's not true that anyone can close. There's a difference.

     The Cubs have made some personnel errors. The trade of team leader Mark DeRosa wasn't done to sabotage Piniella's clubhouse, but to acquire some pieces to get Jake Peavy from the Padres. That didn't work out. Was Milton Bradley a good idea? It wasn't the worst idea ever and while they would obviously have been better off with Bobby Abreu, you can understand the Bradley signing after he'd had a brilliant year at the plate with the Rangers on the field and behaved himself off the field.

    What's really hurt the Cubs has been the injury to Aramis Ramirez and the return to earth of Ryan Dempster. Aside from that, the Gregg struggles were predictable and a change at closer should've been made in May. To dump all the responsibility on Hendry is a convenient and twisted way of absolving Piniella when a substantial amount should also fall at the desk of the manager whether he's popular with the media and fans or not.

• Should the Mets take a look at David Wright at first base for a few games?

    With their future at the position in flux (Daniel Murphy appears more of a roving utility-type than an everyday guy), the Mets could consider the soon-to-be-acquired Chris Carter (hopefully someone with the Mets will be savvy and hip enough to cue up the music from The X-Files for his at-bats) as a potential semi-regular first baseman, they could also consider other alternatives. The Red Sox are going to look to unload Mike Lowell after this season and his attitude could greatly help the Mets if he's healthy; plus he's only got next year on his contract and wouldn't cost much in terms of players.

    Lowell's a better fielder than Wright at third despite Wright's consecutive Gold Gloves at the position and the Wright beaning at the hands of Matt Cain could give the Mets a bullshit excuse to try him at first base. I tend to think his future is on the other corner of the diamond anyway----he's always been a little scatterarmed. It's something to look at over the last month of the season.   

• Kazmir trade a brilliant move by the Rays:

    In their current circumstances, it's going to be hard for the Rays to make a viable run to a playoff spot with or without Scott Kazmir. They're out of the divisional race and are 3 1/2 games behind the Red Sox for the Wild Card. While it's well within reason to believe they could make a run over the last month of the season, holding onto Scott Kazmir for the duration made little sense when he's been notoriously inconsistent; is an injury-risk; and would probably be the fourth starter in a playoff series if the decision was based on merit. Doing this now and clearing Kazmir's salary, in addition to getting three impressive young players make this a brilliant move by the Rays.

    Kazmir has been pitching better recently (although judging by how he'd pitched earlier this year, he could hardly have been worse----2009 GameLogs) but he's a six-inning pitcher even when he's on because of his wildness and high pitch counts; he has missed time due to injury in three of the past four years and his aforementioned salary (a guaranteed $22.5 million through 2012) made him a guy the Rays were better off moving before anything catastrophic happened. With David Price, James Shields and Matt Garza all pitching better and being bigger and more durable than Kazmir, the 25-year-old lefty would soon be relegated to the back of the rotation (and maybe even behind Jeff Niemann into the fifth slot). The circumstances were perfect to do this now.

    The young players the Rays got in the deal are impressive on paper. 21-year-old third baseman Matthew Sweeney gets on base and has some pop; Venezuelan lefty Alex Torres will be 22 in December and has put up promising numbers in the low minors; and the third part of the deal is a player to be named who Rays manager Joe Maddon implied was the key to the whole thing. It's an excellent move.

    As for the Angels, maybe they feel they can manage Kazmir's innings, keep him healthy and maximize what he's able to do. The Angels generally don't push their starters much further than 190-200 innings and given Kazmir's fragility, that's pretty much on the high end of what they can expect to get out of him. Kazmir has excellent numbers against the Yankees and Red Sox as well as against the entire American League West, so in theory, it makes a lot of sense.

    The fault in the Angels strategy of beefing up the starting rotation in anticipation of the playoffs is that the starting pitching was never the problem for the Angels whenever they've been bounced in the first or second rounds in recent years. Mostly, their losses have been due to bullpen meltdowns and a lack of offense rather than short starting pitching. Kazmir won't help in those areas. 

    Time will tell if this was a smart move for both sides, but in the immediate aftermath, it looks like a big win for the Rays.

• Twins beef up the bullpen:

    The Minnesota Twins have acquired Jon Rauch from the Diamondbacks and are on the verge of getting Ron Mahay from the Royals, both for minor leaguers.

    The Twins starting pitching has been more of a problem than their bullpen has, but this could be a sign that they're going to ride their starters as long as they're getting people out, then yank them and leave the games in the hands of the bullpen. (Sort of a post-season strategy with a month left in the season.)

    Rauch has been up-and-down for the Diamondbacks in what could be a symptom of overwork while he was with the Nationals, but he's pitched better recently. Mahay's been awful lately as well, but he's a veteran; he's lefty; he's a free agent at the end of the year; and just getting away from the Royals could rejuvenate him.

    Speaking of rejuvenated, since the Twins are obviously going for it now, do you think they'd be willing to take Luis Castillo (.315 average; .406 OBP) back from the Mets? They need a second baseman and I'd take Delmon Young off their hands in a similar move as when the Mets got Jeff Francoeur, telling the Twins that they'll take their headache for Castillo's contract. I'll assume Castillo got through waivers or else his salary would already be off the Mets books. It's worth a try.

• THE RUINATION OF JOBA:

    In a similar tone to my PADRES LOSSOMETER, I'm starting a new feature; it's an account of THE RUINATION OF JOBA as the Yankees come up with one half-assed scheme after another to "maximize" the abilities of the most delicate 6'2" 230 pound human ever to live, Joba Chamberlain.

    In case you missed it, there's a new strategy the Yankees have come up with to try and get the most out of Chamberlain while limiting his innings to a number that few outside the Yankees "crisis room" seem to know----ESPN Story.

    Long story short, rather than give him extra rest as they've been doing, they're going to start him every fifth day...and yank him at some specified number of pitches that only the Yankees "braintrust" knows. So if he's blown away the opposing lineup for four innings and reaches the number, he's out of the game.

    Yeah.

    I think it's ridiculous too.

    Never mind that silliness of this "strategy". That's beside the point. There are a couple of things that I'm curious about. I'd like to know where the Yankees players stand on this; and I'd like to know (under sodium pentothal or Dick Cheney's torture squads) how manager Joe Girardi really feels about this; what he says to his wife at night about how the organization is forcing him to handle Chamberlain.

    What does Andy Pettitte think of the way Chamberlain is being protected when Pettitte, at age 24 in 1996, threw 221 innings, won 21 games and finished second in the Cy Young Award voting in the Yankees first championship season under Joe Torre...and pitched almost the entire season with a disconcerting pain in his elbow that he'd never had before? Pettitte was no bonus baby; he was in his second year with the Yankees and if he'd gotten hurt he would've had to do the unthinkable for a former big league player----get a job in the real world. The old-school veteran manager Torre and his old-school veteran pitching coach Mel Stottlemyre told Pettitte that it was nothing to worry about; the pain was a normal byproduct of pitching and to power through the pain. Luckily for him and the Yankees, he never got hurt, but his career could've been over or vastly different. Does the gutty Pettitte approve of this babying of Chamberlain?

    What about Jorge Posada? C.C. Sabathia (210 innings at age 21)? Sometime Yankee broadcaster David Cone who abused both his arm and body and was always ready and willing to take the ball? What do they think of all this?

    And Girardi, if he had his way, couldn't be on board with the way this is being handled. It's a dual-edged sword for the young manager. On the one hand, he was somewhat unfairly blamed for the Josh Johnson injury when he managed the Marlins and had that stigma of an abuser of young pitchers following him around. The Joba Rules absolve Girardi of any and all responsibility and that takes one weight most managers carry off of Girardi's shoulders. On the other hand, Girardi was the rookie catcher for Greg Maddux in 1989 and was in the Cubs organization when Maddux was sometimes allowed to throw 160 pitches to complete a game. He can't possibly believe that this treatment is in the interests of anything but covering the Yankees asses if Chamberlain gets hurt. If something did happen to Chamberlain, Girardi would always be able to purse his lips, shake his head and hold his hands up in a "hey man, don't blame me" posture. And he'd be right. This seems to be what's more important to the Yankees than developing Chamberlain.

    It'll be interesting to see what would happen if Chamberlain did get hurt or if he never makes it as anything more than a prospect who didn't live up to the hype. With the way his legend has been cultivated, he's going to become the baseball version of a Christ-like figure that's discussed reverentially on barstools in the year 2050.

"You hadda see this guy. Built like Clemens; had a fastball like Ryan; a Blyleven curve; a Carlton slider; and a Maddux change. Was mean too. But, he blew out his arm ever after they babied 'im like a geisha. Never made it back."

    None of this is going to do Chamberlain or the Yankees much good, but at least they'll have stuck to the Joba Rules. It's irrelevant that all they wound up creating was THE RUINATION OF JOBA. At least they covered their asses, and that's the most important thing.

• Viewer Mail 8.29.2009:

Jane Heller at Confessions of a She-Fan writes RE her one-year anniversary as a baseball blogger:

You're up on my anniversary post today. Go look in the comments section. Forgive me for not giving you the shout out last night. I was bleary eyed after teaching my writer's workshop. That's my only excuse!

    Those writer's workshops don't do anyone any good. 

Franklin Rabon holds out hope for the Braves:

Prince, if I know the Braves, they're going to turn around and sweep the phillies in this series now.  It's been like this all year long.  Just as soon as I am about ready to give up on their chances they do something near miraculous to pull you back in, and then as soon as you start thinking "hey this could happen" they lose two out of three.  It was at least nice that they seemed pissed off in the third game and thrashed them.

It's kind of frustrating that they keep doing this, but I've come to accept that is what this team is.  They're a .630 team as constructed right now that's going to lose some games they shouldn't.  Fortunately, none of the other teams in the wildcard are really any better than that either.

The million dollar question then becomes, can the braves be 5 games better over the rest of the season.  Honestly, I have no idea, because they're just as prone to win 7 games in a row as they are to go 3-4.

I wouldn't even discount a total pitching meltdown in philly if they perform poorly in this series and the braves then catching them.  I also wouldn't discount a total braves hitting meltdown and finishing not that far ahead of the mets.

In related news, Tim Hudson takes Kenshin Kawakami's spot in the rotation on monday.  KK goes to the bullpen.

    Keep hope alive!!

    I'm still clinging to the possibility of a 33-game winning streak for the Mets.

    The Braves rotation isn't the problem but Derek Lowe's picked the worst possible time to slump. And their big issue is the bullpen. Rafael Soriano cannot handle any pressure at all and Bobby Cox has done some really weird things this year.  

• Yet another county heard from----one too many:

    In what's becoming an ever-more popular pastime, another "expert" provides his Rx to "fix" the Mets. And it's enough already.

    Buster Olney becomes the latest to provide unsolicited advice to the Wilpons by suggesting they find a "Bill Parcells" to oversee and nurse the organization back on track. The idea behind a "Parcells" would provide a charismatic and smart "boss" to speak to the media and provide the thumbs-up/thumbs-down final say to anything GM Omar Minaya wanted to do.

    Am I alone in thinking that Minaya, even with the ridicule he's endured this year for his verbal gaffes more than anything else, would say, "screw that" to such a flamboyantly symbolic castration? Minaya could take his guaranteed money and leave, join another organization as an assistant and wait for another GM opportunity to surface after a sufficient amount of time has passed to put 2009 into better perspective.

    Olney lists candidates for such a position and becomes the third voice that I've seen in the past several weeks suggesting Billy Beane for the job. Other names he floats are Buck Showalter, Doug Melvin, Pat Gillick, Bobby Valentine, Mark Shapiro and Tony La Russa. Some make sense, some don't. That's neither here nor there. The point is that it's enough with this stuff already.

    The Wilpons should come out and either say that Minaya is the guy; that he's going to continue to be the face of the franchise. No John Ricco as the voice, while Minaya is the brains; no redistribution of duties; no demotion; no punishment. Minaya, who handled the all-around job as GM well enough from 2004 until this year's disaster, can handle it again. If anything, all of the scrutiny, scripting of press conferences and bullet-points have made Minaya nervous and more likely to make a mistake. 

    Let Minaya do his job.

    Or fire him.

    It's one or the other. No vacillation. No ambiguity. No nothing. Either keep him and move forward or fire him, eat the money he's owed and start over again. 

    After the overall job that Minaya's done as Mets GM and the amount of abuse he's taking, you'd think they'd just endured a late-1970s purgatory when there was cause for celebration if the team didn't lose 100 games.

    In Minaya's first season as full-time GM, they finished above .500 for the first time in four years; in his second, they ended the Braves 14-year run as NL East champions and missed the World Series by one game; then they won 88 and 89 games and missed the playoffs by a game in each (collapses notwithstanding). Like the lowest grade in a college class, the 2009 season should be thrown out due to previous work and mitigating circumstances. Those mitigating circumstances are a series of injuries that no team anywhere could've withstood regardless of how healthy their farm system was or how smart they're perceived to be. Now, Minaya's paranoid and shifty that he'll make a mistake while speaking his second language, and it adds to the list of why it's said he should be fired or demoted. It's not helping. 

    There's no defending the total ignorance at the behaviors and poor work of Minaya assistant Tony Bernazard; there's no defending the unsubstantiated attack on Daily News reporter Adam Rubin, but on the field, this team would----at the very least----have been above .500 if they'd been able to keep half the players currently on the disabled list on the field. The GM or manager cannot be judged by the lineup they're now fielding. 

    For the most part, Minaya has done a good job in acquiring big league players. He signed Francisco Rodriguez to a reasonable, relatively short-term contract; he got J.J. Putz for almost nothing unless one of the minor leaguers he traded becomes productive in the big leagues (a questionable proposition); and he got Johan Santana for little more than the cost of signing him. On paper, even the stat zombies had the 2009 Mets making the playoffs. They were a good team that fell apart due to injury. Minaya can't be fired because of that.

    The Wilpons problem in running the club has never been organizational; it's always because they've been reluctant to ruthlessly do what needed to be done and let whichever voice was the last one they heard hold precedence over sanity.

    They fired Bobby Valentine, but kept Steve Phillips when if one was dumped, both should've been dumped. They tried different strategies in trading youngsters trying to win when they weren't in competition; hiring various "advisers" in something of a College of Cardinals and then settled on Minaya. The Wilpons are too nice. And if they really don't trust Minaya to handle every aspect of the job----a job that he'd done well enough since 2004----then they should fire him.

    Fire him or leave him alone.

    Tell that to the media once and for all and end this ridiculous and ill-informed speculation.

• Why is there still this blind worship of Billy Beane?

    Olney is the third reporter in the past month to suggest the Mets hire Beane. First it was Will Leitch in New York Magazine; then it was Kevin Kernan in the NY Post; now Olney.

    Is it still 2004 when Moneyball and the demagogue Beane were in full bloom? Or are we in 2009 where Beane's work can be put into better perspective? 

    Billy Beane has not done a very good job as the A's GM in recent years and he's living off of his reputation as a "genius" to carry him through most criticisms. What makes anyone think he'd come into New York and: A) do much better with the Mets than he's done with the A's? and B) handle a media contingent that would make it their life's work to tear down that veneer of brilliance at the first opportunity?

    Beane's backing out of his handshake deal to take over as GM of the Red Sox after the 2002 season is generally seen as a preference to stay near his young daughter. That was undoubtedly part of why he decided to stay in Oakland; but it can't be ignored that Beane has a thin skin and the fans and media in Boston wouldn't have waited very long (a month maybe) to start ripping him if the team didn't turn into a powerhouse within days of his arrival.

    The truth is that it was easier to stay in Oakland.

    There was no pressure on him in Oakland.

    There was always an excuse for why the club faltered. They had payroll constraints and stats to back up whatever move he made as GM and the lovestruck press was more than eager to eat up the excuse because he was Billy Beane the "genius"; the star of Moneyball.

    If you've read Moneyball, then you should know what his plans were upon taking over as Red Sox GM. The intent, as listed in the book, was to trade Jason Varitek and sign a minor league journeyman named Mark Johnson to take his place; make Manny Ramirez a permanent DH; and sign a shot Edgardo Alfonzo. In addition to that, the move of Manny to DH would've precluded the signing of the recently released DH/1B of the Minnesota Twins, David Ortiz. In fact, Ortiz would likely have wound up wearing pinstripes and been knocking balls into the right field porch of Yankee Stadium rather than off the Green Monster in Fenway because with every clutch hit Ortiz got for the Red Sox, George Steinbrenner was constantly reminding his GM Brian Cashman that he'd told him to sign Ortiz after the Twins released him.

    Oh, and Kevin Youkilis would've been sent to the A's as compensation for Beane being let out of his contract to take over the Red Sox.

    Would that team without those key players have broken the "Curse of the Bambino"? Not only wouldn't they have won a championship in 2004 without Ortiz or Varitek, they wouldn't have won the 2007 title without those two players and Youkilis.

    The genius stuff is gone. It's passé. And bluntly, it's horseshit.

    He's a good executive. Not a deity. His act would not work in New York and he's not the guy for the Mets if they did decide to axe or demote Minaya because the second Beane tried to trade Jose Reyes for four minor leaguers, he'd be run out of town with copies of Moneyball attached to the burning torches held by the shrieking hordes of Mets fans who will have seen and heard enough within months of his tenure.

• THE PADRES LOSSOMETER: 75 

• The gifts that keep on givin':

    Here's a quote from Rob Neyer's Sweet Spot on ESPN yesterday about the NL Cy Young Award candidacy of the Cardinals' Adam Wainwright:

OK, class: Raise your hand if you tagged Adam Wainwright as a Cy Young candidate before this season. 

    Everybody now, channel their inner-14-year-old girl, "Uh.....yah!!!!" 

    I, Paul Lebowitz, the Exiled Prince of New York, am raising my hand. 

    Here's a quote from my book. It's still available for posterity. Or if you'd just like to give me some money:

Adam Wainwright missed a chunk of 2008 with injuries, specifically to his finger. His performance in the 2006 playoffs and as a starter in 2007-2008 show a pitcher on the brink of stardom. Wainwright was on his way to 17-20 wins when he got hurt last season and he'll pick up where he left off this season if he's healthy. Wainwright is a contact pitcher who throws strikes and goes deeply into games; he's got a good fastball and a wicked curveball and could be a Cy Young contender this year. 

    Forget the Cy Young stuff. The thing about Wainwright is that he's got the experience in the highest of high-pressure situations after taking over as the Cardinals emergency closer in 2006 and was one of the main reasons the team won the World Series. One would think that a post-season start isn't going to come anywhere close to matching the pressure he was under closing in game seven of the NLCS or the final game of the World Series.

    The use of Wainwright as a closer in such intense games was a risk for the Cardinals and for Wainwright. Considering what happened with Tony La Russa's reliance on Rick Ankiel in 2000 as the young lefty imploded and came down with a debilitating case of Steve Blass disease that was the first step on his way to becoming an outfielder, you'd think he would've been a little gun-shy at putting another young pitcher with such great potential into that position, but the success of Wainwright in comparison to the failure of Ankiel was more of a psychological separation between the pitchers. Had Ankiel's mental issues not manifested themselves in such a high-profile situation, they probably would've happened eventually anyway. There was other stuff going on with Ankiel, specifically that he didn't particularly like pitching to begin with.

    I literally would not be able to function without stat zombies. Like Joe Morgan, Brett Favre, Sarah Palin, Moneyball, religious hypocrisy and sex scandals, they're the gifts that keep on givin'!!!

• Comparing Adam Wainwright to Joba Chamberlain:

    The way the Yankees have babied and derailed Joba Chamberlain's development based on some random studies that suggest the way they're using him is optimal can be compared negatively in practice to the way the Cardinals have used Wainwright. 

    Like Chamberlain, Wainwright came to the big leagues as a reliever. Like Chamberlain, Wainwright's long-term future was seen as a starting pitcher. Unlike Chamberlain, Wainwright hasn't been babied. Unlike Chamberlain, the front office isn't dictating to the manager/pitching coach what his workload is going to be and how he's going to be used. So which plan is having the desired effect for the pitchers and their clubs?

    Wainwright spent the entire 2006 season in the bullpen. This is not an unusual way for La Russa and Dave Duncan to get their young pitchers acclimated to the big leagues and learn how to get out of tough situations from the stretch position. It's an old-school way of getting a pitcher ready to move into the starting rotation in the future. Once he joined the rotation at age 25, there was no prescribed limit on his innings; no pacifier shoved into his mouth. He was allowed to pitch and learn his craft. He gained rhythm and the stamina to pitch deeply into games. Very rarely was he allowed to go past 110 pitches and he's been healthy save for the finger issue previously mentioned. He'd developing quite nicely.

    And Chamberlain?

    Chamberlain started in the bullpen and was an unstoppable force as a set-up man leading some to automatically demand that he be left in the bullpen permanently. The Yankees, with some justification, wanted him to be a starter; but they're not letting him pitch. They don't trust their manager Joe Girardi and his pitching coach Dave Eiland (again, with some justification) to handle the pitcher correctly, so they leave nothing to chance with the workload on Chamberlain's valuable arm. Everything is written in stone down to the number of innings, pitches and days of rest...and it's ruining Chamberlain.

    He's not developing; he's regressing. And it's all because the Yankees are paranoid that he's going to get hurt. But what happens if he's healthy and pitches as he has over the past month? What good does that do anyone to have this gifted entity, but not allow him to learn on the job? No one has an answer other than the "prescribed number of innings"; but it's not working and no one wants to admit it, specifically the Yankees. There are other strategies in developing young pitchers, such as the one that was used to develop the Cy Young contending, post-season hero Adam Wainwright.  

• Since I mentioned paranoia, here's J.P. Ricciardi:

    Jerry Crasnick writes about Blue Jays GM J.P. Ricciardi's job staus on ESPN.com:

Ricciardi is characteristically blunt when asked about speculation that his run with Toronto is in jeopardy after eight seasons.

"There are people in the media up here who've wanted me out of here for a long time," Ricciardi said. "They have their own agenda, and if they write that, they write that. No one from ownership has told me anything. And I don't stay up at night worrying about it."

The Roy Halladay trade frenzy was just the most notable episode in a turbulent season for Toronto. The Jays have gone 30-52 since a 27-14 start. They dumped B.J. Ryan and ate $15 million in salary, gave away Alex Rios on a waiver claim by the White Sox, traded Scott Rolen to Cincinnati, and have introduced a slew of rookies in a season that's been wrecked by injuries.

Ricciardi's relationship with CEO Paul Beeston is believed to be quite strong -- contrary to what you might hear in MLB press boxes -- but Beeston's future is also unclear. He's holding down the job in Toronto on an interim basis, and is looking for a successor even though commissioner Bud Selig has lobbied him to stick around and continue running the club. Beeston couldn't be reached for comment on Ricciardi's status.

    Either Ricciardi's paranoid or has an inflated sense of self-importance (two things I can absolutely empathize with) because what he fails to realize is that a GM under fire makes any reporter or agent provocateur's mandate easier because they've always got something to write about in a pinch. No interesting stories going on about a non-contending team? I'll write about the tenuous future of the GM.

    If I had to guess, I'd say there are probably people in the media who don't like Ricciardi; there are those that want him out because of that. Then there are those that want him out because they'd like a Blue Jays team that can actually contend and don't think he's done a good job. Also, job speculation in the media is part of the job of being a GM. If any team is performing poorly, there's going to be speculation about some jobs from the GM on down.

    Given his cockroach-like ability to survive amid all the on and off-field controversies and screw-ups, I'm not going to say one way or the other that Ricciardi's going to get axed. What I will say is that if they're really dedicated to starting fresh and trading Roy Halladay, I don't see how the club can let Ricciardi be the one to make that massive franchise-making/franchise-wrecking move given his up-and-down track record.

On another note, the picture below of Ricciardi...

.

...makes him look like he'd be subject to a "random" search the second he tried to set foot on an airplane.

• Padres 12-Braves 5----inexcusable: 
  

    If you're the Braves and you fancy yourselves as contenders, you cannot have the Padres come into Turner Field and beat you two straight games. CAN---NOT!!!!!!

    If I was Bobby Cox, I would've stormed into the clubhouse and flipped the food table.

• Viewer Mail 8.27.2009:

Jeff at Red State Blue State writes RE my dueling scenarios for the future of the Cardinals:

 The second scenario you cite here for the Cardinals would be public relations suicide. I think DeWitt realizes just how important Pujols and TLR/Dunc are to the organization. If he were to trade AP or allow him to leave via free agency, I -- and an entire nation of rabid Redbird fans -- will quit the Cardinals all together... and we might just all become Royals fans. 

    I get the impression that Albert Pujols isn't this quiet, workmanlike "machine" as he's portrayed. I think he lets the front office know how he feels about certain things and if they did let La Russa leave, he'd tell them they might as well get rid of him as well because there's not going to be another down-the-line contract to stay in St. Louis when he'd get more money than ARod on the market, even in this economy. 

    Speaking of which, La Russa has a limited number of options if he did decide to leave. The Rays need a strategically-inclined manager for the club to take the next step (Bobby Valentine, anyone?), and La Russa in his hometown of Tampa would be a perfect fit to end his career; but they're not going to pay him and they're keeping Joe Maddon for some unfathomable reason. The Mets? Probably not. The Orioles? Maybe. The Padres would be a good fit, but they too are keeping their current manager. And no one's going to pay La Russa as much as the Cardinals are. The organization and manager need each other. He's not going anywhere.

Gabriel Gutierrez shares his playoff predictions:

I'm going to give you my predictions for the playoffs:

AL:
Division Series:
- Rangers vs Yankees
Yankees in 4

- Tigers vs Angels
Angels in 5

League Series:
- Angels vs Yankees
Yankees in 6

NL:
- Rockies vs Cardinals
Cards in 5

- Phillies vs Dodgers
Dodgers in 5

- Cardinals vs Dodgers
Cardinals in 6

World Series:
Cardinals vs Yankees
Cardinals in 6

Let the ripping begin. 

    Where are the Mets?

• The long-term future of the Cardinals will be determined after the season:

    Since Bill DeWitt took over as the CEO of the Cardinals and went stat zombie----hiring an outsider Jeff Luhnow to rebuild the farm system and altering the way the Cardinals went about procuring players----there's been a factional war going on in St. Louis. On one side was the Walt Jocketty/Tony La Russa crew who wanted to run the club as it had been run (very successfully) since Jocketty and La Russa joined the organization in the mid-90s; and there was the Luhnow crew that wanted to focus on the Moneyball way of running the club, saving money and focusing on numbers above all.

    This wasn't a full-blown stat zombie situation because the Cardinals have other issues that precluded the Luhnows in the organization to take the Moneyball theory to its logical conclusion as occurred in San Diego with the Padres. The successful and popular manager, La Russa, who'd gone through a tear down in Oakland that eventually resulted in the rise and coronation of Billy Beane, would've had no interest in going through that again in St. Louis. La Russa was in a unique situation because of his track record in being worth probably 10-15 wins a year above his team's talent level. He and pitching coach Dave Duncan had forged a reputation as being able to maximize the talent of just about any player (especially pitchers) that crossed their paths. The combination of La Russa, Duncan and the best hitter of this generation, Albert Pujols, pretty much guaranteed that the Cardinals would be competitive no matter what cast of characters surrounded them. With that came the inevitable back-and-forth of the organization's direction.

    After Jocketty was forced out as GM, John Mozeliak was a conciliatory choice for both sides. Had DeWitt done what was initially expected and hired Luhnow as GM, La Russa most definitely would've followed Jocketty out the door. Since Mozeliak took over, there seemed to be a condescending tone to how the GM dealt with his manager. La Russa wanted veteran help to win immediately whenever and wherever he needed it; Mozeliak appeared to be placating both sides of the battle with public statements that he was willing to improve the club and increase payroll, then not following through. Even with this rampant dysfunction, La Russa has been able to keep the team competitive and more, winning an unlikely World Series in 2006. 

    In recent months, it was still a question whether La Russa, with his contract expiring at the end of this season, would want to stay in St. Louis if the club wasn't going to do more than patch things together to surround Pujols with middling talent and hope for the best. Then, the spectre of La Russa leaving and the clarity of the failures of the Moneyball system spurred DeWitt to allow Mozeliak to make decisive "LaRussa-like" moves to improve the club immediately. The trades to acquire Mark DeRosa and Matt Holliday were exactly the types of decisions that the Luhnow-types want to avoid. Trading young players for pending free agents is not the Moneyball way.

    Now, with an appeased manager and bolstered lineup, the Cardinals are rolling toward a playoff spot and they're a great bet to make it all the way through the National League and get to the World Series. Once a team gets in the World Series, anything can happen. With Chris Carpenter as dominant as he was during his Cy Young Award season and Adam Wainwright blossoming into a superstar, the Cardinals are a true championship threat. Another championship or another pennant doesn't guarantee that the war has been won by La Russa's side. It could go another way.

    Depending on what DeWitt's intentions are, he could be using another championship as leverage to really go stat zombie and clear out the house of veterans to save money. That would allow him to let La Russa and Duncan go; not re-sign Holliday or DeRosa and brace for Albert Pujols's departure after his contract is up after 2011 (or they could trade him I suppose if they'd like full-fledged fan revolt). This would be a predictable disaster.

    The more likely scenario is La Russa and Duncan re-upping for two more years (through Pujols's contract); Holliday staying at a number agreeable to both sides; and maintaining the current situation for the rest of La Russa's tenure. They'd be fools to run the risk of alienating Pujols by forcing out La Russa and the way things have gone for the clubs that have tried the Moneyball route, it would be an invitation to a train wreck as early as next year.

    What this whole situation proves is that the new trends come and go----and right now, we're witnessing the Julius Caesar-style downfall of Billy Beane----but what remains is brilliance and skill at running a club, formulating strategy, and winning using basic principles of baseball that can't be repeated with mathematical formulas. Tony La Russa has mastered that, outlasting those that dared diminish his accomplishments with unjustified arrogance and pomposity.   

•  Red Sox acquire Billy Wagner:

    After several days of vacillation from all sides, the Red Sox and Mets completed the trade that sends Billy Wagner to the Red Sox for two players to be named later. This works well for both sides. The Mets get something for Wagner and save a chunk of money; Wagner enters a pennant race with a deep club that won't have to rely on him for more than he's capable of physically so soon after Tommy John surgery. Plus the one question that's plagued Wagner throughout his career has been his ability to handle big games. If he logs some quality innings for the Red Sox as they make their run to the playoffs and Wagner proves he's healthy enough to be trusted as a closer for someone next year, all of the circumstances preventing Wagner from getting another 2-3 year deal as a closer will be answered.

• In the context of the Mets 2009 season, this is good news:

    Johan Santana's elbow problem turned out to be the best case scenario of bone chips; he should be ready for spring training. Now we're getting the implications and accusations against the Mets wondering why Santana was pitching with elbow pain. More than anything else, this is an example of people who have an agenda against the current Mets management team piling on during a hellish season. There's no connection between bone chips and any other catastrophic injury such as a torn ligament requiring Tommy John surgery and it was something that Santana, until recently, was able to pitch through. 

    Santana has never been abused by the Mets and he wanted to pitch. If the Mets asked him to throw 140 pitches, he'd do it. This is not a late-career Greg Maddux situation where he's going to start pulling himself from games after 80 pitches and it sounds like this was more of a tolerance issue and the idea of having Santana ready for 2010 in shutting him down immediately. If the Mets were in contention, I have no doubt that Santana would've gotten a cortisone shot and pitched through the pain with no long term damage to his elbow or career.

• The ruination of Joba:

    Where are these studies that signify the prescribed number of innings for a young pitcher to maintain his good health? And is there any kind of subtext within these studies that focus on whether or not the pitcher who's being babied is getting the job done?

    Not only are the Yankees babying Joba Chamberlain to a ridiculous degree, but the extra rest is taking him out of any rhythm he might've gained during that brief string after the All Star break when he looked like he was developing into a solid starter. 

    I'm not being sarcastic about these studies that say the innings limit should be an extra 40 per season for a young starter and no more; I'd like to see them. The talk that Chamberlain was abused in college holds little weight with me. If you look at pitchers similar to Chamberlain (Roger Clemens has been the pitcher Chamberlain's most often compared to), Clemens was never, ever babied at any point in his career from college he allegedly began using PEDs. Clemens threw 254 innings at 23-years-old; then through his 29th birthday, he logged: 281, 264, 253, 228, 271 and 246. If Clemens had not used the drugs to rejuvenate his career in his mid-30s, he would've taken a familiar road for power pitchers in either having his career die a slow death or having to reinvent himself as a different kind of pitcher. 

    No one's saying that Chamberlain should be allowed to sustain such a workload; with the Yankees depth in starters, he doesn't need to be used in such a way; but this babying is getting out of hand. If he's never asked to stretch himself out within reason, how is he supposed to be able to maintain any kind of workload? And what if he gets hurt regardless of this treatment? It's as if the Yankees are more interested in covering their asses with data instead of developing the young pitcher and that's not in anyone's interest. It's enough already. Let the guy pitch or stick him in the bullpen.

• Will there be a bloodletting on the North Side?

    Cubs GM Jim Hendry is in a similar situation as Omar Minaya with the Mets in that he's got a contract extension through 2012, but Hendry has a new ownership group coming in that might decide to make a change. Fairly or not, manager Lou Piniella is safe for next year, but is Hendry? Whose idea was it to trust Kevin Gregg as the closer knowing his history? Who wanted Milton Bradley? Piniella's reputation and personality make him essentially untouchable, but what about Hendry? 

    This season has fallen apart for the Cubs after they were expected (by myself included) to win the pennant. Are the new owners, the Ricketts family, going to give Hendry and Piniella 2010 before making any wholesale changes? Considering the state of their roster and its veteran nature, it's hard to imagine that the Cubs are going to turn things around next year unless drastic player moves are made. As it is, there's going to be a dark time for the Cubs beginning next year whether there are front office changes or not.

    Their team is old; the contracts are mostly unmovable; their manager looks like he's got one foot out the door; and their farm system is barren. Starting over might be the best option now and if that includes eating the contract of Hendry and buying out Piniella for 2010, they'd be better served to do it as soon as possible and reboot the system. This current group has reached their limit.     

• Who cursed the Mets?

    I don't want this to turn into a Mets site in general or a whiny, complaining Mets site in particular, but what can happen next? These are the things that have happened not in the past month; not in the past week; but yesterday!!

Johan Santana's elbow is barking:

    He hasn't thrown between outings since before the All-Star break according to manager Jerry Manuel and the manager is "terribly concerned". Uh oh. 

    That Santana's season is over should go without saying, but the extent of the injury won't be known until they complete the scheduled MRI. There's really not much to say about this other than the best case scenario would be that it's not going to require Tommy John surgery. Aside from that, you can just add this to the list of things that have gone catastrophically for the Mets this season. You just have to deal with it and hope for the best and that things can't possibly get any worse.

    Speaking of which...

Billy Wagner reportedly invokes his no-trade clause to the Red Sox:

    The Jonathan Papelbon comments certainly didn't help. Does Wagner, at 38-years-old and heading for free agency, need to walk into the media nuthouse of Boston and have a zillion questions not about his elbow or his hopes for the post-season, but about the stupid and babyish flapping of the Red Sox insecure closer?*

*Don't be surprised to see Papelbon's name gently floated around in trade talks this winter. The Red Sox are undoubtedly tired of his mouth and he hasn't even pitched that great this year (his WHIP is up drastically from 2006-2008) and he's arbitration eligible and a free agent after 2012. Rightly or wrongly, the Red Sox aren't spending big money on a closer and they have some young flamethrowers to replace Papelbon smoothly enough.

    You can understand where Wagner's coming from in not wanting to waive his no-trade clause without the guarantees that the Red Sox won't: A) exercise his option for 2010, which they probably weren't going to do anyway: and B) offer him arbitration. 

    The option was too rich for the Red Sox blood unless they did decide to trade Papelbon and intend to use Wagner to replace him, but they couldn't guarantee that to Wagner now, nor could they even say it outright. The arbitration offer would've been an important aspect to a team like the Red Sox as they use the draft so extensively to improve their club; and if they did agree to that demand, they'd tell the Mets that it wouldn't make sense for them to give little more than a moderately useful prospect in exchange for Wagner; this, in turn, diminishes the logic of the Mets trading him in the first place; at that point, the Mets might as well keep Wagner and the compensatory draft pick for themselves when he goes elsewhere.

    As the Mets are apparently not trading Gary Sheffield and Wagner, they'd be better served to bring in a "draft guru" and make him GM Omar Minaya's assistant. I'm not talking about a stat zombie; I'm talking about a smart, younger guy who's got a good reputation for finding players in the draft by any means necessary. Logan White of the Dodgers probably wouldn't come for what would essentially be a lateral move, but the Mets can look at some of the grunt guys who helped formulate the Dodgers fertile farm system. Other clubs who've had success in the draft include the Angels, Red Sox, Diamondbacks and Phillies. The scouting directors don't do everything themselves; there are in-the-trenches workers who'd like to move up, but aren't ready to be GMs. Someone such as this could come in and rebuild the Mets Tony Bernazard-demolished system through the draft. With the picks the Mets should have in the first 10 rounds next year, that's where they should start rebuilding----from the bottom up. 

Jeff Francoeur tears a thumb ligament:

    In case anyone hadn't noticed, Francoeur has been a fantastic acquisition on and off the field since coming to the Mets from the Braves. He's 5 1/2 years younger than Ryan Church and has his best days in front of him if he's able to learn a little bit more patience. He's played his customarily wonderful defense; he's hit the ball extremely hard; and he's lit up the clubhouse with his gregarious personality.

    The one thing the Mets have been missing in recent years is the guy who's going to come out and say the things that Francoeur says, openly telling teams like the Phillies that the Mets are coming to get them. One can only wonder what would've happened if Francoeur was nearby on the last weekends of the past two seasons when Hanley Ramirez walked by the dugout and told the Mets they were going home for the winter and no one said anything in retort. Francoeur might've attacked him and he definitely would've said something in response. Francoeur and New York are a match made in heaven. It doesn't sound like the injury is a season-ender, but as with Santana, after everything that's gone wrong with the Mets in 2009, what's the difference?

• Who gave this guy a column? And in the NY Times no less!!!

    I haven't taken William C. Rhoden of the NY Times seriously since he wrote this column in July 2008 ripping Billy Wagner for "sitting...one out" when the Mets needed him. Wagner vehemently denied the allegation and demanded a meeting with and and apology from Rhoden. Rhoden didn't meet with Wagner and you can forget about an apology now or ever. Rhoden weighs in on the Mets current disaster with today's column. The relevant quotes follow:

The Mets’ injuries have reached the point at which fans can reasonably wonder if the franchise has been cursed. Was it the clumsy firing of Willie Randolph last season? Was it building an opulent stadium in the midst of an economic meltdown? Has it been a poor medical staff and training regimen?

Or has it been simply bad luck?

    What would the clumsy firing of Randolph have to do with anything? Has Rhoden forgotten or ignored that it was the Mets who gave Randolph his opportunity to finally manage after a dozen failed interviews? That it was the Mets that doled a lucrative contract extension on Randolph despite his frequent gaffes? And that they gave him the benefit of the doubt after there were voices calling for his dismissal not just after the 2007 collapse, but after the 2006 season as well? Truthfully, Randolph kinda deserved to be fired.

    An  "opulent stadium"? Has Rhoden been to the new Yankee Stadium and compared it to Citi Field? Opulent? You can say a lot about Citi Field. It's too big in the outfield; the team concentrated too much on paying homage to the Brooklyn Dodgers and Jackie Robinson; there's not enough Mets stuff...*

*A quote from my mother, verbatim: "Where're the pictures of the Mets?" 

...but the place is not opulent. His mentioning of the economy is selective and absurd. When the Mets started building the thing, most laymen had no idea who Bernie Madoff was, let alone that the Wilpons had a load of money invested in the man who would almost singlehandedly bring down the world's finances. Times were good with the Mets and the country when they were nearly finished building Citi Field.  

    As for the medical staff, I don't know where you could find a hospital with a better reputation than the Hospital for Special Surgery. Mike Francesa is repeatedly pointing out that the NY Giants football team uses the same hospital and they're one of the most conservative and best-run organizations in sports.  It's something to look at and reassess, but not blame.

    Then Rhoden starts quoting Jimmy Rollins and his blustery nonsense since the spring of 2007 about his club, the Phillies, in comparison to the Mets. It's very, very easy to focus on Rollins's yapping when the Phillies finally won, but Rollins has had a big mouth since, well, since forever.

    How long did the Phillies maintain the yoke around their necks of not being able to win a big game? In each of the four years prior to 2007, the Phillies had blown Wild Card playoff chances with poor play down the stretch. Every year. Those same players got Larry Bowa fired and were within days of getting Charlie Manuel fired too. It took them that long to get their act together and start getting the job done. Rollins talked then too, but nobody noticed. And is Jimmy Rollins a good enough player now to be bloviating like he does? He's been a very good player, but not an elite player and he's beginning a predictable decline that is not going to suddenly reverse course as he enters his 30s.

    If William Rhoden is going to write stuff like this, he should at least have some knowledge or foundation of what he's writing about. He can't have that if he parachutes in with half-truths and a basic misinformation before running with something he thinks sounds pithy and current, ostensibly taking a photo standing over the dead bear with a big smile on his face while having nothing to do with the dirty work of the kill. It's what separates a reporter from an opportunist with an agenda...or maybe no other story ideas.

• The Blue Jays had better hold their collective breaths with Roy Halladay:

    Johan Santana's elbow problem should be a concern not just to the Mets, but to the Blue Jays.

    Santana's workload has been far less than that of Roy Halladay's with the Blue Jays, but when durable pitchers start going down or are underperforming----especially in this economy and frugality that's taking precedence in baseball----the trade offers for Halladay will surely be affected.

    Halladay's been as durable as ever this season, but he's been getting knocked around in the second half of the season----2009 GameLogs. That could be due to his disappointment at not getting traded and nothing to worry about; but it could also make a team that would consider trading for and doling a long-term Santana-like contract on the 32-year-old to pause and think about how often big money contracts for pitchers with a lot of wear on their tires break down regardless of their toughness and historic durability.

    Santana was never abused by the Mets or Twins, but it's becoming obvious that every pitcher eventually gets hurt. Halladay is going to cost someone a lot in terms of players and guaranteed cash. I was opposed to Blue Jays GM J.P. Ricciardi giving up Halladay for less than he wanted considering that the team isn't that bad and they've got him signed through 2010, but it might've been better for them to take the deals offered by the Red Sox, Phillies and whoever else jumped in because the sequence of events in Toronto (and New York) make it look like the offers will be substantially less this winter when Halladay is on the market for real.

• THE PADRES LOSSOMETER: 74

• This sums up 2009 for the Mets better than anyone ever could:
  

    Any quality hitter or hitting coach will tell you that a ball hit perfectly isn't pulled or hit the other way; it's not even a fly ball. They'll tell you that a perfectly hit ball goes directly back up the middle on a line and that was exactly what Mets right fielder Jeff Francoeur hit off of Brad Lidge in what looked like a run scoring hit to cut the Phillies lead to 9-8 and send Daniel Murphy to third base with the tying run and no one out.

    Instead, with the runners on the move with the pitch, second baseman Eric Bruntlett, who had botched three different plays in the inning, was running to cover second on the attempted steal and was given a present. That present was the lined rocket Francoeur hit that----had Bruntlett not caught----would've been one of the two round objects rolling into center field, the first being the ball; the second being Bruntlett's head.

    What came about at this series of events was that Bruntlett completed an unaassited triple play to turn what was about to be another blown save for Brad Lidge into a save and a Phillies win. It also completed a full summary of the Mets season in those five seconds it took to go from a dramatic comeback win to a new and imaginative way to lose worthy of the 120-game-losing Mets of 1962.

    This loss was actually less painful than it would've been had the ball gotten through and the Mets had cut the lead to 9-8 and then seen Lidge wriggle his way out of trouble. This was a situation where you just shake your head, accept the inevitable that this season has gone completely down the tubes and move forward not because of some psychological acceptance, but because there's little else you can do to explain what's happened to the Mets this year.

• Speaking of hitting the ball back up the middle:

    My prediction that Joe Mauer was going to start hitting for power eventually turned out to be true, but it's true in a hollow way. I had thought that Mauer was going to begin turning on inside pitches and start hitting homers in a similar way as Don Mattingly did, but Mauer has hit 25 homers this year and not one has been pulled over the right field wall. Not one.

    If anything is a solid indication of how dialed in Mauer is (as if the .378 batting average wasn't enough), it's that he's hit 15 of his homers up the middle and the other 10 to the opposite field. This is another clue at how he's seeing the ball and reacting to it.

• What is Jonathan Papelbon's problem?

    The loudest and most blustery among us are the most insecure and such is appearing to be the case with Red Sox closer Jonathan Papelbon. Papelbon's quotes regarding the widely-reported secret that it was the Red Sox that claimed Mets former closer Billy Wagner were bizarre and inappropriate for a probable teammate.

    Papelbon said the following to WEEI.com regarding Wagner:

"What has he done? Has he pitched this year? Is he ready to pitch or is he not? ... I think our bullpen is good where we're at right now. Don't get me wrong. But I guess you could always make it better. It's kind of like the [Eric] Gagne thing, I guess." 

    Does Papelbon think Wagner's going to walk in and announce that he's taking over as closer for the rest of the season? Is he concerned about Wagner's acumen with martial art, Jeet Kun Do (Bruce Lee's style of choice) and his potential to forcibly take the closer spot away? What difference does it make to him if the club wants to bring in a veteran reliever on a short-term commitment?

    And to compare the acquisition to Gagne? First of all, the Red Sox gave up a bounty to the Rangers to get Gagne and Gagne was so atrocious in Boston that I could've gone out there and pitched just as badly with undiagnosed damage to my elbow and not having picked up a baseball and thrown it seriously for fourteen years. Second of all, Billy Wagner, even returning from Tommy John surgery, is not Eric Gagne. Why not be happy for the help instead of whining about it?

• Common ground between me and the stat zombies:

    One thing we both agreed upon in the preseason was the Royals.

    The stat zombies said the Royals were going to be atrocious.

    I said the Royals were going to be atrocious.

    And the Royals are atrocious.  

• 1969 Mets might've had trouble competing today:

    With the celebration of the 40th anniversary of the Miracle Mets 1969 World Series win, it's a legitimate question to wonder how that type of team would've done in today's game from top-to-bottom and while it's impossible to compare eras, there are circumstances that can be compared; judging by that, the 1969 Mets might not have been a playoff team. Let's take a look at some of the reasons why:

Gil Hodges's managerial style would not fly today:

    Just imagine for a moment if any manager tried the Marine Corps platoon leader stuff with today's player and think about the reaction. Back then, times were different and players were different. The reserve clause that prevented free player movement essentially relegated the players to the "my way or the highway" attitude from managers and front office people. There was more of a team/group dynamic than there is today and that was only beginning to change in the late 60s. Today, players don't even want to deal with a manager who's perceived as slightly difficult like Bobby Valentine; how would they respond to someone like Hodges, who ruled by the idea that he was the boss because he was the manager and you listened to him because he was intimidating?

    If Hodges ordered players around today, a big chunk of them would tell him to go screw himself. (He'd probably beat the crap out of them for it, but that's neither here nor there.) Another group of players----the higher paid ones----would go and whine to upper management and the conversation would go something like this:

Player: Listen, get this guy outta here!

GM: What's the problem now?

Player (eyes wide in disbelief): He ordered me to run! And then he actually expected me to do it!!

      In today's game, the players have more power than the manager does. If the fans are coming to the park to see a guy hit 45 home runs and he's making an untradeable $20 million a year, and is unhappy with a manager who's making $1 million, the front office has a business decision to make and more often than not, they're going to be pragmatic and keep the player. Managers forge agreements with their star players today; back then, there was no agreement to be made. Back then, it was manager=boss; player=servant.*

*Just a note on Tom Seaver. Seaver was one of the greatest pitchers in history and helped legitimize the Mets, but when he talks about he and Hodges and their bond from being former Marines, it's a bit disingenuous. Seaver makes it sound like he was a Marine Corps grunt crawling through brush and courageously risking life and limb in combat like a scene from the opening sequence of Tropic Thunder. From Seaver's own book on pitching, he was a Marine Corps reservist. There's a bit of a difference between being a Marine in combat with a Semper Fi tattoo on one arm and the American flag on the other with a Marlboro dangling from his lower lip and a rifle slung over his shoulder, and going to reserve duty during a baseball season. 

The young pitchers would never have pitched as much now as they did then:

    Depending on an organization's philosophy on how best to use young pitchers, there's no chance that the Mets young pitchers would've thrown as many innings as they did then. 

    Seaver, age 25, threw 273 innings; Jerry Koosman, age 26, threw 241; Gary Gentry, age 21, threw 233. And Nolan Ryan, who was the swing starter/long man, would almost definitely (again depending on the organizational philosophy) have been relegated to the bullpen as either a closer or set-up man. Had he been good at it, he might never have been traded and given the opportunity to be a starter because no one would've thought he'd have the stamina to maintain that 100 mph fastball for 250-320 innings; don't forget that Ryan was very thin as well; the perception might've been that he wasn't strong enough physically to withstand a starter's workload.

    The bullpen would've been more important to that Mets team and they did have a good bullpen with Tug McGraw and Ron Taylor, so that aspect would've kept them in games.

They didn't have very much power or steal many bases:

    In a 12 team league, the Mets were eighth in homers. They functioned based on pitching, defense and clutch situational hitting. With the few stars they had in their lineup like Cleon Jones, Tommie Agee, Donn Clendenon, they were also carrying Ed Kranepool and Wayne Garrett who didn't hit all that much. They were a lineup that was more a sum of its parts than anything else. If the pitching staff was treated as pitching staffs are treated today, they would've had trouble staying with teams like the Cubs, Braves and Giants who had superior lineups.

    The game was only beginning to change from the all-pitching league it had been in 1968 which predicated the lowering of the mound to beef up the offense. The 1969 Mets didn't steal many bases either. That was something you'd expect a team with the limited power to do. 

The bench wasn't as strong as would be required today:

    While there were players who had use like J.C. Martin; Rod Gaspar; Bobby Pfeil; and Al Weis, that Mets team would've been using their bench guys more as pinch hitters for the pitchers because of innings limits. Those hitters weren't suited to be used for their skills at the plate. Would they have scored enough to account for these factors without the overt speed and power?

    That team was good enough to probably make the playoffs in today's game, especially with the Wild Card. And the limits on the pitching staff would've been tossed out the window once the playoffs started, but there's no way to quantify what the babying would've done to the likes of Seaver; if a pitcher isn't allowed to go past an arbitrary limit, he's never going to be able to go past that arbitrary limit when necessary.

    Add in the money that players would be making today; their more selfish attitudes because money was at stake and the jealousies that preclude a true team concept for veteran players, it's difficult to imagine that team working in a similar way today as it did then. That's not to say it wouldn't, but it would've been far different in 2009 than it was in 1969.

• Speaking of the Mets, Omar Minaya's coming back for 2010:

    In allowing the NY Post to ask him one question, Mets owner Fred Wilpon said in response to the query about his GM Omar Minaya's future: "Am I going to bring Omar back next year? Absolutely. That's a fact."

    Even with the ripping Minaya's received this year for his verbal gaffes more than anything else, he'd gained enough credibility with the building of the team that was within one game of the World Series three years ago; and missed the playoffs by one game in each of the past two seasons that it's only fair that Minaya be brought back.

    This season, the injuries to literally half the intended roster have sabotaged any evenhanded judgment of Minaya and manager Jerry Manuel. He should've been brought back for next year even without the 3-year contract extension that starts after this season. Firing him now wouldn't be the right thing to do ethically or practically. He deserves another year to try and finish what he started and if that means the club goes down in flames and has to be totally rebuilt, so be it.

• One more note about the Mets:

    Reliever J.J. Putz is nearing a return and the talk will be whether or not the Mets are going to exercise his $8 million option for 2010. The stat zombies say no way without knowing what they're talking about. The Mets should absolutely exercise Putz's option for a few reasons:

1) he's going to be singing for his free agent supper next year and if he comes back healthy, they can trade him to a closer-hungry team either this off-season or at mid-season next year.

2) the Mets luck with injuries can't repeat itself next year, so they should be in contention for a playoff spot in 2010.

3) they need to get something from the deal they made with the Mariners; the plan of having Putz setting up for Francisco Rodriguez was a sound one, Putz got hurt; nothing you can do about that. Bringing him back is obvious.

• The myth of run differential:

    When the Red Sox lead reached nine yesterday, Tim McCarver started yammering about how they'd scored the same amount of runs as the Yankees so far in the series. 

    Yeah? So?

    The Yankees scored 20 runs in the first game of the series, the Red Sox scored 14 in the second game. What does one thing have to do with another? They could just as well have won 1-0. In the 1960 World Series, the Yankees outscored the Pirates 55- 27, but the Pirates won 4 games and the Yankees won 3. All of the Yankees wins were blowouts. The Pirates wins were all within 3 runs.But the Pirates won the World Series. In case you hadn't noticed, it's not a cumulative score being run here. There's a new game starting every day and the score's 0-0 when it starts. 

• Reality mitigates my sarcasm about the Padres:
  

    I was going to write something snarky about the Padres giving a contract for 2010 to David Eckstein, but after looking at "prospect" Matt Antonelli's numbers this year, the Padres had little choice but to bring Eckstein back. Sure, they could've hoped that Antonelli showed up next spring and won the job; or they could've gone with Edgar Gonzalez, but Eckstein's been a good influence on the younger players and he's useful enough to be movable next season if they're so inclined.

• THE PADRES LOSSOMETER: 73   

• Omar Minaya not to blame for Gary Sheffield's tantrum:

    The last thing Mets GM Omar Minaya needed as the season continues to fall apart was another reason for people to call for his job, but Gary Sheffield's unnecessary display of the selfishness that's pockmarked his career did just that; but is Minaya really to blame for what's gone on with Sheffield over the past 48 hours?

    Although he may not have the requisite all-around skills to be a GM in today's game, there's should be little questioning Minaya's talent recognition skills. He was always a good scout. He may not have the eloquence of former Mets GM Steve Phillips; he may not be able to speak in circles as Brian Cashman, Billy Beane and Theo Epstein do to mask bullshit with language, but because he's had one problem after another in that realm over the past few months is no reason to pile on for anything Sheffield says or does. It's easy to attack the wounded animal and after the way Minaya was blind to the behaviors and poor results former assistant Tony Bernazard exhibited, he's become a punching bag for anything and everything that happens with the Mets.

    Sheffield's latest display of "Gary being Gary" shouldn't cast another black mark on Minaya's tenure. Sheffield played semantics as he tried to explain what happened on Thursday. Claiming that he didn't ask for a contract extension, Sheffield's perception of reality again fails him; what else could meeting with the GM of the club and asking about his "future" with the organization have meant other than "give me a guaranteed contract or let me go"?

    The implication that Sheffield has done whatever the club has asked of him being a reason to give him a contract for next year as if he was doing them a favor by not causing problems is pure Gary-logic. This is irrelevant in the attacks on Minaya. Regardless of what people think of Minaya as a GM, he's not stupid. When Sheffield was placed on waivers and claimed by the Giants, the Giants seemed to be under the impression that the fading Mets would take whatever they offered to get something for Sheffield; but at that time, Sheffield had: A) behaved in an exemplary fashion all year long; and B) played well enough to guarantee that someone in the American League would sign him for 2010 to DH at least part-time. If the Mets held onto Sheffield for the remainder of the season, then let him go, they would've gotten themselves a compensatory/supplementary draft pick. If what the Giants were offering wasn't any better than the Mets could've gotten in the 2010 draft, why not hold onto Sheffield? The Giants claim that the Mets were demanding "high-level" talent is a bit vague. Does anyone really think that Minaya had the audacity to ask for the likes of Buster Posey or Madison Bumgarner for Sheffield? If the Giants were offering chaff or players that Minaya didn't want, why make the deal since the Mets are only paying the minimum for Sheffield? It's not like they're dumping a contract or, at that time, a troublemaker.

    You could also make the argument that the Mets should've dealt Sheffield on July 31st. That was a perceptive mistake on the part of Minaya thinking that the team was only 6 1/2 games off the Wild Card lead and was still on the outskirts of contention, but they were too close to toss in the towel for anything less than a good return for Sheffield.

    It's the easiest thing in the world to latch onto perceived mistakes that an already damaged entity like Minaya has made, but holding onto Sheffield can't be counted as one of them. If he did make a mistake, it was in believing the Sheffield's positive behavior was going to maintain itself throughout the season, but he wasn't the only one who made the mistake in thinking Sheffield had matured and would keep quiet for the duration. Calling for Minaya's head for this is advancing an agenda more than stating a fact.

• Javier Vazquez pitches well enough to lose:

    Javier Vazquez has had a solid season in his return to the National League, but you'd never know it by his record and a large part of that is Vazquez having been mishandled by manager Bobby Cox.

    Last night, in the Braves 5-3 loss to the Marlins, Vazquez continued the trend of rolling along like a runaway train...until hitting a wall without warning. Except there was warning. By any rational judgment, Vazquez has been excellent this whole season. He's racked up strikeouts; he's gobbled innings; he hasn't given up many hits or homers; and he's kept his team in games for the most part. But his downfall has come when he hits that aforementioned wall and gives up a big hit; a homer; a couple of walks and it happened again last night as the Marlins attacked Vazquez in the seventh inning with a four run outburst.

    This too fell on Cox's shoulders because under no circumstances should a fading Vazquez been allowed to pitch to Hanley Ramirez with two out and a runner on base. Never mind that Ramirez is one of the best hitters in the game; he's on a hot streak and is 1 for 7 career against sidearmer Peter Moylan. Vazquez should've been yanked there and then, but it seems that Cox is relying on Vazquez and trusting him to wriggle out of trouble just as he did with his "big three" of the 90s, John Smoltz, Tom Glavine and Greg Maddux; that's a cookie-cutter way of managing and is wrong. 

    By now, you'd think Cox would be able to recognize that as soon as Vazquez starts to struggle, it's time to get him out of the game, but he hasn't. What Cox should consider is using Vazquez in a similar way as Giants manager Bruce Bochy uses Barry Zito. The second Zito gets into trouble----whether he's pitching a 2-hit shutout or is in line for a win----Bochy yanks him. Vazquez has better stuff than Zito, but the way his season's gone, he should be treated similarly for the good of the team.  

• Addressing a misconception:

    In a blog entry dedicated to yours truly by an economist name Cyril Morong on his "sabermetric blog" Cybermetrics, there are some assumptions and, I'll say it, strawmen that I need to address.

    First, this misconception that I'm flat out opposed to the use of numbers in building a team is completely wrong. Numbers, just like scouting techniques are a tool. A tool to be used in conjunction with every other aspect of finding players. What I'm opposed to is anyone with a calculator and a formula thinking they can walk into any big league front office and tell the longtime baseball people, including managers and coaches, how to do their jobs.

    The arrogance inherent in such a belief is bad enough, but if anyone would like an example of why to ignore many of these people who fancy themselves "experts" because they can plug numbers into a computer need only to look at the tone of the comments after my entry about the Marlins was submitted to Baseball Think Factory. There was no discussion; simply ridicule and scoffing in a manner that not one of them would have the courage to say to me directly and I'm not talking about in person. Even when one or two did submit comments and I responded, that's where the debate ended. Not one had the courage to respond and I received nothing in return; I said I was willing to debate and they bailed. Why run if they have such confidence in their arguments and believe I'm such a fool? 

    Second, Mr. Morong seeks examples of the stat zombies having picked the Marlins to win between 66 and 74 games. I wrote that from memory, but since he's so immersed in the numbers, wouldn't he know that this was the prevailing opinion of the club based on the numbers? Regardless, here are the predictions I could find: Baseball Prospectus had the Marlins at 71-91; CHONE, 75-87; PECOTA 70-92; THT 72-90; and Diamond Mind, which is referenced in the posting as well, had them at 73-89. 

    Then, there's this pithy little quote from Dave Cameron, who had the Marlins a ridiculous 29th of 30 teams in his organizational rankings:

Don’t buy into the hype of the Marlins as a young team that could surprise. The only people who will be surprised by the Marlins this year are those that expect them to contend.

    Third, this idea that I'm representing some "wing" of the analysis/scouting party is absurd. Paul Lebowitz represents the opinions of one person-Paul Lebowitz. Take it or leave it.

    To think that I would choose to stand with the non-stat zombies for no other reason than that they're not stat zombies is an insult. Do you really believe that I'd place myself with the Mike Francesas or Michael Kays of the world who know nothing about stats or scouting? I have as little use for them as I have for those that make the suggestion of batting Woody Williams second based on some number they discovered somewhere that made them think it was a good idea.

     If any of those that choose to criticize me took the time to look at my writings, they'd see I wasn't just throwing things at the wall and hoping I'd be right. There's actual thought and numbers going into my predictions; not stuff I'm pulling from my ass to justify myself.

    Sometimes I'm right. I predicted Wandy Rodriguez had the stuff to bust out and win 13-16 games and that Roy Halladay would be placed on the market by the Blue Jays. Sometimes I'm wrong as in the case of thinking the Cleveland Indians winning the division and Ron Washington getting fired by the Rangers. My deal isn't plugging numbers into a computer based on past, present and whatever and seeing what pops out; I look at a situation and analyze it based on my own interpretations, again, take it or leave it.

    Finally, this implication that the Diamond Mind system was proven successful because one of the creators, Tom Tippett, got hired by the Red Sox is totally irrelevant to the argument. One thing has absolutely nothing to do with another and proves little in terms of this debate. If any one who chooses to criticize me took the time to read what I've written, they might know that before coming up with this silliness and, yes, strawmen.

• We're all fools for expecting anything different from Gary Sheffield:

    And I'm principal among the fools thinking that Sheffield had mellowed enough at 40-years-old to sit quietly, behave himself without any controversies about his playing time, his contract or anything else that's upsetting him in any way.

    In case anyone missed it, Gary Sheffield of the Mets requested a contract extension from the club, was rebuffed and pulled himself out of the starting lineup last night after threatening to leave the team entirely. He did everyone a favor, stayed and pinch hit in the bottom of the eighth inning of the Mets 3-2 loss, striking out. The question isn't why Sheffield does this with an almost robotic consistency; the question is why we expect this time to be any different than the last twenty times he's thrown a tantrum for some perceived slight. 

    This is who he is.

    This is what he does.

    Long before the phrase "Manny being Manny" became an excuse for Manny Ramirez to do and say whatever he wanted with impunity, Gary Sheffield was the latest in a long line of players who let even the most minuscule slights stew inside them until it exploded. Perhaps in twenty or so years, Sheffield's penchant for self-destruction with unreasonable demands and outlandish accusations will be seen with less of a jaundiced eye as has been the case with Dick Allen.

    But for now, it's just Gary being Gary. Gary doing what Gary does.

    There was the admission that he'd grown so disenchanted with Milwaukee as a young player that he said he intentionally threw balls away from third base. There were the accusations with the Yankees that Derek Jeter wasn't "all the way black" and that Joe Torre discriminated against black players. There was the assertion that the Tigers and manager Jim Leyland (one of Sheffield's few remaining staunch defenders) had lied to him saying that he would get to play some outfield and wouldn't have to be a permanent DH. And of course, there's been the unhappiness about his contract in...well, in every place he's played be it from San Diego to Los Angeles to Florida to Atlanta to the Yankees to the Tigers and now to the Mets.

    I'm not even convinced that Sheffield asked for a one-year contract extension; I wouldn't be stunned if he asked the Mets for the 3-years, $30 million Raul Ibanez got from the Phillies. The way the Mets season has gone and with it not being a foregone conclusion that the current front office will still be intact, there's no chance the Wilpons would give Sheffield what he wants financially or hamstring the team next year (whoever's running it) by guatanteeing a spot on the roster for Sheffield in 2010 when the last thing they'll need is an injury-prone and habitually unhappy DH who can barely move in the outfield.

    This is all a continuing pattern with Sheffield. Those that have defended him----believing that he truly is a decent guy who's well-liked by his teammates and is a positive on-field influence----can't keep making excuses for him.

    He came to the Mets, sat quietly on the bench as one player after another went down with injuries and bided his time. Once he got his timing down at the plate and was put into the lineup regularly as a necessity more than anything else, he still had the quick hands and vicious swing; and he could still hit the ball out of the park. He'd behaved in an exemplary fashion from April until now, but Sheffield ruins all of his positives with stuff like this.

    If the Mets placed him on waivers early in the month and pulled him back without even seeing what the club that claimed him (it's said to be the Giants) were willing to offer, that was a big mistake on their part; and the only reason they might've done it was if they thought they still had an outside chance at a playoff spot, doubling the blunder.

    The waiver rules are so confusing that I'm not sure if they could get something for him if they put him back on waivers now, in August. I don't think they can; but with Sheffield's threat to leave, the Mets would be insane to reward him for the idle threat and spoiled brat tantrum to leave the club by releasing him, letting him get his way to sign with a contender and possibly be eligible for the playoffs. I'd keep him on the roster even if he left, play shorthanded until Sept. 1st----what's the difference to the Mets at this point?----then trade him for something, anything even if it was for a bullpen catcher or a bag of balls. This wouldn't be a "just get him outta here" situation; it would be a terrible message to the other players----especially the young players----that this is how to get what you want from their clubs if the club initially says "no" to a request. 

    Sheffield's uncle, Dwight Gooden, had told his nephew not to make waves about his contract. Normally, Gooden is probably the last person from whom anyone would seek advice; but Gooden never caused any trouble within his teams due to anything other than his addictions; and he's the perfect case study (along with Darryl Strawberry) of what not to do. Sheffield didn't listen and he ruined another opportunity to replenish his tarnished image. He'd been nothing but a model teammate for the Mets this year and he destroyed it with this latest act of self-indulgence. Had he kept his mouth shut for the last month-and-a-half, the Mets might've decided to bring him back; and he would've had several teams interested in bringing Sheffield in as at least a part-time DH next year. Next year, at age 41, how many teams are going to think he's worth the inevitable aggravation if he hasn't changed and clearly doesn't intend to? My guess is none.

• The Cubs show no evidence of waking from their hibernation:

    Barring a miracle, I think we can skin the Cubs and start the rotisserie.

    They've shown no signs of waking from their slumber. Losing two of three to the Padres to start the West Coast swing and last night's loss to the Dodgers leaves them seven games behind the Cardinals in the division and fading in the Wild Card race. A team can only come back from a deficit if they actually play well and no matter how weak their schedule is, they have to win games on their own; the Cubs have shown no ability of being able to do that.

• THE PADRES LOSSOMETER: 72
  

    Some people have reacted with bewilderment when I've mentioned that a stat zombie in the Padres front office suggested to Bruce Bochy that he bat pitcher Woody Williams second. It's not something I pulled out of my ass like we occasionally hear when the numbers don't work out for a certain player and an opinion like "he's shown potential to be a useful reliever" is floated because there's nothing much else to say statistically to defend such a player. The stat zombie/Bochy/Williams story came from this article by Tom Krasovic in the San Diego Union-Tribune dated March 28, 2009. I don't make stuff up and print it to further my arguments.

    On another note, I saw as good a reason as any (possibly the only reason) that the Padres gave manager Bud Black a contract extension through 2010 with a club option for 2011: he's got the "bewildered manager" look down pat.

    One of the Michael Lewis assertions in Moneyball was to have a manager "look the part" as he slaughtered, butchered and borderline libeled then-A's manager Art Howe in his goal of making every bit of A's success go through Billy Beane; the Padres have taken that to heart.

    Black's face told the whole story as the Cardinals' Brendan Ryan circled the bases after his grand slam. He looked simultaneously bewildered and forlorn----something that's not easy to do. That skill is going to serve Black in the coming years if the Padres continue down the road they're on and under new owner Jeff Moorad, there's no indication of changing course anytime soon.

    Note to Moorad: if you don't change the participants, don't expect a different result.   

• The North Side is in disarray:

    While I wouldn't go as far as Jeff and Allen do at Red State Blue State and say that "Jesus hates the Cubs", I would go as far to say that whoever's going to have to clean up the mess made by the current regime is going to hate the Cubs with a passion far greater than any Cardinals fan (or Biblical figure) could ever muster.

    With the talk that Lou Piniella might've had enough a bit premature----he has $4 million coming to him next year; he's not leaving money on the table----the Cubs issues could make Piniella wish he had left the money on the table by this time next year. The contracts they have guaranteed for declining veterans are going to create a disaster in the very near future. This disappointing season is just the beginning. They're on the hook for the following:

Alfonso Soriano: He's turning 34 in January, has $90 million guaranteed through 2014 when he'll be 38. He's been terrible this year and has never been one for hard work off the field; what's he going to look like at 38? 

Milton Bradley: $21 million in through 2011. I can't even speculate what's in store for the club with Bradley's scattered behavior.

Ryan Dempster: $40 million through 2012. They were warned about Dempster. I hate to keep doing this, but I'll do it anyway----here's a quote from my book (bearing in mind that I also picked the Cubs to go to the World Series, so take it with a grain of salt):

Dempster’s injury history and that he had his career year in 2008 would concern me. There’s no way he’s going to ever be as good as he was in 2008, but they’ll be paying for that season over the next four years. 

    Dempster was mediocre and injury-prone before 2008; he's been mediocre and injury-prone in 2009 after getting his contract. Does anyone think that at the ages of 33-35 he's going to return to his 2008 form?

Kouske Fukudome: $26 million for 2010-2011. He's a pretty good player and useful to have around, but not for that money.

Derrek Lee: $13 million for 2010. He's had a very good year and that's a contract they'll be able to move.

Aaron Miles: $2.7 million for 2010. Miles was a good player for the Cardinals and he's been atrocious for the Cubs. Nearly $3 million for Aaron Miles? Whose bright idea was that?

Aramis Ramirez: Around $32 million guaranteed through 2011. Injuries have ruined his 2009 season but he's still one of the top third basemen in baseball.

Carlos Zambrano: Around $53 million guaranteed through 2012. They'd have to take someone else's problem contract in a trade, but Zambrano's movable. 

    All of this is before getting to the sale of the club, which no one seems to know when it'll be completed and to whom the club will be sold. 

    The Cubs are a win-now team that must win now if they want to win at all. They have a weak farm system and those contracts are hellish. They're still within striking distance of both the NL Central (six games behind the Cardinals); and the Wild Card (5 games back from the top with four teams ahead of them). It helps that their schedule is weak. They have six games against the Mets; three against the Nationals; six against the Pirates; and three against the Diamondbacks. That said, they didn't look very good this week against the Padres. To get back into realistic contention requires playing well and playing consistently, neither of which has happened for the Cubs this year. 

    Changing closers is a positive step because anyone they stick in there is bound to be better than Kevin Gregg was; but it could be too late. With a playoff spot looking more and more unlikely, Piniella could be the latest in a long line of managers who went to the Cubs with high hopes and saw things fall apart as the window closes on an expensive and underachieving roster that's only going to get much, much worse in 2010 and beyond.

• Mike Rizzo went from being replaced to getting the Nationals job as GM permanently:

    I don't know what can be done about these rumors that pop up on the interwebs and get reported as facts without basis. On Tuesday night, there were at least three different sources that insisted that Diamondbacks assistant Jerry DiPoto was about to get the Nationals GM job replacing Mike Rizzo. Then today, it's coming out that Rizzo is getting the "interim" tag removed from his title and will be given the job.

    Rizzo has a solid reputation; he knows talent; and he knows the Nats organization. Some stability is a positive step for a club still reeling from the difficult time they had under Jim Bowden as he turned the club into the go-to destination for wayward youth/juvenile delinquents and players he liked for one reason or another from his days with the Reds. It's a low standard to surpass, but how much worse and disliked could Rizzo be than Bowden? 

• Are the Dodgers looking in their rear view mirror?

    With their starting pitching shaky and their bullpen overworked, there has to be concern about the Dodgers as the Rockies climb to within 3 1/2 games and the Giants 4 1/2. They're looking at the reviled Vicente Padilla to bolster the starting rotation and don't be surprised to see a panic move the likes of Bronson Arroyo of the Reds. Manager Joe Torre knows him from the Yankees-Red Sox wars and at least he won't be spooked by a pennant race, which is what the Dodgers are unexpectedly in right now.

• Viewer Mail 8.20.2009:

Jane Heller at Confessions of a She-Fan writes:

Joba as a "breakable antique." LOL! And so true! Your description of the Mets' latest contretemps (Manuel calling Wright a different animal than Church) cinches it: the Mets are more dysfunctional than the Yankees!

    And the way he's pitching, he's not even one of those expensive Ming Dynasty vah-ses that people find out they have in their basements and start flipping out on Antiques Roadshow. He's a knockoff; still having some value, but not as much as people hoped. 

    The Mets are dysfunctional, but they get more attention for their dysfunction because there's such a rich history of it. Are they any more embarrassing than the aforementioned Cubs? The Royals? The Padres? I'm starting to think most teams are like this. If a team's winning, it's quirky and charming; if they're losing, it's evidence of discombobulation. 

•  THE PADRES LOSSOMETER: 71

• Strange behavior for a guy with such a high standard for role models:

    The back-and-forth between Mets manager Jerry Manuel and former Met Ryan Church cracked open the underlying disconnect between the manager and his former player.

    When discussing David Wright's concussion, treatment and prognosis for playing again this season, Manuel referenced the concussions Church suffered last season in differentiating between the two players. Manuel called Wright a "different animal" than Church. Whatever Manuel says as he tries to backtrack his way from the gaffe, the truth is that the animosity between Manuel and Church, which was implied going back to the end of last season, is out there for all to see. Considering the well-documented struggles Church had after his second concussion last year, the Manuel dig was strangely callous, especially for a man who points to role models such as Christ and Ghandi. This is an example of a manager who's unable to put personal feelings aside when dealing with players and it's what separates the average manager from the superior manager. 

    Who knows what went on between Church and Manuel, if anything? It could simply have been one man disliking another, but the problem with Manuel is that he doesn't set these issues aside when writing his lineups and talking to the press. He did the same thing last year after taking over for Willie Randolph and didn't use Endy Chavez for anything other than a defensive replacement even after Fernando Tatis got hurt last August and missed the rest of the season. Chavez was traded, in major part I think, because Manuel didn't like the way he hit, but his replacement, Jeremy Reed can't hit at all and isn't anywhere close to the defender that Chavez was. It's a trap that many managers fall into on both ends of the spectrum.

    The one black mark on Tony La Russa's career has been his dustups with present and former players, the worst being with Scott Rolen. Lou Piniella wasn't enamored with Randy Johnson or Rob Dibble, but Piniella didn't let that affect whether or not he used them. (He'd just physically attack them when he got mad enough). Joe Torre couldn't stand David Wells.

    Then there are the instances of managers repeatedly insisting on players they----for one reason or another----like having around. Dusty Baker's been guilty of this with Shawon Dunston and Corey Patterson.

    Part of managing is putting aside personalities. Billy Martin and Reggie Jackson detested one another, but Martin wrote Reggie's name in the lineup because he needed a productive Reggie if, for no other reason, than to keep his job. Torre used Wells and dealt with him in two different stints with the Yankees because Wells provided innings and a good performance most of the time. In short, the upper tier managers know that self-preservation is more important than liking each and every player on his roster. 

    The fault for this lies in the manager for not putting his personal feelings on the back-burner, and for the GMs of these clubs for not telling the manager he's not going to let him bring in or dump players for reasons other than their performance and basic conduct.

• Nats replacing Rizzo with DiPoto?

    Stories are all over the place that the Washington Nationals are about to fire interim GM Mike Rizzo and replace him with Diamondbacks assistant Jerry DiPoto. I wouldn't label this as Rizzo being "fired" since he was never actually given the full-time job in the first place, but DiPoto is highly regarded in the baseball community so he's an apparently solid choice.

    Rizzo and DiPoto worked together for a few months in the D-Backs front office before Rizzo joined the Nats in 2006. It will be interesting to see what happens to Rizzo. He built the Diamondbacks minor league system as scouting director and acquired such talents as Brandon Webb, Justin Upton and Stephen Drew. He also accrued much of the talent that allowed the D-Backs to trade for Dan Haren.

    Rizzo was in a no-win situation with the Nats as he replaced the despised Jim Bowden in March and he did the best he could under the circumstances. It's hard to see Rizzo staying in Washington after this decision and with his background and success at spotting talent, he'd be a great choice for the Mets to replace Tony Bernazard. Bernazard did a terrible job running the Mets minor leagues, so anyone would improve on his awful record in personnel. That Rizzo's is personally liked and respected makes him a great option as well, especially after Bernazard was so reviled by, well, by everyone.

• Brett Favre won't be happy until he's carted off the field, unable to move:

    There will come a day that Brett Favre will hold a press conference and no one will show up; when that will be is anyone's guess.

    Did you see North Dallas Forty? Quite possibly the best and most realistic sports movie ever made? Better than any reality show, North Dallas Forty depicted the true brutality warlike mentality of the coaches, GMs and owners of football teams and the way players live for today because they don't know if there's a tomorrow. The quarterback in the film, based on Don Meredith, has a line in which he says he's beginning to like the pain of playing football. This is where Brett Favre is. It doesn't help that Favre clearly doesn't know what to do with himself when he's not playing football and is the center of everyone's attention.

    Favre has orchestrated and manipulated the press to a remarkable degree and the press allows him to do it because it's to the advantage of both. People pay attention to Favre so the stories are read and watched; Favre gets the money and adulation he craves. He doesn't seem to care that he's well on his way to becoming Public Enemy #1 in Green Bay; nor does he care that his legacy is being tarnished and he's becoming a parody of himself with his "retirements" and "comebacks" and phony humility.

    These stories rarely end in the John Elway fashion as he won the Super Bowl and retired; Elway's business decisions and still ancillary involvement in football show that he doesn't know what to do with himself either. Favre wouldn't be as happy as an actor; as a broadcaster; or doing anything else as he is when he's drawing crowds with his "will he or won't he" play again. One would think people would've gotten tired of it by now, but there's still a thirst for all-things-Favre. 

    I certainly don't hope that this happens, but Favre won't be happy until he's not able to play anymore. That's his right and given his personality, he probably won't regret it if a catastrophic injury wrecks his life, but someone should probably tell him----at some point----(to steal a line from American Gangster) that quitting while he's ahead isn't the same thing as quitting.   

• What took the Cubs so long?

    (Note: We're going to ignore the fact that I picked the Indians to win the AL Central and accentuate the positives!!! The positives being the things I was right about, of course.)

    Cubs manager Lou Piniella is yanking struggling Kevin Gregg out of the closer's role as of right now----Chicago Tribune Story. My questions are the following: 1) what took so long? and 2) what did the Cubs think they were getting when they traded a promising young righty, Jose Ceda, for Gregg to begin with?

    I figured this was going to happen earlier in the season; here's what I wrote in my book: 

Kevin Gregg has two characteristics that are going to put him into Piniella’s doghouse sooner rather than later: he gives up a lot of home runs and he has trouble throwing strikes. Why the Cubs traded a young power pitcher like Jose Ceda for a shaky journeyman-quality pitcher like Gregg is beyond me and they’re going to regret it when Gregg is blowing games in April and Piniella relegates him to mopup duty. 

    Gregg has two issues that make him a bad closer: he gives up too many homers and he's wild. The number of homers he's allowed, 12, is ridiculous. His walk numbers aren't that bad, 23 in 56 innings, but he falls behind so many hitters that the homers come as a natural progression.

    I understood what Piniella was doing in the spring when he chose Gregg over Carlos Marmol for the job. Gregg had experience closing; and the actual "save" usually comes before the ninth inning, so Marmol's penchant for strikeouts made him a better seventh and eighth inning option than Gregg, but Marmol's been all over the place too with a whopping 52 walks in 56 innings.

    Piniella is going to choose between Marmol and Angel Guzman to take over for Gregg. One would assume that the decision is going to come down to what makes his stomach churn less. Does he want to worry about Marmol's lack of control but take comfort in his strikeouts and that he's only allowed one homer this year? Is he going to trust Guzman because he generally throws strikes, but has allowed six homers? Or is he going to mix and match?

    A rebuilding team or one with a tight budget could function with Gregg as a stopgap closer; a team with championship aspirations can't and I don't know why Piniella waited this long to make the change. Piniella's throwing a Hail Mary in August and the thing about Hail Marys is that they rarely work. Add another team to the list that's going to be watching Billy Wagner very, very closely----if they can stay in contention long enough to see him pitch, that is.

• Tigers acquire Aubrey Huff for a minor leaguer:

    I've always liked the way Aubrey Huff hits and he's a good pickup for the Tigers. The one question will be how this affects Magglio Ordonez and his contract.

    The Tigers can conceivably say that the only place for Huff to play is right field and bench Ordonez. This is significant because of Ordonez's contract kicker that goes into affect if he: has 540 plate appearances this year, or has a combined 1,080 plate appearances in 2008-2009. He's probably not going to reach the 540 for 2009, especially after they've acquired Huff; but he's at 1000 on the dot right now. Can the Tigers prevent him from getting those 80 at bats for the rest of the season without losing a grievance from the Players Association?

    I think they could.

    Ordonez has been such a liability at the plate this year that he doesn't deserve to play if there are better options; and the Tigers are better with Huff and Marcus Thames in the lineup instead of Ordonez. If they bench Ordonez, the only argument the PA is going to have is that the Tigers don't want to have to pay Ordonez $18 million next year, but there's enough ambiguity after the Huff acquisition that they might be able to weasel their way out of it.

    One interesting scenario will be if Ordonez is within an at bat or two of the incentive and the Tigers are fighting for a playoff spot on the last weekend of the season and choose not to use him to save the money. How's that going to go?

• Why are people arguing about the MVP in mid-August?

    I remember in 1999 when Mike Piazza was the clear frontrunner for the MVP of the National League in August and wound up seventh in the voting because he slumped in September and Chipper Jones picked the Braves up on his back and carried them down the stretch. 

    If I had to choose now, Joe Mauer is the clear MVP of the AL (the guy's hitting .380), but it's August. Who knows what's going to happen in September? Why argue about it now?

• Viewer Mail 8.18.2009:

Joe at Statistician Magician writes RE my suggestion of Jose Reyes for Carlos Zambrano:

I don't know why you would want that Zambrano contract, and to surrender Reyes?

    The Zambrano contract isn't as bad as is implied. If you look at Cot's Baseball Contracts, Zambrano only has $53.75 million left guaranteed. The $19.25 million vesting option is only activated if: "he is first or second in 2011 Cy Young vote or if he finishes in top 4 in 2012 Cy Young vote and is healthy at end of 2012."

    So, if the Mets and Cubs were to make that kind of a deal, you're talking about Reyes's $9 million for 2010 and his $11 million option for 2011 that they'd have no choice but to pick up if he plays next year. You're getting rid of Luis Castillo's $12 million as well. So that's $32 million right there for Zambrano's guaranteed $53.75 million and Zambrano's option in 2013 is performance-related, so if he's first or second in the CYA voting in 2011; in the top 4 in 2012 and is healthy, that's a pretty good deal for Reyes, who's going to want over $100 million after 2011.

    Reyes might also try to cash in to a greater extent because he was annoyed that he signed for such a comparatively measly sum to what David Wright received shortly after Reyes signed his extension----Mets contract link. 

    It's not something to dismiss over money. 

• How about Jose Reyes for Carlos Zambrano:

    Before anything else, two things: 1) I'm aware I was adamantly against the Mike Francesa-initiated concept of the Mets "breakin' up 'da core" at the end of last season; and 2) that the Mets didn't have the greatest of luck the first time they traded a homegrown talent for a guy named Zambrano. (See Zambrano, Victor)*

*Regarding the Scott Kazmir for Victor Zambrano trade, there's no defending it, but while Kazmir has pitched brilliantly in spots, he's been mostly awful this year and has yet to show the durability to be considered a top of the rotation starter. He's being bandied about in trade talks by the Rays and while they'll never move him out of the rotation, his long term future, I think, is as a closer if someone has the balls to make the move. 

    That in mind, there are compelling reasons to consider such a blockbuster move for both the Mets and Cubs.

The Cubs are looking to slash some salary:

    Zambrano is 28; Reyes 26. Zambrano has a lot of money coming to him over the next four years (a little over $70 million if his option vests in 2014) and Reyes has $9 million next year and an $11 million option for 2011. If the teams were going to do such a thing, the Mets could insist that the Cubs take Luis Castillo's contract as well; the Cubs could send Ryan Theriot to the Mets as a short-term replacement for Reyes.

Both clubs seem sick of the respective players:

    I'm getting the impression out of Chicago that the Cubs have had just about enough of Zambrano's inconsistency, temper tantrums and bizarre/disconcerting injuries (his back and shoulder are disconcerting; straining his wrist from allegedly spending too much time on his computer emailing home to Venezuela----believe it or not----is bizarre) and I know the Mets have had just about enough of Reyes.

    The Mets season has gone down the drain because of the multitude of injuries and the only one whose issue is causing certain people to look at him sideways, wondering if he's just decided to bag the season, is Reyes. 

    Zambrano is supposed to be Lou Piniella's horse at the top of the rotation, but in addition to the self-defeating lack of emotional control he's shown on the mound, he's been in and out of the rotation with aches and pains. The Cubs 2009 season, which was supposed to end the World Series drought, has also gone off the rails making a playoff run look unlikely barring a September hot streak. 

It would benefit both teams; it would benefit both players:

    Theriot's been good for the Cubs in 2008-2009, but Reyes is a five-tool firestarter when he's in the lineup; Zambrano is looking increasingly like he needs a change-of-scenery. Reyes, as said before, has exhausted the Mets' patience with his incidents of brainlock when he was playing; his penchant for ignoring managers and coaches; and now his injuries. Castillo has played very well this year, but getting out from under the remaining two years and $12 million would free the Mets to address other issues. 

    Being in a rotation with his revered countryman Johan Santana might benefit Zambrano greatly on and off the field; a front two of Santana and Zambrano would be an intimidating sight for teams coming to play the Mets. 

It may be time to change the faces of both franchises:

    With Reyes's contract coming up after 2011, it's hard to see the Mets going crazy to keep him. The Cubs sale is still in flux and they have so many absurd contracts----Alfonso Soriano and Milton Bradley the two most egregious----that Zambrano is one of the few long term deals that anyone might be willing to absorb in the right deal. Things have gone awry on such a grand scale for both franchises that it might be time to do something drastic. This isn't a simple-minded entreaty from an avowed Yankee fan in Francesa for the Mets to "break up 'da core", it's a move that makes sense both financially and logistically. It's something to think about very, very seriously.

• The Joba Chronicles:

    Francesa's off today so we won't be hearing five hours about how Joba Chamberlain should move back to the bullpen, but Chamberlain's inconsistency and the Yankees arbitrary attempts to regulate his innings are the reason for that inconsistency and the continued debate.

    Chamberlain had gone a long way to shutting up the "Joba as Reliever" brigade with those three straight brilliant starts in late July...until the Yankees, concerned about an innings limit that has been guarded in secrecy like the nuclear bomb codes, gave him seven days rest before an important start against the Red Sox and he got rocked; then he got knocked around by the Blue Jays five days later and again yesterday against the Mariners. Now he's getting another seven days between starts.

    If anyone's responsible for the debate that's going to start firing up again, it's the Yankees themselves. The way they're overprotecting Chamberlain is bordering on disturbing. GM Brian Cashman's decision to develop their own starting pitchers to save money last season fostered the perception that it wasn't done to do what's best for the club as much as it was for Cashman to receive credit on a level with Theo Epstein and Billy Beane for being the architect of the franchise; it's much the same with Chamberlain. It appears as if the Yankees are more concerned with being criticized if Chamberlain gets hurt than getting the most out of the young pitcher whether he's a starter or reliever.

    At what point is he going to be treated like a man instead of a breakable antique that no one's allowed to touch? And what good does it do anyone if he's healthy, but pitches like crap?

• Would the Red Sox and their fans like to (figuratively) strangle Kevin Youkilis yet?

    Kevin Youkilis getting himself suspended for charging the mound and flinging his helmet to extend the suspension might've been the stupidest thing I've seen from a player this year. It's one thing to get picked off; try to take an extra base and get caught; make a defensive gaffe; but to get suspended right before an important series against a direct competitor for a playoff spot? Inexcusable.

    In fact, if the Mets do consider trading Jose Reyes, I'd call about Youkilis. Depending on how angry the Red Sox are at him for his suspension; how tired they are of his bitching; and how much they want to bring in a new shortstop, it's worth a shot.

• Dunno why I pay attention to this Brett Fav-ruh stuff, but I do:

• THE PADRES LOSSOMETER: 70

    It's easy to think that the Padres are used to losing, but yesterday's game had to be tough to take. Colby Rasmus hit a 3-run, game-winning homer with one out in the ninth off of Padres closer Heath Bell to give the Cardianls a 7-5 win. Bell's been one of the few bright spots in that shipwrecked organization, but blowing a lead in the bottom of the ninth on a game-winning homer hurts whether a team's floundering or not.

• Viewer Mail 6.17.2009:

Jeff at Red State Blue State writes:

If you can get them to stop eating brains, I think an actual debate/conversation with the Zombies would be more than entertaining (and educational too!). The tiny snippet of dialogue between you and SoSH U may be just the start we need.

    Yeah, but after he posted the respectful and polite comment, he went back to the BBTF and joined in on the ridicule again, so it's hard to think much of that; and he never pointed out my strawmen so I could respond. 

Franklin Rabon writes:

As always good work.  As big of an Oasis fan as I am, I definitely enjoy the Oasis/Blur style dustups between you and the stat zombies.  I think one thing some of the more rational "stat" zombies fail to appreciate is that you aren't really fingering them, just the hardcore "this is the only thing" adherents, especially those particularly beholden by moneyball the book.

Anyway, one thing that this is kind of pointing out to me, your coverage of the Braves and Marlins.

Sure the Braves aren't world beaters, but are you ready to admit they're at least playoff contenders?  You've said they're nowhere near contenders for the entire season thus far. continues to seem like they're two teams miles apart in the standings.  Despite the fact that they have nearly identical records.  And its not like the Braves have been fading, they've had a better record than the Marlins, and even Phillies, in the second half (in fact they have the best record in the NL during that span).  If you're going to point to the marlins as a "win" or something like it in your predictions, then you have to just as squarely call the Braves a loss.  You predicted these two teams to be MILES apart in the standings, and have held that ground for most of the season.  would have to be Washington Nationals-like bad now to finish anywhere near your prediction for them, but the latest pub you had for them was a slam against Soriano.

   I'm a bigger fan of Oasis than Blur, but like them both. (Is that allowed?) Oasis's stuff was great when they first started out, they went off the reservation for awhile as they changed the lineup and couldn't stop fighting, but they've gotten back into the groove.

    You can tell when someone can be reasoned with in any debate no matter the context. If you look at the tone of the comments on the BBTF posting, it becomes clear what's going on. As I said yesterday, they don't want a discussion; they want like-minded people to agree with them and if not, they attack. Lamely, I might add. 

    Regarding the Braves, they are playing well and could be the team that emerges from the Wild Card (or divisional) muck if the Phillies keep playing this way. And I did have them at 75-87 before the season started. So here's the objective (what else?) truth about the Braves.

    This is a vastly different club from the one that opened the season when they had a shaky back-end of the starting rotation (and there was every indication they were going to move forward with Tom Glavine); a questionable bullpen; a slap-hitting first baseman and quite possibly the worst hitting outfield in baseball.

    They've made some drastic improvements on the fly with the gutsy (and correct) decision to cut ties with Glavine and promote Tommy Hanson. The trade for Nate McLouth shored up the gaping offensive hole in center field and was purely a byproduct of the John Schuerholz style of dealing as they put the take-it-or-leave-it offer on the table to the Pirates and the Pirates panicked before offering McLouth around the league and seeing if someone trumped the Braves good-but-not-great offer.

    The Jeff Francoeur for Ryan Church trade solved issues for both the Mets and Braves and the two players. Church has been okay for the Braves and had to get out of NY; Francoeur has lit up the Mets clubhouse with his enthusiasm and love for the game and had to get out of Atlanta.  

    Exchanging Casey Kotchman for Adam LaRoche was a smart decision. Kotchman has no power and is a guy you can find relatively easily and cheaply; LaRoche has played for Bobby Cox before; played well and hit for power in Atlanta and is about as good a fielder as Kotchman. (I'd expect LaRoche to sign a contract to stay.)

    Objectively, if I looked at and analyzed this team before the season started rather than the team that they were then, I'd have them around 86-76 instead of 75-87, give or take 2-3 wins. That said, the bullpen is a big problem as Rafael Soriano's gopher ball issues continue (and I mentioned that in my book) and I'd seriously look at Billy Wagner if I were the Braves. You'd never have thought the Mets would be willing to help the Braves, but if it's all toward the greater good of stopping the Phillies, it could happen.

    I still don't think they're a playoff team, are going to catch the Phillies or beat out the Rockies, Giants, Marlins and Cubs in the playoff scrum, but at least now they're in the conversation, something that wasn't the case in April when they were still wandering around in a daze trying to grasp at the past glory days.  

Benji writes:

Right ON, Paul. These stat zombies must be stopped, they're wrecking the game.

It's a bigger problem than that, though. Sports is small potatoes -- you should be going after the science zombies too. We don't need anything that doesn't come out of the Bible. If we replace science with God, and make other nations do the same (we'll obviously have to live with enough science to arm ourselves), most of the world's troubles would be gone.

So keep at it, and broaden your horizons. You're wasted on just sports analysis. Oh and if the "zombie" thing ever starts seeming old, try using "strawman" instead -- just as mindless, and immobile too!

   By my----admittedly----rudimentary calculations, you've been on my site five times since last night and this is the best thing you could come up with?

• Viewer  Mail 8.16.2009:

Dan Markham writes RE the brouhaha over my post about the Marlins:

As a BTFer, I wanted to address your posts. The main reason few of the posts in the BTF thread addressed the issue you raised is because the premise is flawed. The Marlins, at least from the baseball operations side, are highly regarded by most at BTF (see the praise for Mr. Beinfest by Jason Kendall's No. 1 fan). In fact, I'm sure most statheads would rank Beinfest and his staff well ahead of many others you mentioned, particularly J.P., and probably Beane. Any vitriol directed at the Marlins organization is saved for Loria, Sampson and the way the pair has conducted business.

Additionally, the Marlins' preference for low-cost players, scrapheap pickups surrounding a true superstar is the kind of recipe many stat zombies endorse.

The Marlins have exceeded expectations this year, though at the moment, they've underperformed yours. Regardless, if you'd like the stat-friendly types to engage you in conversation, you might want to start by losing the strawmen and the tired stereotypes.

Sincerely,

Decidedly math deficient,

SoSH U

    Since my premise is so flawed, the strategy is-----instead of engaging in a true debate or attempt to convince me (and others) that the Marlins aren't ignored----to reduce it into the tone of the comments that look more like they belong in an Excite chatroom from 1999 than a baseball website? Those comments weren't posted because of a flawed premise; those comments were posted to at best ignore my premise or goof on me rather than to make any attempt to address it.

    The genesis of the piece wasn't simply to point out that the stat zombie way is not used in Florida, but to point out that the majority doesn't acknowledge exactly how the Marlins do what they do. The idea behind the stat people having, as you put it, a "preference for low-cost players, scrapheap pickups surrounding a true superstar is the kind of recipe many stat zombies endorse" doesn't explain the Marlins. You mention the word "recipe" and I'll put it in those terms.

    Say you'd like to cook a wonderful meal. You could: A) pay someone else to cook it (as the Yankees do by paying for players from other teams); B) follow a recipe to the letter (as the stat zombies advocate and the A's and Padres did and made a big mess); or C) go to a farmer's market, see what's there, what's cheap, what looks good and grab stuff to try to cobble something together when they get home (as the Marlins do).

    There's a big difference. That doesn't mean that the recipe isn't going to come out great whichever road is taken, but the end result doesn't nullify my argument because the Marlins are respected by certain aspects of the stat community. Just doing it cheaper isn't the idea; doing it right is the idea. The Marlins sift through what's available and get use from those players, then dispatch them when they get too expensive starting the process all over again. The stat zombie clubs themselves have provided a large chunk of the Marlins current roster because they misidentified players that have use.

    Jorge Cantu, with a career .311 OBP, was traded by the Rays to the Reds for nothing.

    Dan Meyer was released by Billy Beane and the A's.

    Dan Uggla was mired in Double A for three years in the Diamondbacks organization before Josh Byrnes----a stat guy who came from the Red Sox----left him unprotected in the minor league draft.

    John Baker was waived by Beane.

    Cody Ross was purchased from the Reds.

    In addition to that, the Marlins don't follow the Moneyball tenets of drafting college players above all else. They draft players that can play whether they're in high school or college and then they do something innovative----they give them a chance to play! 

    The stat zombies may endorse what the Marlins do, but they can't copy it because they don't have the talent recognition skills to find things that may not look good on paper, but fit into the equation in practice. 

    I've never understood the distaste people have for Jeffrey Loria and the way he "conducts business". He's won a championship; his team contends relatively frequently; he's building a new ballpark for a disinterested town that, honestly, doesn't deserve it; and he does it under a tight budget not because he doesn't want to spend money, but because it works! Would you like to be rooting for a team run by the Wilpons for awhile? I'd trade the entire Mets organization for the entire Marlins organization from top to bottom right now if given the opportunity.  

    I couldn't care less whether the stat zombies want to engage with me in conversation or not. Most clearly don't want to get into a debate; they're fully welcome to discuss whatever the want with me. My problem is those that want to ridicule rather than engage; that's a waste of time and energy for me to even address. 

    What strawman are you referring to? So the Marlins have overperformed the zombie expectations, but underperformed mine? I predicted 90 wins; the zombies had them at around 72 (give or take) in the predictions that I saw. If they win 85-87, then we were both wrong? That's a strawman. 

    What of the strawman propped up by the exalted Bill James in which he alibis for the Red Sox failed closer-by-committee in 2003 by saying the idea didn't work because they misjudged some pitchers? Grady Little was a convenient scapegoat for that lost season, but if the Red Sox had someone, anyone who could close a game in even half of the 23 games that were blown by the failed concept of a bullpen-by-committee, they could've avoided the Yankees entirely in that post-season and Little's penchant for gaffes and ignoring orders wouldn't have been an issue. 

    Or the strawman the Rob Neyers and Rich Lederers of the world create when defending and promoting Paul DePodesta as a GM candidate? No defense can distract from the fact that his tenure as Dodgers GM was a Hawk Harrelson-level display of executive incompetence.

    Or the Dave Camerons, who judge a trade in June after the main cog in that trade----J.J. Putz----gets hurt and he takes three or four good starts to promulgate the myth that Jason Vargas belongs in any team's rotation. Any trade that includes Jason Vargas is a bad trade----for the team that's actually getting Jason Vargas.   

    Or the Keith Laws, who mail it in on a regular basis, is a supposed scouting/stats expert who parrots scouting terminology, uses his forum to launch verbal hand grenades at his former boss, J.P. Ricciardi and doesn't pay close enough attention to his job to know the difference between Johnny and Jerry Narron or realize that Emilio Bonifacio has been traded by the Nats until months later.

    I don't know what strawmen/stereotypes I've used, but if you can point them out, I'll be happy to respond.

jwb writes RE Jason Vargas/J.J. Putz:

"[Y]ou'll still hear writers like Dave Cameron going on and on about the "mistakes" a scouting based executive like Omar Minaya made in trading non-entities like Jason Vargas to get an established reliever in J.J. Putz, then shutting up when Vargas reverts to being, well, being Jason Vargas and is demoted because he's not capable of being a useful big league pitcher."

Jason Vargas has thrown more innings with a lower ERA than Putz for 1/20th of the cost. What is your opinion on the $8.6M option/$1M buyout for Putz?

    My response is Jason Vargas's numbers for his career; his 2009 GameLogs almost immediately after Cameron labeled the trade a "mistake"; that he's now in the minors; and isn't any good. 

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

I see you're really taking to Twitter. Does this mean you're giving up baseball? hahaha.

    It's just another tool for me to procrastinate from what I'm *supposed* to be doing. 

• Matt Cain's hat tip was bush league:

    Under no circumstances do I think that Matt Cain wanted to hit David Wright in the head. He looked as upset as anyone when it happened, but when he was removed from the game, the hat tip showed an immaturity that I'd think the Aaron Rowand-types in the Giants clubhouse told him it was something he shouldn't have done. If someone in the Mets clubhouse took it the way it looked, all Cain's going to do is get one of their hitters hurt. I doubt anyone in the Giants lineup wants a Brian Stokes 96 mph fastball aimed at them, but Cain's reaction to the booing might cause that very thing.

    Yes, Johan Santana retaliated for the beaning; but Cain's doffing of his hat as he was being booed was pure bush league. Having just beaned the Mets best player, sending him to the hospital, Cain should've walked off the field, taken the abuse and sat in the dugout.

• If Jonathan Broxton continues pitching this way, Joe Torre will have a decision to make:

    Jonathan Broxton didn't just give up back-to-back homers to tie the Dodgers-Diamondbacks game last night, he gave up two tape-measure rockets. With the acquisition of Geroge Sherrill, if it gets to late September and Broxton can't be trusted, would Torre flip their roles for the playoffs?

    It would be a tough decision to demote a young pitcher like Broxton, but feelings can't be a factor in winning or losing a championship (or even a division; in case anyone hadn't noticed, the Rockies have closed to within 4 1/2 and the Giants to 5 1/2). Broxton has a great future, but that can't be part of the equation for right now and if it comes down to it, Torre's going to have to make the change from Broxton to Sherrill for the greater good.

• Will the real Brad Lidge please stand up?

    Was Brad Lidge the world-beater he was last season? Was he the mentally frazzled and shell-shocked pitcher he was late in his Astros career? Or is he the bullpen arsonist he's become with the Phillies?

    I think the real Lidge was the pitcher we saw in 2008. I also think that his knee is in worse shape than even Lidge himself is letting on and that's causing the lack of bite on his pitches and getting him beat. The truth will come out after the season; gutting it out in August is fine, but it's making a big mess for the Phillies down the stretch and if he's hurt, he should tell them because they can't go on like this.

• The end result of the signing deadlines for drafted players with remaining amateur eligibility:

• THE PADRES LOSSOMETER: 69
  

• This says it all far better than I ever could:

    Joe at Statistician Magician posted yesterday's entry onto Baseball Think Factory and the reaction was pretty much what you could expect to anyone who dared question the precious numbers. I only skimmed the comments, but suffice it to say from what I did read, the debate degenerated from the sublime (the reasonable folks consensus estimation of my posting) to the ridiculous (the majority of comments). I wonder if the ones that didn't get into a debate about the value of various zombie films and instead chose to attack me to varying degrees realize that in their passionate responses they were proving the basic point of the posting that the dueling ideologies have become so entrenched in their positions that there's no way to reach common ground. 

    You can go and check out the comments if you want----the link is above----but there's no reason to do that unless you have a load of time to kill. I was accused of posting the excerpt and link myself to drum up traffic. I didn't. Joe has posted some of my stuff that caught his fancy before and doesn't do it that often. In fact, I was under the impression that you're not even allowed to post your own website content on BBTF; if it was allowed, I'd do it every day.

    Then things dwindled into me being referred to as a "dillweed", a term I haven't heard since the heyday of Beavis and Butt-head which should tell you all you need to know about the mental (and sexual) development of the majority of the commenters. After that, they started monitoring my Tweets on Twitter.

    And you wonder why few people outside their realm take them seriously? You wonder why they're ridiculed? You wonder how one of the Padres stat zombies had the audacity to walk up to then-manager Bruce Bochy and suggest that he bat pitcher Woody Williams second? How a caller insisted to Mike Francesa that switch-hitter and borderline Hall of Famer Jorge Posada bat lefty against a left-handed pitcher because the numbers said it was a good idea?

    I'm perfectly willing to discuss anything and everything, but it's easier to do what they do on BBTF and ridicule because then they don't have to come up with an answer as I (more than likely) slice them to shreds in response. It's easier and less thought-provoking to drop a remark (on another site) and get out than it is to get into a real conversation. 

    How are you supposed to take seriously people that are such zealots and so inept at knowing anything more than what the numbers tell them that they refuse to even debate with someone who disagrees with them? How can you take seriously someone who still defends Paul DePodesta and Moneyball? The answer is you can't and they unintentionally proved my point far better than anything I wrote ever could.

    One thing I hope is that those that read the posting and are willing to think outside of their calculators; their ZIPs; PECOTAs; UZRs; and whatevers aren't afraid to be cast out by their brethren because they went off the reservation and didn't adhere to the bullet points. There's plenty of room elsewhere, specifically here. 

• Viewer Mail 8.15.2009:

Jeff at Red State Blue State writes RE yesterday's posting:

Been reading your work for well over a year now and I think this post (8.14.2009) was the best I've read. I imagine as you hit "publish" on this opus you threw your arms in the air and screamed "Show me the money" a la Tom Cruise in Jerry Maguire. Now, if we could just get some more folks to listen these Truths, maybe our country (and our game, which is being hampered by the Stat Zombie) will begin to pull itself out of the doldrums of idiocy.

    It's only been a little over a year? 

    I wouldn't hold my breath about pulling ourselves from the doldrums of idiocy though. 

David at d@csupomona.edu writes:

Prince. I read that link you gave on Twitter which is up to almost 100 comments now. I find it ironic how a quarter of them (somewhat) responded to your well crafted blurb that was posted, and the other 3/4 got off topic talking about zombies and how they relate to other fictional horror characters. Yet you are the ridiculous one in their eyes.... Irony is a bitch.

    They don't even see the hypocrisy. No one listened to the statistic-oriented for so long and now that things have gone so far the other way, they're acting so obnoxiously and pompously that they're being dismissed and ignored because of that and are blind to it. 

Isaac writes on Twitter:

Wow, those guys are something special. They didn't even answer what you said, they just started attacking right away.

    In response, quoth the Joker as Batman questions him the interrogation room in The Dark Knight:

Don't talk like one of them. You're not! Even if you'd like to be. To them, you're just a freak, like me! They need you right now, but when they don't, they'll cast you out, like a leper! You see, their morals, their code, it's a bad joke. Dropped at the first sign of trouble. They're only as good as the world allows them to be. I'll show you. When the chips are down, these... these civilized people, they'll eat each other. See, I'm not a monster. I'm just ahead of the curve.

    The difference is that they're not "civilized people"; they're zombies and they'll eat each other only that much faster.

• Barry Zito gets no margin for error from his manager:

    Barry Zito pitched pretty well last night, but one thing I've noticed in his starts is that unless he's pitching a shutout or has a comfortable lead, there's a script that goes on between Zito and Giants manager Bruce Bochy. In or about the sixth inning, Zito's always on the precipice of being yanked at the aforementioned "first sign of trouble".

    They play out their act again and again. Zito gives up a couple of hits and/or walks; Bochy doesn't waste any time and heads out to the mound; Zito has a disgusted/bewildered look on his face; Bochy pulls him from the game; Zito sits in the dugout for an inning or two, ashen; then heads for the clubhouse. 

    Although I understand Zito's point of view, looking at his GameLogs from this season, he hasn't earned much rope. His stuff is nearing that of Frank Tanana/Tommy John/Jamie Moyer in that he's got no margin for error and the manager----especially one guiding an offensively-challenged team like the Giants in a playoff chase----can't be messing around based on the hurt feelings of one player no matter what he accomplished earlier in his career or his salary. That Zito's only 31 and is pitching like a 43-year-old is disturbing enough without worrying about his psyche.

    On another note in the Mets 3-0 win, Bobby Parnell looked promising as a starter. He had a nice, smooth motion; was hitting 92-96 on the gun; and showed a good slider. It's hard to judge a player or a pitcher over the last two months of a season, but at least he didn't fall on his face.

• Jon Heyman doesn't do sarcasm:

    Yesterday on Twitter, Jon Heyman of Sports Illustrated wrote the following about the Yankees inquiring about Gil Meche of the Royals:

#royals told yanks they dont want to trade gil meche. am i missing something? is kc in the race? 

I wrote: 

PRINCE_OF_NY@SI_JonHeyman Dayton Moore doesn't want people to think he's giving up.

Jon wrote:

SI_JonHeyman@PRINCE_OF_NY giving up? are they still in it?

    I was being sarcastic, Jon.

    * Main Entry: sar·casm
    * Pronunciation: \ˈsär-ˌka-zəm\
    * Function: noun
    * Etymology: French or Late Latin; French sarcasme, from Late Latin sarcasmos, from Greek sarkasmos, from sarkazein to tear flesh, bite the lips in rage, sneer, from sark-, sarx flesh; probably akin to Avestan thwarəs- to cut
    * Date: 1550

1 : a sharp and often satirical or ironic utterance designed to cut or give pain
2 a : a mode of satirical wit depending for its effect on bitter, caustic, and often ironic language that is usually directed against an individual b : the use or language of sarcasm

    Get it?

• THE PADRES LOSSOMETER: 68

• Why the stat zombies ignore the Marlins:

    Much like any group that puts ideology over reality, the stat zombies ignore the Florida Marlins because they ruin their aesthetic. The numbers that are the lifeblood of those that function based on whatever pops out of their calculators don't add up when watching the Marlins, so they denigrate them; they ignore them; they hope that somehow, some way they revert back to what the pre-season calculations say they should be. As each day passes, as the Marlins stay in contention using youngsters, bargain-basement/scrapheap pickups and one major superstar, the truth ruins the well-ordered and numerically perfect cocoon in which the zombies try to operate. And that truth is that as long as the Marlins do what they do, the zombies can't promote their version of reality.

    The stat zombies and the old-school thinkers treat their beliefs as if they're some religious dogma or a political party. If you don't adhere to the talking points and platform without deviation, you're cast out. This does little to improve circumstances and move forward, but it's easier than being a lone voice screaming at the wall. Numbers are supposed to even the playing field and eliminate ambiguity, but if the numbers are treated as so sacrosanct that they cannot be quibbled with under any circumstances, isn't that just as bad as the old-school scouts/executives who don't want to see any kind of numbers at all when evaluating players? In some ways it's worse because the zombies are supposed to be highly educated and smarter than the baseball lifers who've seen these interlopers taking their jobs.

    You find this phenomenon in other aspects of life. Had George W. Bush's name been George W. Smith, would he have been a presidential contender in 2000? Would he ever have been elected governor of Texas? If he didn't have the Bush name behind him, would someone with his meandering life of drinking and partying, non-existent qualifications and obvious lack of intelligence and curiosity been treated as anything more than a right-wing nut who talks about Jesus to further his political aspirations and fails? In what country other than this polarized one called the United States could someone with the flimsy resume of George W. Bush just "decide" one day that he wanted to be president and have the werewithal to make it happen? 

    We're seeing the same thing now with Sarah Palin. Former John McCain adviser Mike Murphy said (I'm paraphrasing from memory) that "if she looked like Golda Meir, no one would be talking about her"; but she's pretty; she's charming; she's a religious nut; and, most importantly, she's a pliable and manipulatable entity who isn't bright enough to realize that she's little more than an empty vessel being used by the men in the smoke filled rooms (the Dick Cheneys of the world) to regain power. 

    If there were a blind taste test of two different people and the stories of their lives were placed side-by-side for comparison as to which would be more of a conservative style storyline in making something out of oneself through sheer force of will and intelligence, would President Barack Obama or Sarah Palin be the representative of choice? Obama pulled himself up from nothing; worked, worked and worked to get into Harvard and Columbia; is a dedicated family man who gave back to his community when he could easily have gone to work at a big name law firm or corporation and been one of the fat cats who are so vilified in today's society. Because of political convenience, he's called a socialist and has his citizenship questioned by the same people who support an empty-headed and bottom-line unintelligent Sarah Palin. 

    We see the hypocrisy again and again. President Bill Clinton's sexual indiscretions make him a sleazy pervert; Newt Gingrich's make him a human being who made a mistake. Sarah Palin's daughter gets pregnant outside of marriage, they're an "American family" as one of the "family-oriented" preachers gellefully called them; but what if it were one of Barack Obama's daughters? What kind of racist crap would we hear then? It's all tied together.

    So what of the Marlins? 

    Most of the stat zombies predicted them as winning between 66 and 74 games. But it doesn't matter whether they win 80, 85 or 90 games; whether or not they make the playoffs or fade out at the end. They've built an organization that should be admired in the way that Michael Lewis's creative non-fiction Moneyball canonized the Billy Beane A's. Lewis tried to create an "age of enlightenment" in baseball inserting the Ivy League-educated genius into the game at the expense of those who can look at an athlete and find his talent regardless of what his stat sheet says. The numbers don't fit into that kind of analysis, so it's best to ignore it and hope it goes away; but it's not going away.

    Because of these entrenched ideological positions, you'll still hear people promoting the likes of Paul DePodesta as a future GM despite the way he demolished the Dodgers and had a major hand in the wrecking of the Padres on and off the field; you'll still hear names like J.P. Ricciardi assistant Tony LaCava as a candidate to be a GM because he's one of "them"; you'll still hear writers like Dave Cameron going on and on about the "mistakes" a scouting based executive like Omar Minaya made in trading non-entities like Jason Vargas to get an established reliever in J.J. Putz, then shutting up when Vargas reverts to being, well, being Jason Vargas and is demoted because he's not capable of being a useful big league pitcher.

    They're strangely silent when their way of doing things doesn't work; when members of their coven fail miserably. Every day that the Marlins remain in contention while one of "theirs", the Billy Beanes, the Sandy Aldersons, the J.P. Ricciardis, the Andrew Friedmans see their well-crafted and numerically-oriented decisions explode in their faces is another black mark disproving what they believe. It's a giant glitch in their quest to boil everything down to some mathematical formula; and not acknowledging it doesn't make it go away. 

• How and why would you do this?

    Adrian Beltre got hit in the nuts with a ground ball on Wednesday night, had some tearing and internal bleeding in one of his testicles and might need surgery. There's really no reason for an outfielder to wear a cup and a pitcher can get away without one even though it's a risk, but a third baseman? How are you playing third base without wearing a cup? After a catcher, third base is the position in which one would think a cup is absolutely required; what the hell was Beltre thinking?

    Keith Herandez used to say that he never worried about getting hit with the ball because his helmet and glove protected his head and his cup protected his jewels; the ball can have the rest of him. Beltre should've taken the advice to heart----and below.

• Today's tidbits from ESPN's Imagination Central:

TRADES: Could Phils bring back Wagner?

Could Billy Wagner be heading south on the New Jersey Turnpike? Wagner appears close to returning from Tommy John surgery, and Paul Hagen of the Philadelphia Daily News says the Phillies should consider a deal to bring back the veteran reliever. The New York Daily News reported Wednesday that Wagner's return with the Mets is targeted for Sunday's home game against the Giants.

    Do you really believe that the Mets are going to----in any way----help the Phillies try to win a second straight World Series? Have you lost your mind? 

    First, the Phillies wouldn't give up much of anything to get Wagner, so trading him there wouldn't net the Mets anything more than the prospect or two they'd get from another team like the Rays, Marlins, Cardinals or whoever else might have interest in Billy Wagner. Second, the Phillies and Wagner didn't leave on the best of terms. Third, the Mets would trade Wagner to their hated rivals the Yankees or Braves before they'd trade him to the Phillies. They will never, ever, ever send him to the Phillies unless they were thinking that Wagner's penchant for blowing big games might actually screw up the Phillies chances.

    Then there's this:

TRADES: Nomar on the block?

Nomar Garciaparra's days with the Athletics could be numbered. The Oakland Tribune reports that the A's will have to open some roster spots in the near future and one way to do that is to trade the 36-year-old Garciaparra, who is now a part-time player. Pitchers Justin Duchscherer and Dallas Braden and first baseman Daric Barton all could come off the disabled list this month.

    Trade him where? 

    Other than the fact that he can't hit anymore; can't field anymore; can't move anymore; doesn't get on base anymore; and is always getting hurt, I can see why someone would want Nomar. If his days are numbered in Oakland, it's not because he's getting traded; it's because he's getting released and probably ending his career because no one would pick him up. He's finished. 

• THE PADRES LOSSOMETER: 67

• I wouldn't get too excited about Pedro:

    Watching Pedro Martinez last night and I was reminded of what he looked like with the Mets last year. He changed speeds; popped a 90+ fastball once in awhile when he wanted to put someone away; and looked okay in spots. Nothing great and nothing to get too excited about.

    What would concern me is that he is always an injury risk because of his recent history and he----to be blunt----looked fat. He threw an Oliver Perez-like 99 pitches in five innings and the Cubs had him squared up pretty well. Could he contribute to the Phillies over the last month-and-a-half if he's healthy? Well, he can't be any worse than Jamie Moyer's been, but if that's the standard, it's a low one.

    Given Moyer's recent comments, I'd expect Pedro to remain in the rotation in his place for the foreseeable future, but if they're considering letting Moyer go entirely, that decision will probably have to wait until the end of the month when there's a better gauge of where Pedro is. The dispatching of Moyer could be expedited if he keeps flapping his mouth about the way the organization "misled" him, but as poorly as Moyer pitched and what Pedro looked like last night, the Phillies wouldn't be in any worse shape if they stuck Kyle Kendrick in the spot and hoped for his luck in winning games to continue.

    Pedro was rocked last year with the Mets and last night I saw nothing much different from the way he pitched last year. It also has to be taken into account that the game devolved into a blowout which might've led the Cubs to----consciously or subconsciously----take some "let's get the hell out of here as quickly as possible" swings, thereby making Pedro look even better.

    Pedro was very hittable last year and last night. If he's pitching in the Citizens Bank Park bandbox, he's going to have some problems. I wouldn't get to hung up on one start because it wasn't as good as is being implied.

• Since I mentioned Oliver Perez...

    Mets manager Jerry Manuel did something interesting yesterday and I'd been thinking about it as Oliver Perez's pitch count rose to its usual heights in the early innings. Perez had thrown his ridiculous number of pitches after the fifth inning (over 100) and it was assumed that he'd be yanked after the Mets took the lead in the top of the sixth; but Manuel sent Perez back out. Perez gave up a deep flyball and then Manuel pulled him.

    I think this is the proper strategy with Perez. He's historically durable and if he's going to log such enormous pitch counts, then the pitch counts should be thrown out the window. He's got two more years on his contract at $12 million per, so let him pitch. Let him throw 130 pitches and bag the "100 pitches and out" strategy that's become all too prevalent. Maybe pitching deeper into games will let him get a rhythm and he'll throw some strikes. Nothing else has worked, so why not push him beyond the arbitrary limits?

• A reason to give J.P. Ricciardi as slight pass for something stupid?

    Joe Posnanski unloads on J.P. Ricciardi and the horrible contracts he's bestowed on players who haven't been worth it, but there was something interesting in the comments section that could shed some light on the inexplicable deal given to Vernon Wells. One commenter wrote the following:

You might well consider the fact that Ricciardi didn’t have final say on the Wells contract; it’s widely understood that decision was made by then-team president Paul Godfrey & ownership, not the GM. So while JP deserves some of the blame, it’s not really fair to dump it all on him.

    So, how much of that loony bin contract falls at the feet of Ricciardi? No one knows. Despite the stupid things he's said and done (and there are a load of them, individually enough to be fired; cumulatively, there's no way he should still be there), is he dumb enough to have given Hall of Fame player money to a pretty good player? I can't imagine he's that dumb, but I also can't imagine how people can still suggest Sarah Palin as a presidential contender, but they're out there.

    My imagination has failed me before as I've underestimated the depth of people's stupidity, but that Wells contract is so deranged that I have to give Ricciardi a pass on it from now on. That said, there comes a time when a GM has to stand in front of his boss and say, "I can't let you do this" and if Ricciardi knew the fallout from the Wells deal, then he was derelict in his duties as a GM, another fireable offense, so I suppose it's the same result after all.

• ESPN's "Rumor Central" should be "Imagination Central":

    If any blogger just grabbed an off-the-wall statement from a non-existent entity, they'd be called a crank; ESPN does it with their "Rumor Central" and it's considered credible because it's on ESPN. It's a cycle to nowhere. Do they even do any baseline research over there? Today, they came out with the following nugget:

White Sox general manager Kenny Williams will face some difficult financial decisions in the offseason after adding the hefty contracts of Jake Peavy and Alex Rios in recent weeks.

Catcher A.J. Pierzynski, a free agent after the season, told the Chicago Sun-Times that he hopes the White Sox find a way to keep him on the payroll. "Obviously I want to stay here, and I think everyone here knows I want to stay - [board chairman] Jerry [Reinsdorf] to [manager] Ozzie [Guillen] to Kenny, I have no reason to want to leave here at all," Pierzynski said.

    This is accurate other than the fact that A.J. Pierzynski has a very reasonable and guaranteed $6.25 million for 2010.

    Does anyone at the "worldwide leader in sports" do any research at all or are they too busy filming "funny" commercials?

• The Brewers negligible moves:

    The Brewers cut Bill Hall owing him over $10 million; sent J.J. Hardy to the minors; and fired longtime coach Bill Castro in a series of moves that won't make much difference to their season one way or the other.

    Hall hasn't been particularly productive over the past two seasons except for his versatility and occasional pop; no one was going to give them anything for him in a trade, but that's a lot of money to eat for a guy who does have some use. 

    Hardy is being put up as a scapegoat for the Brewers season and it's not very fair unless there are behind-the-scenes issues of not working hard that we don't know about. Hardy's batting .229 and has a .300 OBP, but he does have 11 homers and he's only made 6 errors at shortstop. He's only struck out 73 times, so he's making contact. Young shortstop Alcides Escobar does deserve a chance to play, so if Hardy has to be demoted for a couple of weeks, it won't hurt anything other than his ego. It might even help.

    Castro was in his first year as Brewers pitching coach after a long run as the bullpen coach. Sometimes it's hard to make that transition. The bullpen coach doesn't do much of anything other than answer the phone and regulate the amount of fun the relievers can have. I'd expect Castro to be the bullpen coach again next year.

    None of these decisions are going to have much of an effect on the Brewers season one way or the other because hey're a mediocre team playing mediocre ball and they're going to finish with a mediocre record.

• Your mid-morning radio show on WFAN----Dingus and the Sleaze:

    I've hesitated to mention these two fools on the mid-morning show on WFAN because, quite frankly, they're not even worth the effort, but this afternoon one of the duo said something so off-the-wall in unjustified self-importance and narcissism that I have no choice.

    The mid-morning show on WFAN has always been something of a movable feast of disposable entities. Very rarely has there been a memorable voice functioning between the morning show (when it got ratings under Don Imus anyway, not now with another egomaniac Boomer Esiason and that----I can't mince words----scumbag Craig Carton) and Mike and the Mad Dog for afternoon drive.

    The hosts of the show now are a former fan who eventually got a job as the overnight man, Joe Beningo and  a 20-something, Evan Roberts. Listening is similar to sitting in a sports bar and hearing the strengths and weaknesses of every athlete in existence with an expertise that would border on Godlike. The problem is that they know almost nothing about sports in general and baseball in particular. All of this is fine. If you eliminated those that are employed discussing sports, yet know nothing, there'd be very few people left to write or say anything, but today Roberts entered the Francesa territory of ego.

    This afternoon Roberts, working alone, blurted a statement that would qualify him for the GEOFF BAKER AWARD FOR POMPOUS ARROGANCE if he were in any way significant enough to win the award. (There are baseline standards to win, you know.) When a Mets fan called and suggested that the team pursue Tony La Russa to take over as manager, Roberts went into a not unreasonable list why it probably wouldn't work, then he went over the edge in self-adoration and thinking he's a bit more known and important than he is. In explaining why La Russa's sensitivity would hinder him in the tough market of New York, Roberts listed the usual suspects that make any general manager, manager, coach, player reticent to come to work here. He brought up: the New York Post; the Daily News; Mike Francesa; Esiason and Carton....and Joe Beningo and Evan Roberts. 

    Francesa belongs on that list given his time as one of the co-hosts of afternoon drive on WFAN; Carton and Esiason? Maybe. But Beningo and Roberts? 

    I felt like calling and asking, who are you to insert yourself into any conversation that would irritate La Russa; how dare Roberts place himself into a position where he thinks that Tony La Russa would: A) even know who Roberts is; and B) would give a flying rat's ass what he had to say in criticism of any decision La Russa made.

    Tony La Russa----the best manager of his generation; a Hall of Famer if he ever retires; and in a position to chafe when people question him because of his success in winning with almost any kind of roster----has a right to become irritable when those who are not in his league in terms of baseball acumen question the way he runs his team, but there are those who have the right to at least debate a La Russa strategy that could be questioned (such as batting the pitcher eighth); but Roberts doesn't fit into that category under any circumstances.

    The show is replaceable and worthless. Roberts, if you see him and listen to him, is a weasel who talks about women as if he's never touched one (hence the name of my own choosing "Dingus") and Beningo is simply a foolish fan with a forum and has the greased back hair and mustache generally worn by a veteran actor from a 70s porno (hence the name "Sleaze"). Oh, and Beningo's got a book coming out next year. Don't ask me about what or who's possibly publishing this thing, but it's coming.

    Dingus and the Sleaze are getting a bit too impressed with themselves and what makes it worse is that no one's putting them in their proper place or context. I can tolerate Francesa's arrogance because at least he's accomplished something and has a position in the media, good or bad; Roberts is not in that category and if he thinks he is, he needs to be knocked down about fifty stories because he's an ignoramus and doesn't even know it.   

• Carlos Delgado's rehab hits a snag (what else is new for the Mets?):

    While rehabbing from his hip surgery in Florida, Carlos Delgado strained an oblique and will be out for "a couple of weeks". Since it's August and "a couple of weeks" could mean the end of the season, I wouldn't expect to see Delgado before the last two weeks of September for him to try and show prospective suitors that he's healthy. (Just a note if the Mets are even considering bringing back Delgado on a short-term contract----DON'T!) That's motivation for him to come back. If it were Jose Reyes, he'd be on a beach in the Dominican Republic now.

    I've said for a couple of weeks that the series of injuries that have befallen the Mets are bordering on ludicrous; well, they've crossed the border. Ordinarily, the Delgado injury would be negligible to this lost season, what would be the difference? But had Delgado been able to come back by August 20th or so, maybe the Mets would've been able to trade him for a low level prospect that had some attribute that might eventually be useful. A sidearming lefty? A guy with a good fastball, but no control? An outfielder who can run and plays great defense? But now, they're not going to even be able to trade Delgado to a contender for the stretch run.

    It's just going from bad to worse and now the team is heading back to New York after a disastrous 2-5 roadtrip against a rotten team in the Padres and a team playing better but short-handed and young in the Diamondbacks. Once they get home, it's time to start clearing out parts of the club that have no future as Mets going forward. I'm talking about Fernando Tatis; I'm talking about Brian Schneider; I'm talking about Alex Cora; and I'm talking about Luis Castillo, who's played well this year, would get through waivers and could possibly be traded to a contender to get out from under his salary. They have to move forward and the first thing to do is drop some dead weight.

• Kevin Youkilis could have just cost his team a playoff spot:

• Throwing the helmet doubles the suspension:

    I didn't see the Red Sox-Tigers fight in real time, but when I heard about the circumstances my first thoughts were (in no particular order): A) Kevin Youkilis was trying to galvanize his struggling team; B) the Red Sox were up to their bullying tactics again; C) he wanted to intimidate the young pitcher, Rick Porcello, in case the clubs meet in the post-season; and D) he was pissed at getting hit.

    The Red Sox have been in such a terrible slump that a bench clearing incident can fire things up quicker than any Terry Francona closed door meeting and Youkilis and his teammates tend to try to push opponents around, so it's not silly to think that it might be in Porcello's head if they have to face him again in more important circumstances. Youkilis tried that trick with Johan Santana earlier this year when he got hit with a pitch and Santana basically told him to go to first base and shut up. This, though, wasn't calculated.

    After seeing the clip of the incident, Youkilis simply looked pissed. This whole thing was an escalation. I can't believe that Junichi Tazawa was throwing at Miguel Cabrera; Porcello was clearly throwing at both Victor Martinez and Youkilis, so there was reason to be angry. Judging by Porcello's control this year and in the minors (a total of 71 walks in 237 innings) I can't see how you could think anything different.

    Youkilis might've gotten away with a fine and one-game suspension if he'd simply charged the mound and wrestled Porcello to the ground, but throwing the helmet? That's probably a four-game suspension, reduced to three after the appeal and the Red Sox aren't in a position to be missing Youkilis for those games.

• The Rays are revealing themselves as mediocre:

    Looking at the inconsistency of the Rays, even those that are getting the thigh sweats about their misleading run differential have to acknowledge that they're a flawed team who aren't getting the breaks they got in their magical year of 2008.

    Their starting pitching is young and inconsistent; their bullpen is questionable; and four hitters in their starting nine haven't been having subpar years, they've been having atrocious years.

    Carlos Pena----who the Rays have gotten endless accolades for "finding" even though his pickup and MVP-quality year in 2007 was like winning the lottery for the organization----still hits the ball out of the park and gets on base, but is batting .213 and strikes out a ton.

    Pat Burrell, a rare foray into free agency for the Rays, has been a disaster.

    Dioner Navarro is batting .220 and is seeing his playing time cut with the acquisition of Gregg Zaun.

    And B.J. Upton is pouting and slumping because he was moved to the ninth spot in the lineup.

    Add in that the Edwin Jackson trade to the Tigers for Matt Joyce was, to put it mildly, a mistake and you have what you have.

    This all stems from manager Joe Maddon being revealed as a strategic lightweight and a disciplinary phantom; and the club beating up on teams like the Royals and Blue Jays while losing to the Angels, White Sox and Mariners.

    At what point is he going to pull Matt Garza aside and say enough's enough with the bad body language; screaming into his glove and temper tantrums that got him sent out of Minnesota? When is he going to tell Upton to stop bitching and get on with playing instead of behaving like a spoiled brat because he's been moved down in the lineup?

    Joe Torre, Tony La Russa, Lou Piniella, Mike Scioscia or any other established manager who has control of his troops would take care of these things, but Maddon appears as bewildered now as he did in the post-season last year where the club made it all the way to the World Series on talent and good fortune, not because of anything the manager did.

    The soft part of their schedule is over and there aren't any more games against the Royals; if they're going to get back into playoff position, they're going to have to do it against the Rangers, Red Sox, Tigers and Yankees. Given the way they're bumbling around and making excuses, I wouldn't expect them to emerge as anything more than the up-and-down team they've been all year long.

• Have the Mets checked out in August?

    When the Royals signed Willie Bloomquist to an inexplicable two-year deal, it was repeatedly said that he's a "hustling" player who works hard. I said at the time that the day Bloomquist stops hustling and working hard is the day that he decides to stop being a major league baseball player because even if he does hustle and work hard, there's barely any reason to have him on the roster. In watching the Mets, it appears that players who have no business checking out on a season, lost or not, are bailing on the club with their laissez faire attitudes and "oh, whatever" performance.

    Players like Daniel Murphy, Fernando Tatis and Brian Schneider are in no position to be going through the motions under any circumstances. The way the season has gone for the Mets is disappointing, but there's no excuse for the way certain players have mailed it in on this West Coast swing. It may be time to start trading, releasing and demoting people because whoever and whatever they bring in as a replacement will give a better effort. It certainly can't be any worse.

    These stories of assistant GM John Ricco taking over or being the "co-GM" of the Mets are nonsense. Ricco is not a talent evaluator and would be another in a long line of administrators (as Steve Phillips called him yesterday) who would not be able to handle everything that comes with the job; plus Omar Minaya would be insane to accept a demotion when he'd be able to take his money and leave if such an arrangement were attempted.

    If the Mets are really going to replace Minaya, then fire him and bring in a new management team. Don't exacerbate the problem by promoting a non-entity like Ricco.

• Jamie Moyer's reaction to his demotion is greasing the skids toward his release:

    In case you missed it, Jamie Moyer expressed his displeasure with being sent to the bullpen to make room for Pedro Martinez----ESPN Story. If Pedro shows anything at all, Moyer's going to get released.

    On the subject of Moyer, when you read stat zombies go on and on about how his mediocre record isn't such a shock because of his walks and lack of strikeouts, plus the number of hits he gives up, just point out that his numbers have been consistent in that regard since 2006. This is what he is because this is what he's been. It's just more selective use of numbers from the zombies to bolster their argument----whatever that argument is.

• The Joba Rules are screwing up Joba:

    Has anyone else noticed that Joba Chamberlain----who was pitching brilliantly as a starter and shutting up a large segment of the "Joba As Reliever, Period" brigade (and even those who were back-and-forth for the most part, like me)----has been out-of-whack and lacking command since the Yankees gave him eight days of rest to control his innings total with the arbitrary numbers he "should" be limited to to "save" his arm?

    They're not "saving" anything. The Nationals didn't abuse Jordan Zimmerman and he's having Tommy John surgery. No one's saying the Yankees should do what the Brewers did to a young Cal Eldred (258 innings at age 25 in 1993, consistently injured thereafter), but let the guy pitch. If he gets hurt, he gets hurt and with the way pitchers get hurt no matter how they're monitored, the odds are he's going to get hurt anyway.

• THE GEOFF BAKER AWARD FOR POMPOUS ARROGANCE GOES TO: MIKE FRANCESA!!!! 
  

• I don't care about Woodstock:

    If Mike Francesa is so arrogant that he thinks people are going to sit in vigil for him to grace his audience with his summertime presence in between his vacations and then listen to an hour-and-a-half (it might've been longer, I dunno because I wasn't listening) with veteran rock DJ Pete Fornatale as he talks about his Woodstock book, he's lost it completely. I doubt I'm alone in screaming at the radio: "When is this shit gonna end?!? WHO CARES ABOUT FRIGGIN' WOODSTOCK!?!?"     

• This sounds like a remake of Fatal Attraction:

    This story about Rick Pitino is pretty disturbing.
    I don't care what people do in their private lives; it's none of my business, but what's with screwing a one-night (or ten minute) stand without a condom? And I don't remember if Pitino was one of those publicly conservative republicans who has a standard of living for others that he doesn't live up to himself. Would it be such a surprise?

    What a mess.

• Three reasons why Alex Rios is a good pickup for the White Sox:

    It says more about the state of the Blue Jays finances than anything else that the player they had discussions with the Giants to exchange for Tim Lincecum a year-and-a-half ago was placed on waivers and basically given away for $20,000, but that's what happened with Alex Rios as he was sent to the White Sox. Clearly the Blue Jays had to clear some money, but the deal makes plenty of sense for the White Sox. Here are the reasons (in no particular order):

Rios fills the White Sox hole in center field:

    The White Sox haven't had a legit, everyday center fielder since Aaron Rowand in 2005 and it shouldn't be seen as a coincidence that they won the World Series that year. Since then, they've tried prospects who haven't cut it (Jerry Owens, Brian Anderson); veterans who could hit but not play the position (Nick Swisher); journeymen (Scott Podsednik, DeWayne Wise); converted infielders (Alexei Ramirez); and Hall of Famers winding down their careers (Ken Griffey Jr).

    Discounting his salary, Rios is a perfect fit for what the White Sox need. He can hit, hit for power, run and play defense; plus he's durable. 

They got him for nothing more than taking his contract:

    Even with all the talk about his contract being so terrible, is it that bad? An average of around $12 million a year through 2014 when, presumably, he'll be young enough to still be productive at 33? This is a world where J.D. Drew is making $14 million a year; where Vernon Wells will soon be making over $20 million a year. I'd take Rios over both of them and he's younger and cheaper.

    With all the talk you hear of guys like Billy Beane taking advantage of the markets with unexamined/unappreciated numbers, White Sox GM Kenny Williams grabs the market by the throat and shakes out what he wants. Like an unrepentant corporate raider, Williams got Rios and only threw tip money at Blue Jays GM J.P. Ricciardi, not even giving up a low level minor leaguer for the Blue Jays to spin doctor and save face. It was as if he was saying, "I'm taking the Rios contract and that's it. Be happy with that."

The money coming off the books makes the Jake Peavy and Rios acquisitions financially negligible:

    After this season, the White Sox have the following players coming off the books: Jose Contreras ($10 million); Octavio Dotel ($6 million); Jim Thome ($13 million); and an option on Jermaine Dye ($12 million for 2010). After 2010, Paul Konerko ($12 million in 2010) and A.J. Pierzynski ($6.5 million in 2010) are gone too. Even with the arbitration eligibles who will get substantial raises----Gavin Floyd, Carlos Quentin, John Danks and Bobby Jenks----the Rios/Peavy contracts aren't an issue and they're younger and better than the departing players (if Peavy's healthy). Williams is rebuilding on the fly and still improving the team.

     In the end, the White Sox got three positives simply for taking a contract that the Blue Jays no longer wanted and even if it doesn't work for some reason, it still made sense.

• The blurred line between analysis and retaliation:

    Two instances of "analysis" that could easily be construed as payback are floating around today. First, Keith Law tears into J.P. Ricciardi and the now-famous Adam Rubin speculates on the replacement for Omar Minaya even though Minaya is still the Mets GM.

    Technically, in 2006 Keith Law resigned from his position with the Blue Jays as something of a jack-of-all-trades for Ricciardi; but was he actually fired? Did Ricciardi allow him to resign so he wouldn't have the stigma of being forced out or out-and-out dumped as a basis for ridicule? It's never been fully explained. The one thing I do know however, is Law's judgments of Ricciardi has always been tinged with an underlying air of retaliation and Law's calculation of the Rios situation is no exception.

    Law defends Rios's ability and then unloads on Ricciardi with the following from his ESPN blog (entitled "Jays can't correct Rios mistake"):

But this raises a much bigger question about general manager J.P. Ricciardi's tenure in Toronto, which increasingly has been marked not by bad baseball decisions, but by bad financial ones.

The decision to give away Rios indicates that the Jays' front office believes the contract extension the team gave Rios -- heavily back-loaded, as is every deal Ricciardi has handed out -- exceeded his current market value. In other words, the Blue Jays screwed up and overpaid him. (Either that, or they just screwed up by giving him away for nothing.) This move comes just a few weeks after they released B.J. Ryan, who was in the fourth year of a five-year contract; in effect, Ryan was paid $47 million for two good seasons of relief work (2006 and 2008). He missed most of 2007 due to injury and has struggled this season.

Ricciardi's financial follies go on, from the $12.4 million paid to Corey Koskie for about a half-season of work, to the $85 million owed to Vernon Wells from 2011-14, a balloon payment that makes Wells one of the most immovable contracts in the game -- and that's ignoring various smaller deals that were similarly ill-advised (Billy Koch, Dave Berg, Scott Schoeneweis).

Clearing Rios' salary from the books will give Toronto more flexibility to add some offensive pieces to field a more competitive team in 2010 -- but if the contract is that bad now, shouldn't we question why it was handed out in the first place?

    The ambiguity regarding Law's departure from Toronto and his constant tearing into Ricciardi with stuff like this calls into question his objectivity. Everyone who reads my stuff knows I'm no fan of J.P. Ricciardi and Law might have a genuine beef with the guy to the point it would be understandable if he wanted some form of revenge.

    Here's a personal example: I worked as a personal trainer at a local Gold's Gym years ago and this steroid-using assistant manager----who had a series of twitches and tics in which his mouth would get stuck open as if he were a skipping record and would blink incessantly----got me fired because I couldn't work in his place on a particular day. He would use the "book" terminology such as "concentric and eccentric repetition" etc, to make himself sound like he knew what he was talking about and confuse the gym newcomers; he would also walk up to people and instead of engaging in normal conversation, would say things like, "Let me ask you a question: are you getting all the help you need?" The guy was an anus and a sleaze and if I was in a position to analyze him, you can bet you would receive nothing positive from me, so I empathize if there's something to the tune of "I'll get you" from Law. 

    So is Law providing evenhanded reporting of Ricciardi? Or is he simply getting payback kicking at his former boss when he's clearly down?

    Considering the amount of money stat zombies like Law have thrown at the likes of the aforementioned J.D. Drew, they're in no position----realistically or ethically----to be ripping a contract like Rios's, especially since it's not that terrible in the first place.

    Adam Rubin wrote the following article about Omar Minaya's potential replacement as Mets GM, assistant John Ricco, in today's NY Daily News----Article. 

    Does Rubin have a gripe with Minaya after the way Minaya called him out and accused him of journalistic malfeasance for his reporting of Tony Bernazard's inappropriate behaviors that ultimately got Bernazard fired? Yes. Is he using his position to not-so-subtly advocate Minaya's dismissal? It's hard to think otherwise considering that article. 

    I've said it again and again as people have advocated Minaya's firing----some going as far as saying it's fait accompli and putting forth candidates of their own, Billy Beane, Jed Hoyer, Rick Hahn----I don't think Minaya's getting fired off of this one bad year. With the economy in the state it's in and the way Minaya's done an overall serviceable job of reviving the Mets from the house of horrors they'd been in the intervening time between Steve Phillips's firing and Minaya's return as GM, he deserves at least 2010 to right the ship.

    The Rubin gaffe at the press conference and ignoring the all-around animosity that Bernazard engendered with underlings are black marks against Minaya to be sure, but firing him over them? With the entire team on the disabled list and while he's under contract through 2012? No way. And if the Mets do make a change, I can't believe they're going to replace the still charismatic (even with his verbal missteps) Minaya with a guy like Ricco. They'd have no choice but to go for a recognizable name with a proven history and pedigree. John Ricco ain't it.

    Truth be told, Ricco's resume isn't even all that impressive and is certainly not deep enough to take over a team in a big market with big issues, big personalities and a big payroll like the Mets. 

    Intentionally or not, your agendas are showing boys.

• The Marlins need an established arm for the bullpen:

    If the contending Marlins are serious about a playoff run, they're going to need to beef up the bullpen. They tried to get Heath Bell from the Padres at the trading deadline, but the price was too steep. Leo Nunez has a great arm and will be a star, but he's a bit over-excitable right now; Matt Linstrom is all over the place and they can't be relying on Brendan Donnelly down the stretch.

    I'd check in with the Royals about Joakim Soria, but their GM Dayton Moore is living in a dreamworld, so don't expect much to come from that; there are guys like David Aardsma from the Mariners who would presumably be available; Michael Wuertz and Brad Ziegler from the A's; and an outside-the-box thought would be Billy Wagner from the Mets once he's activated; Wagner would love nothing more than to shove it to the Phillies and knock them out.

    There are names out there who could fill the hole and put the Marlins over the top; they've got the farm system to get it done. The price might be steep (like in 2003 when they won the World Series after trading for Ugueth Urbina from the Rangers and gave up Adrian Gonzalez to get him), but a World Series would be worth it and the two times the Marlins organization has gotten to the playoffs, they've won the World Series. That's worth some good prospects for a loaded organization like the Marlins.

• Jamie Moyer to the bullpen to accommodate Pedro Martinez is a ridiculous move:

    It's amazing how many teams are having problems finding viable big league starting pitchers while the few teams that have a surplus in that area----the Red Sox and Phillies----are struggling with the "problem".

    When the Phillies signed Pedro Martinez, it was a shot-in-the-dark that Pedro would have anything left in the tank and be able to contribute over the last month and a half of the season in some capacity. He was inexpensive and was absolutely worth a roll of the dice...before they acquired Cliff Lee. Now, they're stuck with Pedro ready to come back to the big leagues and the only option they could come up with was to demote Jamie Moyer to the bullpen (for now) so Pedro could take his start against the Cubs. If I were Moyer, I'd be livid at this non-decision decision.

    Since 1997, Moyer has pitched in relief once and that was in an 18-inning game for the Mariners in June of 2004. (He lost.) To take a pitcher who's going to be 47 in November and stick him in the bullpen where he's not going to be comfortable; not going to know how to prepare; and probably not going to pitch unless someone gets hurt or shelled, is wrong. Based on performance, Moyer has probably earned the demotion, but this wasn't done for the good of the club because a pitcher like Moyer is not going to be effective out of the bullpen; it was done because they had to do something with Pedro and placing Moyer on the shelf was the only thing they could come up with. 

    Given Pedro's recent history, there's every chance that he's going to get hurt before the third inning of his first start; there's also a chance that he's going to get pounded. Moyer has another year on his contract after this, but with this decision if Pedro shows anything at all on Wednesday, don't be surprised if Moyer's thrown his last pitch as a member of the Philadelphia Phillies

• THE PADRES LOSSOMETER: 66

• Paul's grilled lamb and flank steak:

    I forgot to post my in-progress pics of the lamb roast I cooked the other day, so here they are along with my flank steak from today.

Lamb Hour 1

 Lamb Hour 2

Lamb Hour 2 1/2

Lamb ready for serving

Flank Steak

• 2009 is taking on a 2006 tone for the Red Sox:

    At the All Star break in 2006, the Red Sox stood at 53-33 with a 3 game lead in the AL East over the Yankees. They'd dominated the best the National League had to offer in a three game sweep of the New York Mets two weeks earlier and appeared unstoppable to not just make the playoffs, but to keep a date for a twenty-year rematch with those same Mets in October.

    The anticipated World Series was destroyed by the Mets Duaner Sanchez's fateful taxi ride in Florida which cost the Mets the pennant; and the Red Sox collapsed. The Red Sox faults became apparent as the season wore on and they didn't take steps to fix them. The shortness of their starting rotation (supposedly a strength) and GM Theo Epstein's inability to make a deal to address their needs for another bat and arm manifested themselves during August. 

    While the Yankees were making trades for Bobby Abreu and Cory Lidle, the Red Sox did nothing. As Epstein tried to shock the world with his penchant for making complicated three and four team trades with no time on the clock like John Elway in a polo shirt, every deal he pursued----Roy Oswalt, Andruw Jones----wound up falling apart just like the Red Sox season. 

    That August the Red Sox endured a five game losing streak (to the then-horrible Rays and the always-horrible Royals); a six game losing streak to the Mariners and Athletics; and the big one, a five game destruction derby of humiliation at the hands of the Yankees----in Fenway Park no less!---- to bury their playoff hopes once and for all. Not only had they fallen 6 1/2 games behind the Yankees on August 21st, 2006, they were 4 games behind the White Sox and 3 1/2 games behind the Twins for the Wild Card. Essentially, their season was over.

    All that was left was to dump the likes of David Wells and for Epstein----in full self-preservation and alibi mode----to offer a nonsensical explanation that the Red Sox had to be vigilant about "now and the future" in justifying the non-movement that cost the club a playoff spot. The team with the second highest payroll in baseball was, according to their "boy-genius" GM, unable to spend extensively to try and make the playoffs.

    Naturally, after the season, the Red Sox organization was reeling at the amount of vitriol directed at them for the wheels coming off their once-promising season and began doing exactly what Epstein said they couldn't do in August----they behaved like the Yankees. They fired hitting coach Ron Jackson and pitching coach Dave Wallace; they flung big money at questionable free agents J.D. Drew and Julio Lugo and spent a small fortune to get the rights to Daisuke Matsuzaka.

    In the end, it turned out to be a positive despite the mediocrity of Drew (who was a monster in the playoffs, justifying the deal) and Matsuzaka (who was a positive because without Matsuzaka, there would not have been sublime set-up man Hideki Okajima, who was signed ostensibly because he was lefty and Matsuzaka's friend, not necessarily in that order); and the horror-show of Lugo. They won the World Series in 2007 and came within one game of another appearance in 2008. 

    Now, the same thing as 2006 seems to be happening. The Red Sox were dominating early in the year; they had a great lineup and an embarrassment of riches in the starting rotation so much so that a big league ready arm, Clay Buchholz, was relegated to the minors when he had nothing left to prove in Triple A. But injuries to Tim Wakefield and Matsuzaka and the ineffectiveness of John Smoltz have forced the Red Sox to be on the lookout for starting pitching over the waiver wire. Unless they're interested in bringing back Bronson Arroyo or rolling the dice on Aaron Harang, there's not much out there.

    2009 is slightly different from 2006 in that Epstein was able to significantly upgrade the offense (now and for the future) with his acquisition of Victor Martinez; but his proposed deals for Felix Hernandez and Adrian Gonzalez both fell through and the offense is still sputtering, the rotation is now short and the bullpen is leaking. It's not time to push the panic button yet because the competition for the Wild Card----the Rangers and Rays----are shaky in their own right. The Red Sox are better than both of those teams, but being better doesn't always mean they're going to win.

    The last thing anyone thought would happen when the Red Sox had eight viable, big league starting pitchers on their roster was that they'd have trouble getting solid starting pitching at the back of their rotation, but that's where they are now. They're still in a great position to make the playoffs, but not if they keep playing like this. One thing I doubt we'll hear is Epstein lamenting the Red Sox lack of resources; he's learned his lesson in that regard. That's small consolation for the reeling Red Sox and their fans, but it's better than nothing.

• The Braves will reveal themselves on Tuesday and Wednesday:

    In winning three of four over the NL West-leading Dodgers, the Braves looked great getting mostly all around good play from every facet of their club; now they're playing the Nationals in Atlanta. A team that wants to contend for a playoff spot has to beat the Nationals. This weekend, the Phillies are coming into Atlanta. Don't be surprised if the Braves look ahead to the Phillies and get a shock from a suddenly hot Nationals team on Tuesday and Wednesday.

• Viewer Mail 8.10.2009:

Two comments from Isaac Lothor, one about Josh Hamilton; the other about C.C. Sabathia's biceps tendinitis:

I think it actually makes sense that he mentioned Christ when he was talking about what he had done. He said pretty much the same thing you are saying. He was saying he had taken his focus off Jesus and thats a lot like saying Christ  was the last thing on his mind, and that it was the reason why he did that. Im not expecting you to answer me, because this is a baseball blog, this is just the way I see things. I'm not saying he was honest, Im just saying that makes sense.

A month ago(or more) you wrote about a biceps(I think) injury that CC Sabathia had, and you said you had experienced that kind of injury, and that it really hurt. I havent seen Sabathia miss starts, so, do you know what was done about that? If he kept pitching through it, maybe it's a reason why he hasn't been as effective as expected this season.

    If I were a religious person, I'd have a similar reaction to the hypocrisy when people reference Jesus as a prop to explain away bad behavior as I have to other bits of unfairness. For every twenty people who are believers and are faithful to their chosen religion, there are those who do whatever they want and justify it by saying they took their eyes off of Christ or failed to live up to a Christian standard. You see it all the time. Ted Haggard; John Edwards; John Ensign; Newt Gingrich----the preachy, self-righteous piety out of convenience that turns out to be more of a way to hide what they're doing in private and to gain favor and forgiveness when they get caught. They use it to wriggle out of trouble rather than as a set of rules to live by. Hamilton can say whatever he wants, but I find it difficult to believe that this was the first time he chipped; there are just pictures to prove this incident.

    With Sabathia's biceps injury, I would hope that the Yankees have a better medical program than the treatments I inflicted on myself before I went to the doctor. They consisted of saturating my elbow and biceps with Flex-All 454 and continuing to pitch; then I went to the doctor and he gave me anti-inflammatory medicine.

    Judging from how annoyed and bewildered Sabathia was at the overreaction when he was taken out of that game against the Marlins, it sounds like it was more of a twinge/stiffness and not full-blown biceps tendinitis. It probably wasn't a big deal. I think people are being unfair with Sabathia. He's pitched very well except for a handful of his starts when the home run ball bit him. He's been a solid 7-plus inning starter for the Yankees this year and his numbers are right in line with what he's always been. If people were expecting Ron Guidry vintage 1978, that's not, nor has it ever been Sabathia.      

• One move is worth a thousand symbolic castrations:

    If anything could exemplify how little power Joe Girardi has as Yankees manager, it was the one inexplicable and pointless move he made during yesterday’s 5-0 win over the Red Sox. Under normal circumstances, it was a relatively ho hum victory by the streaking Yankees over their bitterest rivals, the Red Sox. But the one move in which Girardi removed starter C.C. Sabathia with two outs in the eighth inning and Nick Green coming to the plate as the Yankees held a 3-0 lead showed what’s really going on in Yankeeland in terms of power.

    The question has been hanging in the air since Girardi took over for Joe Torre----how much power does Girardi actually have? And the answer came loud and clear when he removed Sabathia, not because the pitcher was struggling; not because there was an arguable percentage move to be made, but because Sabathia had thrown 123 pitches.

    Do you mean to tell me that C.C. Sabathia, 6’7”, listed at 290 lbs, but closer to 310 if he’s an ounce, tough, feisty and durable, couldn’t have thrown 5-10 more pitches to retire Nick Green? Was that Girardi’s decision to yank him or was he following edicts that came from the GM Brian Cashman? And if Girardi tries to put out the crap that he wanted Sabathia to bask in the crowd's applause by walking off after a job well done, well, it was that kind of thinking that led to Bill Buckner's error in 1986. The game was still well within reach at that point and there was no reason to remove Sabathia except for sentimentality or orders from above. 

    Girardi has been a question as the Yankees manager since his reputation as difficult enough to get himself fired the same year he won the Manager of the Year with the Florida Marlins; and the $200 million Yankees missed the playoffs for the first time since 1993 under Girardi after 12 playoff years and four championships under Joe Torre, but the one question that was never truly answered was whether Girardi had any decisions in his own hands or was simply another in the line of faceless automatons who hold down the job as manager, fill out the lineup cards, deal with the press but do what they’re told, when they’re told and why they’re told. Now we know.

    This was all part of Cashman’s plan when he allowed the Steinbrenners and Randy Levine to force Torre out with the perfunctory offer of a contract extension designed to be rejected so they could replace Torre without going through the PR nightmare of firing him; an aspect of Girardi's selection to succeed Torre over Don Mattingly was that Cashman----smart and calculating enough to realize what his life would’ve been like when Lou Piniella was speculated as the next Yankees manager in 2006----was also scheming and Machiavellian enough to know that had he hired Mattingly, he never would’ve been able to fire him. Both Piniella and Mattingly wouldn’t have been as beholden to Cashman; as under the thumb of the stat zombies that Cashman is now using as advisers. Both would’ve been able to manipulate the media and fans through their personality and popularity respectively. Girardi doesn’t have that power. He’s there to implement what Cashman and his assistants want. 

    Girardi has no power. In fact, he’s got less power than the captain of the team, Derek Jeter does. He’s a caretaker and nothing more.

    The decisions are not coming from the manager; the strategies are devised organizationally and Girardi knows that he’d better follow them.  If you ever needed that to be proved beyond any argument at all, it was when Girardi walked out to the mound to take the ball from C.C. Sabathia so Phil Hughes could come into the game and retire the “dangerous” Nick Green. It was the equivalent of public castration and it was embarrassing to the man supposedly leading the highest paid team in baseball.

• Josh Hamilton’s “slip”:

"I'm embarrassed about it. For the Rangers, I'm embarrassed about it. For my wife, my kids,"

"Unfortunately, it happened. It just reinforces to me that if I'm out there getting ready for a season and taking my focus off the most important thing in my recovery, which is my relationship with Christ, it's amazing how those things creep back in."

"Honestly, I hate that this happened," he said. "But it is what it is. You deal with it. I realized that, obviously, I'm not perfect, in this ongoing struggle, battle, that is very real. A lot of people don't understand how real it is."

"As soon as it happened, I called my support system -- my wife, the Rangers, MLB and told them what had happened," he said Saturday. "I was absolutely open and honest about it."

   

    So, did Christ just sort of take the evening off from watching over the worshipful Hamilton when he decided to enter that bar? I do not want to hear the words "Jesus Christ" coming out of Hamilton's mouth unless He was tending bar in Arizona that night. When Hamilton decided to start partying with those chicks, Jesus was the last thing on his mind.

    Do you really believe that this was his first slip or was it the first slip with pictures that have been published?

    I said last year while the All Star festivities were going on and Hamilton was being canonized as a “hero” that it was ridiculous. Here’s a clip from my former blog on MLBlogs on July 17, 2008:

What, other than finally making use of a talent so rare, has Hamilton done to warrant being treated so reverently? I completely understand that the applause is for the recovery and the addiction; I completely understand that Hamilton's comeback is reason for others to see him as an example of rehabilitation because I'm sure many have either experienced Hamilton's problems firsthand or through family members; but it's getting a little out of control with the relentless promotion of Hamilton as someone to be admired because he was able to overcome addictions to cocaine, crack and alcohol and make use of his once-in-a-lifetime talent. And it's not as if his recovery is complete, end of story; he's only been clean for two and a half years. If I were the Rangers, I wouldn't even consider signing him to a long-term deal until it's absolutely necessary; and I wouldn't be standing and cheering for him as lustfully as the fans everywhere are now; and I wouldn't be writing such romantically-themed stories of redemption before a sufficient amount of time has passed to be able to state with confidence that he's going to be able to maintain his sobriety and on-field performance.


Hamilton can be an inspiration; he can be an example of what's lost by addiction and what's gained by faith and recovery; but to idolize him after such a brief time sober (with relatively few valleys) is jumping the gun a bit. It's also a little out of line to be feting Josh Hamilton for getting himself clean when there are so many players----Ryan Howard, Chase Utley, David Wright----who comport themselves in such a classy and positive way on and off the field and are basically expected to behave correctly and receive no credit for it; or players who've made the most of limited ability----David Eckstein----and didn't have the option of wasting years of their careers with out-of-control behaviors and expect to be given chance after chance. If he stays clean for an extended period of time, then Hamilton should receive a fair amount of credit; but to me, that time hasn't elapsed and these "inspiring stories" are premature for a player and person for whom "one day at a time" couldn't be a more apt description.

    Hamilton was held up by the media and fans who were either so gullible that they believed his religious, “aw, shucks” persona or were just writing the easy story that people wanted to read and use as inspiration. I’m not glad I was right. I’m also not surprised.

• Jason Schmidt goes back on the DL and clears out his locker:

    The disabled list is one thing; cleaning out the locker is another. Obviously Schmidt isn’t going to be back pitching for the Dodgers this year and if the pitcher, who’s going to be 37 in January, wants to pitch again, it’ll be on a minor league contract for a team willing to take a chance on him regaining some usefulness. The most interesting thing about Schmidt is that the 3-year, $47 million contract that Dodgers GM Ned Colletti doled on him (and they knew his shoulder was a mess when he signed) has been worse and more expensive than the contract the Yankees gave to Carl Pavano and you rarely hear a comparison because Pavano spent his DL time on the beach and chasing girls and Schmidt didn't (that we know of).

• David Ortiz’s press conference:

    I thought I’d said all I had to say about the revelation of David Ortiz’s failed PED test when the news broke, but after his press conference yesterday in which he still denies ever having used steroids and blames "supplements and vitamins over the counter -- legal supplements, legal vitamins over the counter” on the failed test, I have four words: They are as follows: Gimme a break, huh?

• Another sportswriter advocates for Billy Beane as Mets GM:

    Why is it that sportswriters who usually make sense are so enthusiastically endorsing the firing of Mets GM Omar Minaya and the import of A's GM Billy Beane to replace him? First it was Will Leitch in NY Magazine and today it's Kevin Kernan in the NY Post.

    First of all, Moneyball is six years in the rear-view mirror and Beane's moves have been nothing short of mediocre since the creative non-fiction of Michael Lewis was published. What gives anyone the idea that his "genius" is going to return if he has another $80 million to play with from what he's got in Oakland?

    I don't see how the Mets can fire Minaya given his contract and that the entire team is on the DL. It's a bit unfair to rake him over the coals for that Adam Rubin gaffe considering all the goodwill he's accrued for the positive things he's done and that he's well-liked.

    If they do choose to replace Minaya, why would they hire Beane? He'd cost a fortune and after the way he backed out of the Red Sox job, it's clear he'd prefer to have the ability to do what he wants without the threat of blame for what goes wrong. He'd want nothing to do with the East Coast, the pressure and the media in New York. There are so many others to pursue----Larry Beinfest, Bill Stoneman, Dan Evans, Logan White----that Beane shouldn't even be in the top five on the list if they replace Minaya and I don't think they're firing Minaya anyway. He'll get 2010 to redeem himself and it's only fair after the way everything's gone wrong this year.   

• The Rangers are on the verge of something special:

    In his first two years on the job as Rangers GM, Jon Daniels did little but bolster his case for being fired. Whether it was all his doing or he was functioning on the orders of meddlesome owner Tom Hicks is irrelevant; while there's a justification for a GM to get a pass when his true intent is sabotaged by orders from above, it doesn't excuse ghastly mistakes. Now, as the Rangers have leaped into contention far faster than even Daniels expected, you can almost see the maturation of a team that will be a legitimate championship contender as soon as 2010.

    The trades the Rangers initially made under Daniels can only be seen as atrocious. 2B/OF Alfonso Soriano was traded to the Nationals for OF/1B Brad Wilkerson, OF Terrmel Sledge and RHP Armando Galarraga; Kevin Millwood was signed to a 5-year, $60 million contract; and John Danks was sent to the White Sox for Brandon McCarthy.

    And the BIG one, a gaffe that is already one of the worst trades not just in the past ten years; not just in the past twenty years; but ever, 1B Adrian Gonzalez, RHP Chris Young and Sledge for RHP Adam Eaton, RHP Akinori Otsuka and C Billy Killian. No comment is even needed to describe how heinous that trade was. Making a mistake is one thing if it's explainable; making that mistake is not, under any circumstances, justifiable. In short, Daniels is lucky he still had his job after the reality behind that deal became apparent and Gonzalez became an MVP contender.

    But in a series of redemptive maneuvers, Daniels recreated himself and has now crafted a team that is surprisingly hanging around in playoff contention not just for the Wild Card, but for the AL West title. 

    The deals that began cleaning up the mess included acquiring Nelson Cruz in a deal that sent Francisco Cordero to the Brewers; taking a risk on Josh Hamilton in a mutually advantageous deal that sent Edinson Volquez to the Reds (and considering these photos from Deadspin, has been smart in not giving Hamilton a long-term contract); and two trades that might launch the Rangers to the next level in which Eric Gagne was traded to the Red Sox for outfielder David Murphy, LHP Kason Gabbard, and minor leaguer Engel Beltre; and Mark Teixeira was traded to the Braves for C Jarrod Saltalamacchia, SS Elvis Andrus, RHP Matt Harrison and RHP Neftali Feliz.

    The most important thing the Rangers have done under Daniels is rebuild the minor league system especially with pitching prospects of which they are loaded. Team president Nolan Ryan is trying to extend the pitchers past the threshold they've become accustomed to of pitching 100 pitches and leaving; the club is having financial issues amid Hicks's reconfiguring his loans, plus I'm not convinced that manager Ron Washington has the strategic skills to be able to guide his team through a tough race despite the fact that the players never quit on him (an important attribute for a manager), and it certainly doesn't help his case that Daniels's choice to replace Buck Showalter as manager, Don Wakamatsu, is showing great charisma and strategic acumen with the Mariners; Daniels has also shown organizational balls in releasing Sidney Ponson for his behavior while he was pitching well and replacing a veteran pitching coach, Mark Connor.

    The Rangers are playing way above what anyone----including Daniels himself, who said he didn't think the Rangers would find their groove until the second half of this season----could've expected. 

      The Rangers are very young; very talented and are a team to watch for a major run in 2010...or maybe even 2009.

• Three days to look back on and lament:

    If the Marlins narrowly miss the playoffs, they're going to look back at two of those three games they lost to the Nationals earlier this week and know that how badly it cost them. They led the first game 4-0 with Josh Johnson on the mound and blew it; they led the third game 6-0 in the second inning and blew that one as well. Big mistakes. 

• The PADRES LOSSOMETER has been put on hold:

    And the only team that could complete that massive job is the New York Mets.

    Even though the Padres won, Bud Black is probably one of the worst managers I've ever seen. That he was just presented with a contract extension by the "business-as-usual" Padres exacerbates the organization's problems. For what possible reason would any manager have an everyday player like Everth Cabrera (who hit a game-winning grand slam in the bottom of the ninth) bunt with two strikes on him in the bottom of the eighth inning?

    Even though Cabrera got the bunt down, the Padres didn't score and it's a horrible strategic maneuver, so bad it's bordering on incompetent. Padres fans have a lot to look forward to under Black and none of it good. 

• John Smoltz designated for assignment by Red Sox:

    The way the careers of Braves legends Tom Glavine and John Smoltz have ended, it puts into perspective how rare it is that a player can do as Ted Williams did, hit a home run and walk off into the sunset. More often, it ends as Glavine's did with a necessary release from the Braves and a bitter rift that may never fully heal; or as Smoltz's career has apparently ended with the Red Sox unwilling to give him a chance to regain some semblance of form.

    Understandably, it's hard for these guys (Brett Fav-ruh is a prime example) to let it go; even with the anger that they feel when a team tells them that they're moving on, once they cool down from the embarrassment and painful truth that they're done, they're smart enough to realize that it was the right thing.The denial is easy to comprehend; people were kissing the asses of these guys because of what they could do on the field since they were in elementary school; they don't want to be told to take their uniform off and to take a hike especially when they think they have something left despite their ages.

    I said this morning that Smoltz's problem seemed more mechanical than anything else, but the Red Sox must feel that they're in no position to be waiting and hoping that a 42-year-old future Hall of Famer can find his groove and contribute something to their playoff run. If there weren't other teams in contention for a playoff spot, the Red Sox might've been able to give Smoltz one or two more chances, but they aren't. Every time they put him out on the mound, they're running the risk of losing ground to the team in front of them because of a noncompetitive pitching performance. With the Yankees ahead of them, and more importantly, the Rangers and Rays right behind them, they didn't have much of a choice.

    I can only hope that Smoltz accepts the reality and doesn't try to come back; that he sees the fact that he's only going to make things worse by bouncing from team-to-team to hang on for another couple of months. It's not as if baseball's all he knows how to do; he'd be a great broadcaster and he's a fantastic golfer (just ask him and he'll tell you). As great as he was on the mound, he'd tarnish that greatness by continuing a career that is almost certainly over and probably should be.

• Athletics release Jason Giambi:

    I kept speculating when this was going to happen before he went on the disabled list. Giambi, batting .193 and absolutely not a part of the Athletics future, isn't in the same position as Smoltz in that he can probably find a job somewhere as a pinch hitter. He's got two attributes despite his fragility and stone glove----he's still got the power to hit the ball out of the park; and he's walked 50 times in 328 plate appearances this year.

    Giambi's command of the strike zone allowed him to accrue a .332 on base percentage with that .193 average, so if a contending team needs a power bat from the bench as a pure pinch hitter who might homer and has a great chance of walking, they should take a serious look at Giambi. The Cubs, Giants, Dodgers and Cardinals could all use him for what he can still do. Don't be surprised to see a reunion with Joe Torre in LA as soon as he's healthy enough to be activated from the disabled list.

• Who claimed Alex Rios and what are the Blue Jays going to do?

    If the Blue Jays financial straits are as bad as has been speculated, could the Blue Jays simply let a 28-year-old Alex Rios go to the team that claimed him and not get anything back other than some payroll relief?

    No one knows which team claimed Rios and according to the waiver rules, the Blue Jays can: A) work out a trade and get something for Rios (who happens to have nearly $60 million guaranteed through 2014); B) pull him back and keep him; or C) just let him go.

    I'd be stunned if they simply let him go, but in this economy, I suppose it's possible. And even if they do decide to let him go, one would think they'd work something out with the team that claimed him to get a moderate prospect or two to save some face, but who knows?

    Rios has great potential even if he's never lived up to to it fully; someone's going to be getting themselves a talented player if they get Rios and in the grand scheme of things, his contract isn't that terrible considering what Vernon Wells and J.D. Drew are making. If he blossoms, he'd be a bargain.  

• Who could've expected eight wouldn't be enough?

    The Red Sox had what appeared to be a designed embarrassment of riches before the season started. They had two All Star/Cy Young Award contenders to front their rotation (Josh Beckett, Jon Lester); a gutty veteran with a knuckleball (Tim Wakefield); a cheap former All Star trying to rebuild his reputation (Brad Penny); an up-and-down Japanese import who had luck on his side (Daisuke Matsuzaka); a future Hall of Famer with something to prove (John Smoltz); and two young pitchers who would be automatically in the starting rotations of 20 other teams (Clay Buchholz, Justin Masterson). But now, the Red Sox are reeling and the big reason is their starting pitching, probably the last thing they expected to have to worry about.

    Wakefield's out with a back problem; Matsuzaka is well on his way to wearing out his welcome with the Red Sox with his injuries, ineffectiveness and whining; Penny has replenished his value, but I doubt the Red Sox want him to be their third starter; Buchholz is basically a rookie; and Masterson was traded to get Victor Martinez. The biggest problem is what to do with Smoltz, who was terrible again last night. 

    The comparisons to Steve Carlton or Tommy John are not only unfair in reference to Smoltz, but they're inaccurate. Smoltz isn't trying to trick anyone with junk; he's not hanging on with nothing left in the tank. His fastball velocity was still in the low-90s; he looks like he's having trouble with his location and controlling his breaking pitches; his mechanics are off (why was he bringing his hands over his head some of the time and not bringing his hands over his head at other times?); and he's trying too hard to prove that he's not finished. For a pitcher as arrogant as Smoltz, who's desperate to shove it to the Braves for letting him leave, there are so many things going on in his head that there are too many layers for him to get to the root of the real problem and solve it. 

    It's odd how Smoltz's career is coming full circle. He began his run as a big game, clutch pitcher in 1991 as the Braves made an unlikely rush to the World Series. Smoltz started that season at 3-11 and appeared clueless until the Braves----in desperation to straighten out the talented righty----sent him to sports psychologist Dr. Jack Llewelyn and he suddenly began pitching better until he evolved into one of the best big game pitchers in the history of the game. Strangely, the same problems that afflicted him in 1991 seem to be sabotaging him now. He's thinking too much out on the mound and not focusing on what he's supposed to be doing. The biggest talents tend to have the most trouble reconciling their abilities. The overthinking; the ego; and the desire to prove himself again aren't helping him either.

    Whether or not Smoltz has the time or the inclination to revisit what it was he did as a 24-year-old in what's likely to be the last two-plus months of his career remains to be seen, but as of right now, the Red Sox don't have the healthy pitchers to shift Smoltz to the bullpen at least until Wakefield gets back. While he's not at the top of his game, Smoltz's stuff isn't this bad which leads to the idea that the problem is more in his head than anywhere else.

    On another note about last night's game, what were they expecting from Billy Traber? Traber functioned as the punching bag last night and the Yankees were only too happy to oblige; but Traber has been the epitome of a pitcher who's been Triple A filler for his entire pro career. He's not even a journeyman; he's not a lefty specialist; he's a breathing body to pitch in games that are getting out of hand for a club that doesn't want to waste another arm. The Red Sox are smart enough in numbers and scouting to have known this beforehand. 

    As for the starting pitching, the Red Sox are going to have to hope that Buchholz is able to mature quickly as Lester did, because if not, their playoff spot isn't as assured as it was before the season started. The Rays are right behind them and the Rangers aren't going away. The Red Sox and their fans are obviously concerned----and they should be.

• THE GEOFF BAKER AWARD FOR POMPOUS ARROGANCE GOES TO...MIKE FRANCESA:

    This had to be heard to be believed and it was still so baldly obnoxious and pompous that you couldn't believe it.

    Francesa, so dogmatically and borderline insanely opposed to Joba Chamberlain being a starter, refused to even acknowledge how well Chamberlain had pitched as a starter while Francesa was on vacation. What he did was benevolently say something to the tune of: "I'm not gonna say anything about Chamberlain moving to the bullpen for now."

    How nice.

    Is he this immersed in his own agenda that he's unable to say the credibility accumulating words: "Maybe I was wrong"? Only a fool could sit there and insist that Chamberlain must be sent to the bullpen immediately after the way he's pitched over the last month as a starter (the game last night notwithstanding); and only a fool with an arrogance that's bordering on self-created omnipotence would bluster that he's not going to say anything about it as if he's waiting for Chamberlain to pitch badly as a starter so he can return to his familiar railing about him belonging in the bullpen. It's inexplicable.

    Chamberlain's future could still be in the bullpen; it's only been a month, but to not even admit how well he's pitched in the thinly veiled hopes that he'll revert back to the shaky starter he was earlier this year in order to be "right"? It's lunacy.

• Is the stat zombies lust for Jason Vargas still going on?

    I mentioned this (and ripped it as nonsense) at the time, but here it is again in greater context as the stat zombie Dave Cameron discussed the Mets trade of Jason Vargas and others to get J.J. Putz:

Jason Vargas has settled in nicely as the Mariners 5th starter and has clearly been the best player in the deal to date. Endy Chavez has provided his usual excellent outfield defense, and has been worth 0.5 wins in part-time work. Carp is having a big year in the PCL, adding power his already patient approach. Carrera is proving that the "Endy Chavez in training” tag has some merit, flashing terrific defense and a lot of walks in Double-A. Olson hasn't pitched well as a starter, but has shown the potential to be a useful LH reliever. And, of course, with the exception of Chavez, the Mariners are paying all of these guys the league minimum.

      Meanwhile, the Mets are paying about $6 million this season for three guys providing replacement level performance. There's almost no chance they'll pick up Putz's option for 2010, and it wouldn't be surprising if the team decided not to offer arbitration to either Green or Reed. That would leave the Mets with a big fat zero to show for the entire deal.

      They didn't give up any future stars in the deal, but once again, trading youth for relief pitching fails to pan out. I'm pretty sure the Mets would love to have Jason Vargas, Mike Carp, and Ezequiel Carrera back, at the very least. When you give up seven guys, odds are one or two are going to come back to haunt you.

    At the time, I said that if you wanted to give Mets GM Omar Minaya a hard time about anything related to Jason Vargas, it'd be trading Matt Lindstrom to get him in the first place. Since Cameron's assessment of the deal, Vargas has been mostly horrible----GameLogs----because Jason Vargas is mostly horrible. He got pounded by the Royals last night and I wouldn't expect him to stay in the Mariners rotation much longer. 

    Neither the Mets nor the Mariners got what they expected on the field from any of the acquired players, but Putz is still salvageable in 2010 for the Mets (and they are going to exercise his option if for no other reason than to get something out of him), while Vargas is arbitration-eligible after this year and is probably going to be non-tendered. Bet on the Padres picking him up. Speaking of which...

• More of the same in San Diego:

    Lest anyone believe that new Padres owner Jeff Moorad was going to do something different to his predecessor John Moores and CEO Sandy Alderson. Thus far, the Padres have functioned under Moorad the same way they did under Moores and Alderson. In case anyone missed it, the Padres gave overmatched manager Bud Black a contract extension through 2010 with an option for 2011.

    Why?

    I dunno.

    You can explain away why Black was retained after last year's 99-loss campaign in a season where the Padres were picked by some to go to the World Series; the team was going to be horrible anyway in 2009, so it made no sense to pay someone else to manage a team that was a good bet to lose over 100 games during the ownership transition. Now, after the Padres have traded Jake Peavy and could still trade Adrian Gonzalez and Heath Bell, they've doled an undeserved extension to Black. 

    Bud Black is not a good manager.

    He's got all the moves. He sits in the corner of the dugout with a thoughtful yet stricken look on his face; he has the requisite intensity; but he doesn't know what he's doing. He makes haphazard pitching changes and his strategies are indicative of a former pitcher who'd never managed before he got his first managerial job on the big stage working for an upper management that expected him to do what he was told, when he was told and to take short money for the opportunity. It's a mistake whether or not the Padres are in a long-term rebuilding project. 

    Moorad was expected to come into the Padres train wreck and begin a massive cleanup. The only things of note that have happened so far are the aforementioned trade of Peavy and the resignation of Alderson. Aside from that, Black's still there; GM Kevin Towers is still there; and Paul DePodesta is blogging away. This is not how to fix a barren and trashed organization. If you're going to rebuild a ruined landscape, you have to bring in different architects; but this extension is more of the same from Moorad and a similar road leading nowhere for the Padres.

• Twins acquire Carl Pavano:

    The Minneapolis Star-Tribune is reporting that the Twins have acquired Carl Pavano from the Indians for a player to be named later. 

    Why not? Pavano's pitched well enough this year to be worth a low level minor leaguer, which is presumably what the Twins are giving up. 

• Wild Card war of attrition:

Dodgers 5-Braves 4: 

    Rafael Soriano can't handle any pressure at all and gives up too many homers to be a trustworthy closer for a team like the Braves which have misguided designs on the playoffs.

Nationals 12-Marlins 8:

    If the Marlins want to contend they can't be losing a series to the Nationals and they CANNOT be getting swept. 

• Hollywood in brief:

    If the attempts to make Moneyball into a movie with Brad Pitt swaggering around as a dramatized Billy Beane, screwing waitresses who have far too much confidence in their resistance to disease; and wheeling and dealing his way around the baseball world wasn't enough of an example of what Hollywood's idea of a "realistic" biopic is, here's another example from the NY Post:

THE author of a best seller about vicious Mafia hit man Richard Kuklinski has pulled the plug on a deal with Hollywood producer Lorenzo di Bonaventura, who had optioned the rights, because he says he couldn't stomach the idea of Channing Tatum in the title role.

Phil Carlo tells us that after he penned "The Ice Man: Confessions of a Mafia Contract Killer" in 2006, the book was optioned by di Bonaventura, producer of "Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen," "G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra" and the upcoming Angelina Jolie drama "Salt."

When the 18-month option ran out last month, di Bonaventura asked to extend the contract for two more weeks, hoping he could complete financing for the movie. But Carlo says that when he heard Tatum was being wooed to star in the lurid gangster tale, he decided not to go ahead.

"I had to turn him down. I really hated the idea of Channing Tatum. I told di Bonaventura that this is not the guy to play one of the most feared killers of the 20th Century," Carlo said. "I think Mickey Rourke would really be good. He's got that sense of danger, and there's a similarity between the two. But it's not Channing Tatum."

Kuklinski was a notorious contract killer who worked for the Gambinos and boasted about having murdered more than 200 men. He earned his ghoulish nickname because of his method of disguising the time of death of his murder victims by chilling their bodies in an industrial freezer.

    Look at the following side-by-side pics and see if you agree with me and author Carlo.

    I read that book and can tell you that a pretty boy actor with rippling abs is the polar opposite of what one would want to portray a pure psychopath like Kuklinski.

    Kuklinski was the perfect example of why even the toughest people want to avoid road rage and driving like a maniac; if someone looked at him wrong or cut him off, Kuklinski would stop his car, get out and, at the very least, tear the offending car's door off its hinges with his bare hands!! Plus, anyone who Kuklinski had once considered a "friend" wound up dead at those same hands.

    Channing Tatum as Kuklinski? Brad Pitt as Billy Beane? Please. 

• In retrospect, the Blue Jays should've taken the Phillies offer for Roy Halladay:

    There are plenty of  reasons to give Blue Jays GM J.P. Ricciardi a hard time. He's got a pretty long rap sheet----there's the heinous Vernon Wells contract; abusing, then releasing Chris Carpenter; the public spats with, well, with everyone; and a few other things----but he was in the driver's seat in the negotiations to trade Roy Halladay and he had every right to ask for the world in return for one of the best three pitchers in baseball; a pitcher under contract for next year.

    I don't believe Ricciardi realized how serious the Indians were about dealing Cliff Lee; nor do I think he should be blamed for not jumping at the Phillies offer when he felt as if he could get exactly what he wanted from someone for Halladay; if not the Phillies, then the Dodgers, Angels or Rockies. But in retrospect, with the deal that got Lee from the Indians to the Phillies and with some of the other things that have happened with the Blue Jays in recent weeks, Ricciardi might have been doing the right thing for his organization had he taken some configuration of the Phillies offers for Halladay sans Kyle Drabek. 

    The most publicized Phillies offer for Halladay had a mix and match combination of J.A. Happ; Carlos Carrasco; Michael Taylor; Jason Donald; Lou Marson and a few other names. How would the Blue Jays look if they'd gotten four of the players from Philly? Happ has ace potential; Donald is raw, but possibly fills the Blue Jays hole at shortstop; Marson would be their everyday catcher, possibly as soon as 2011 after sharing next season with Rod Barajas; and Taylor's numbers indicate a possible power/speed superstar. That's a lot to get for a pitcher the Blue Jays aren't going to have past 2010 barring a miracle.

    It wasn't until I saw Marc Rzepczynski and Josh Roenicke pitch against the Yankees last night that I thought, "this team isn't that far away from contending if they get a few breaks". Rzepczynski scuffled last night and has to improve his command, but his motion and stuff reminded me of a healthy Mark Mulder when he was one of the best pitchers in baseball for the A's. Roenicke was acquired from the Reds along with Edwin Encarnacion and Zach Stewart for Scott Rolen. That Ricciardi got Rolen and his contract off the team would've been enough, but to get a flighty All Star talent in Encarnacion and an arm like Roenicke? That deal will go down as a heist for the Blue Jays. Roenicke has a slow and easy motion, a bit of a short-arm delivery and a sneaky fastball that overpowered Derek Jeter who looked like he couldn't pick the ball up out of Roenicke's hand. Hitters will tell you how tough those types of pitchers are to hit.

    Let's look at the Blue Jays next season had they taken the Phillies offer for Halladay. How would a rotation of Ricky Romero, Rzepczynski, Shaun Marcum, Dustin McGowan, Jesse Litsch and Brett Cecil look in 2010 and beyond? With Marson, Taylor and Donald in or near the big leagues? A bullpen with Roenicke, Scott Downs, Brandon League, Jason Frasor, etc? There's no reason why a team like that couldn't hang around contention and more.

    Anyone who's read what I've written about Ricciardi the past will know that this is the last place you'll find even a lukewarm defense of how he's run the Blue Jays since his blustery arrival in 2001, but the team isn't hopeless with the talent they currently have. It's hard to blame Ricciardi for maximizing his main asset in Halladay, but looking back, he probably should've pulled the trigger for what the Phillies were willing to give. They might be pretty good next year with Halladay, but they could've been much much better if they'd made the move.

• The Royals are bad, but not this bad:

    Any team with Zack Greinke fronting their rotation, the mediocre but occasionally useful Brian Bannister behind him; and a bullpen with Juan Cruz and Joakim Soria; plus a few bats that can hit should be better than 25 games under .500 and heading unstoppably towards 100-losses, but that's where the Royals are.

    I had the Royals at 72-90 before the season started because of GM Dayton Moore's ridiculous signing of Kyle Farnsworth and trades for Mike Jacobs and Coco Crisp, but things have fallen down the mine shaft for the Royals after an 18-11 start. It's not easy to go 23-55 in a nearly 90 game stretch. These aren't the Padres here; there's talent in Kansas City and it's at the point where you have to wonder what's going on over there. Cruz has been atrocious, but has historically been pretty good; Bannister isn't a guy to build a team around, but at least you know that he's either going to pitch well or get pounded; Kyle Davies has good stuff; Alex Gordon, Billy Butler and Mark Teahen can hit, so what's the problem?

    Partial blame can fall on Mike Aviles's rotten year at shortstop, and after his breakout season in 2008, no one could've expected him to start hitting like Ray Oyler. Gil Meche got hurt; and they're inexplicably relying on journeymen relievers Jamey Wright, John Bale and Horacio Ramirez. They're poorly constructed and badly run on and off the field, but they shouldn't be this atrocious and that falls on the manager, Trey Hillman and the GM, Moore, who defends him.

• Viewer Mail 8.6.2009:

Gabriel Gutierrez writes RE the Blue Jays and the Mets:

The Blue Jays lineup is so terrible maybe I could go and become their cleanup hitter. I didn't think Kevin Millar was a bad addition, thought it was kind of a Matt Stairs replacement. But he's been hideous at the plate, maybe even worse than Wells. On another note, as someone posted in a forum, will someone please leave the Mets voodoo doll? After losing Castillo, and losing in such an embarrassing way that reminded me of my Jays, karma owes a lot to the Metropolitan Club of Baseball. They're the most painful to watch clubs in the league.

    I can't give Ricciardi a hard time about Millar; they got him for nothing and as a part-time bench player/pinch hitter/good guy in the clubhouse, there are worse players. When you have to give him 200+ at bats, you've got a problem. He was never as good a hitter as Stairs who's been horribly underrated his whole career.

    I'm thinking of starting a METS INJURYOMETER. It's bordering on ludicrous. Castillo falling down the dugout steps? And people call into the talk radio imbeciles here in NY and go on and on with the "get Castillo outta here" crap. Aside for that dropped pop-up against the Yankees, the guy's been great defensively; he's gotten on base at a near .400 clip and is almost hitting .300. This is what he was in Florida and Minnesota and well worth $6 million a year.

    Jon Niese's injury falling face first on the mound trying to shake off the injury and needing hamstring surgery? Gary Sheffield hitting one in the gap and then walking gingerly off the field? Good grief.*

*A note about yesteday's brushback war. The Cardinals had every right to defend their best player, Albert Pujols, when he got hit; but Brad Thompson had no business throwing a fastball so close to David Wright's head. Then he started jawing at Sheffied when Sheffield stepped out on him. Thompson should be grateful that Sheffield didn't come out to the mound and squeeze his head until Thompson's brain popped out of his skull like a pimple.If it were ten years ago, he would've. This is a kinder, gentler Sheffield and Thompson's lucky for that.

    A thing about the Mets that no one's noticed is the job Jerry Manuel's done. How could the team they've put on the field since early June still only be five games under .500 and kinda sorta hanging tough in the Wild Card race?

• THE PADRES LOSSOMETER: 65

• I am now a twit on TWITTER (that's better than a twat on TWATTER I suppose):

    I've figgered out how to activate and work my Twitter account (to a point). It's under the name PRINCE_OF_NY if anyone wants to give themselves to the dark side and join the growing "family".

BOSS-Paul (The Prince of New York) Lebowitz

UNDERBOSS-Hanna The Equestrian

CONSIGLIERE-Jane (She-Fan) Heller

MID-WEST CAPO-Jeff (Red State) Lung

MID-WEST UNDERBOSS-Allen (Blue State) Krause

ENFORCER-Frightening Barbara Lebowitz

SOLDIERS-Joe the Sometime Stat Zombie, Gabriel, Franklin, David and Norm

(Drop me a note if you'd like to be officially "made". I didn't leave anyone out intentionally.) 

*Note: Twitter's timing out as I'm trying to log on. Dunno if it's anything I did.      

• Jose Reyes is shut down again:

    Lest anyone believe that Mets shortstop Jose Reyes doesn't want to play, but with more "discomfort" felt in his injured leg, Reyes is back in New York to again meet with the Mets doctors to try and solve the problem. The doctors, if they can't diagnose the injury, aren't going to be able to come to a conclusion on what to do about it, but Reyes's meandering journey on the disabled list is creating a rightful disfavor with the organization. It's almost at the point where the shortstop sees where the season is going and would prefer to just take the rest of the year off and that's something the Mets shouldn't allow. 

    Until someone discovers exactly what's wrong with Reyes----is it a tweak? is it a pull? is it a tear? is it a guy who's feeling normal discomfort recovering from an injury and doesn't feel like pushing past it?----they're not going to rehab it correctly. It's gotten to the point where the Mets higher-ups have to be looking at Reyes sideways and wondering whether he's just decided to bag the lost season, and they shouldn't let him. They're paying him a lot of money and even if he rehabs enough to play the final two weeks in September, he should be made to do that. 

    I've been adamantly opposed to the idea of trading Reyes. A 26-year-old with his gifts is hard to let go of; but if he comes back healthy next year and is performing up to his capabilities, I'd let other teams know that if they have a proposal for a major deal, that which was once off-limits is no longer so; Jose Reyes is on the table----and I don't mean the trainer's table.

• Padres release Mark Prior:

    I'd be curious to know if Prior's name is on the 2003 PED list.

    How long ago it seems that the Twins were accused of incompetence as they chose hometown star, high school catcher Joe Mauer over the poised and polished college pitcher Prior in what was considered more marketing opportunity than getting the best available player. How's that look now that it's increasingly likely that Prior will never pitch in the big leagues again? 

• Nationals 6-Marlins 4:

    How about a wakeup call from the Baseball Gods?

    Just as the Marlins came off a dramatic series against the playoff contending Cubs and people were starting to take them seriously, they blow a 4-0 lead against the worst team in baseball with their ace, Cy Young Award contender Josh Johnson on the mound.

    If I were manager Fredi Gonzalez, I'd use this as a learning opportunity that if the young Marlins truly want to have a shot at the playoffs, they have to plant their spikes on the throats of the teams they should be beating and there's no better example of that than this horrible loss to the Nationals.

• THE PADRES LOSSOMETER: 64 

• Was Bill James's essay on steroids designed to be contrary?

    Selena Roberts got a lot of mileage from her rapidly written and unqualified session of pop psychology masquerading as a biography of Alex Rodriguez, so why shouldn't I jump into the fray with a similar question about Bill James and his strangely supportive essay on the issue of PED use by baseball players?

    Much like the deep psychological concerns I have for someone like Moneyball author Michael Lewis, who puts a gigantic picture of his own face on the back cover of all his books, I have similar worries over someone who writes such things as: "My name is Bill James, and I'm an eccentric..." as James did in one of his abstracts; over someone who claims that the notorious and universally despised Ty Cobb was actually a relatively pleasant person; who decries the massive evidence against Pete Rose's baseball betting as being inconclusive.

    All of these incidents can lead one to believe----in a Selena Roberts sort of way----that they're statements designed not to prove a point, but to garner attention like a screaming child; or an American teen who chooses to join the Taliban; or Ann Coulter and Glenn Beck. Someone who walks around and announces the fact that he's different; or quirky; or goes against the grain while spouting such nonsense as was contained in that steroids essay leads to such conspiracy theories, but considering how James has made these and other such off-the-wall assertions throughout his public life, an agenda isn't an absurd suggestion because sometimes he seems to be saying such things to get people to notice him. The sad thing is, it works.

• Amateur hour:

    ESPN couldn't find some qualified baseball writers (even those that are stat zombies) to fill in for Rob Neyer while he's on vacation? This morning I mentioned the painfully boring Steve Buffum without even harboring the thought that the next wave of fill-ins could actually be worse!!

    The two "writers" from today's Sweet Spot were David Pinto and Chris Marcil. Pinto wrote a long-winded post about the Angels newfound patience and history of relying on pitching with Mike Scioscia as manager. There was even a graph!!! Then, Marcil graced us with a list of his favorite baseball movies (who cares?) and a dreamlike stream of consciousness about the radio ads he heard while sitting in LA traffic. 

    So, uh, you guys are filling in on what one would assume is a heavily trafficked blog with this stuff? This is the best you could come up with? You couldn't write about the Rays-Red Sox series? The Marlins? The possibilities of trades during the month of August? PEDs? Something?

    This reminds me of the short-lived and ill-thought-out David Lee Roth morning radio show. You remember. The show that was designed to replace Howard Stern? I tried to listen several times, but the inane rambling and long-winded pablum about which Roth droned on and on was not only boring, but it was impossible to follow. After zoning out and realizing that the radio was still on, I stopped and said, "what the hell is he going on about?" Compared to the "fill ins" on ESPN's Sweet Spot, Roth sounded like Lou Gehrig giving his "luckiest man" speech; or Winston Churchill's "We Shall Fight on the Beaches" speech to the British Parliament after taking over as prime minister in 1940. 

    I can't blame Buffum, Pinto or Marcil; they clearly aren't even qualified to be described as hacks, but ESPN is allowing this material (better suited to be printed and used to line the bottom of a bird cage) to be prominently displayed on the website for the "worldwide leader in sports". Great work.

• Are Dusty Baker's days numbered as Reds manager?

    With the Reds season falling apart, you'd have to think that Dusty Baker is going to be replaced after this season. Baker's always been a successful manager and I've defended him from his critics for that success, but his last three seasons as a manager----one with the Cubs, two with the Reds----have ended poorly. Add in the injury to Edinson Volquez and the struggles of Aaron Harang, along with the bad record and it'd be foolish to continue to defend him.

    If the Reds make a change, one intriguing possibility would be reuniting GM Walt Jocketty with the free agent-manager-to-be who worked with Jocketty for his entire tenure as Cardinals GM, Tony La Russa. Despite the Cardinals acquiescing to La Russa's wishes and acquiring veterans Mark De Rosa and Matt Holliday for the stretch run, his return to St. Louis in 2010 is no guarantee unless he thinks they're going to spend some money for him to win. Nor does it help that La Russa's aide-de-camp/pitching coach Dave Duncan was livid at the trade of his son Chris to the Red Sox.

    It would be an interesting dynamic to have La Russa in Cincinnati to again share a clubhouse with a La Russa enemy in Scott Rolen, but Jocketty can't worry about that because after this year, his job probably isn't all that secure either. That's no time to make moves based on personalities.   

• The Braves are dangerous to themselves maybe:

    Every other day we hear people declaring how "dangerous" the revamped Braves are; how they're a threat for the Wild Card; how they need to be watched. Well, I've been watching them and they're only slightly better than the team that I picked to go 75-87 before the season started.

    In case you hadn't noticed, the Braves are currently sitting at 53-53, 5 1/2 games out of the Wild Card lead and only 2 1/2 games ahead of the injury-tattered Mets. When precisely are they going to make their move into being "dangerous"? If they're going to make a move, they're going to have beat up on the Padres and win series against the teams ahead of them. Have they done that? They lost 2 of 3 to the Marlins last week; 2 of 3 to the Dodgers over the weekend and were beaten by the heinous Padres last night. When is this much-anticipated (mostly by the media still expecting the 1996 Braves instead of the 2009 Braves to show up) "move" going to happen? 

    It certainly doesn't help that the two teams at the top of the Wild Card standings, the Giants and Rockies are going to get a load of chances to brutalize the Padres down the stretch. So when is this move going to be made? Are they biding their time and playing dead? What's the holdup? 

    The acquisitions the Braves have made (many of which were lauded as "brilliant") haven't done enough to justify the accolades. Nate McLouth has been pretty much what he is; he hits somewhere around .260; plays solid enough defense; steals some bases; hits a few homers; and is a good player, definitely an upgrade from what they were trotting out there in the first couple of months of the season. Ryan Church, continuously referred to as a "better" player than Jeff Francoeur, has done nothing for the Braves; he's been just what anyone who's watched Church on a regular basis and looked at more than his numbers said he'd be.

    There's something missing from the Braves. A team with that starting rotation, that lineup and a shaky, but usable bullpen should be better than 53-53. Is Bobby Cox no longer the "genius" he was during the 90s? He's done some strange things as the Braves have hovered around mediocrity for the entire season. Last week's game against the Marlins (which the Braves eventually won on a Brian McCann homer in the tenth inning) was a prime example. Javier Vazquez had rolled along until the eighth inning with a 3-1 lead. Leading off the bottom of the eighth, Cody Ross homered to cut the lead to 3-2. Mike Gonzalez was warming up in the bullpen; sidearming Peter Moylan was also available; but Cox stayed with Vazquez who gave up a line shot to Ronny Paulino; this was followed by a walk to Brett Carroll. Then Cox finally pulled Vazquez in favor of Gonzalez, who allowed the Marlins to tie the game. That the Braves won is irrelevant; this game was a window into Cox's bizarre machinations which have gone on throughout the season and are largely ignored because of his record of success.

    Was it Cox's managing skills that led the Braves to all of those consecutive playoff appearances? Or was it talent? And what happenes if he has to steer the club rather than just ride the wave? I think we're seeing the answer to the "chicken or the egg" question and it's not a positive result for Bobby Cox and the Braves; it's more of an indictment for a team that has the talent to not only be closer to the top of the Wild Card race, but should be near the top of their division, but they're not and it's time to start asking why.

• Speaking of the Padres...

    I got my first look at Mat Latos last night and was impressed----good stuff, impressive mechanics and poise. With the multiple players they got for Jake Peavy and Adrian Gonzalez and Kyle Blanks in the lineup, things could be far worse in San Diego. 

    They still have plenty of work to do and Padres fans had better hope that Jeff Moorad makes the decision to release the overmatched Bud Black of his managing duties at season's end (bringing in an experienced, patient manager like Bob Melvin or a real Padre like Tim Flannery would be a good place to start). If they build on that small foundation of players and make the necessary changes, things might not be hopeless for the Padres after all. 

• So now we're getting Billy Beane alibis, are we?

    For the second time in a week, an article was published on a national forum "explaining" why Billy Beane's genius has deserted him. First it was the usually reasonable Howard Bryant----link----on ESPN; now it's Will Leitch in New York Magazine.

    Is this how it's going to go? The self-justifications of Michael Lewis and the stat zombies claiming (similarly to the Dick Cheneys of the world, who are so invested in their worldview that they try to convince the masses that they were "right") that the war has already been won and those that dare question Beane's fantastic wonderfulness are the "losers" in this so-called war? That Moneyball itself contributed to Beane's failures because it leveled the playing field?

    Please.

    It must be a great life where nothing is ever anyone's fault. That Beane's club has collapsed with such a thud and his "children", the J.P. Ricciardis and Paul DePodestas created such monstrosities following the Moneyball blueprint isn't part of the equation. As long as there are people invested in Moneyball, results (the lifeblood of looking at numbers above all else) are going to be twisted and justified to keep the lie moving forward. Hopefully people won't be sucked in again, but that hope is the real losing battle; not any kind of phony "war" that was "won" long ago between the stat zombies and the scouts. The discounting of the results and continuous attempt to prop Beane up is the last bastion of the Lewis/Moneyball defenders.

    With fewer people buying into it, it's becoming harder for the last throes of the Moneyball believers to explain away why their world is falling apart. Their protests and dogmatisim does the job better than I, or anyone, ever could.

• Viewer Mail 8.4.2009:

Jane Heller at Confessions of a She-Fan writes RE the Yankees getting another starter:

If the Yankees don't get Garland, which team do you think will? No interest in Arroyo. And would anybody take Zito right now? And his contract? Yikes.

    The problem with a guy like Garland is that any team that claims and trades for him only has to pay him for the last two months and then he's gone. With the waiver rules, Garland has to go past the desks of every team in the NL from the bottom up, then he'll go by the AL teams. Any player under a 1-year deal is going to get claimed loooooong before even getting out of his own league. Right off the top of my head, the Astros and Dodgers would take Garland in a second. He'd never get to the Yankees to put in a claim.

    No one's taking a Barry Zito, Aaron Harang or any other high priced pitcher under a long-term contract. Bronson Arroyo's pretty much all you're going to get at this point.   

• The publishing practices at the "worldwide leaders in sports":

    Most of the writers and bloggers that ESPN employs leave something to be desired in the credibility department, but that's neither here nor there; but do they even look at what's being placed on their website? Rob Neyer's on vacation (from blogging about baseball; does one need a vacation from such a thing?) and they've got a "fill-in" writing on Neyer's "Sweet Spot". That writer, Steve Buffum is quite possibly the most boring writer I've ever encountered anywhere.

    He's posted three times as Neyer's fill in and each posting is worse than the one before. You know that scene in Die Hard where John McLane is running across broken glass barefoot? Well, multiply that by 20 and you'll get the pain one must go through trying to get through a Buffum posting.

    It's easy for me, the real Most Interesting Man in the World, to criticize others for being dullards who waste our time with such crud, but there has to be some form of editorial control of what's posted under the ESPN banner, doesn't there? Do they even care that this Buffum is writing this painful garbage on their site? Apparently not.

    Stay thirsty my friends.

• A "family tree" for the truly smartest organization in baseball:

    As the Fall of the House of Moneyball continues with every passing day; as Michael Lewis's ill-informed and agenda-driven schlock looks worse with each loss and gaffe; as the bandwagon jumpers defect from the stat-stat-stat train; as the goalposts are moved to convenience the desperate who can't continue to promulgate a myth than was never real to begin with; and as the attempts to prop up a truly clueless executive in Paul DePodesta decline to the precious few who still attach themselves to the Ivy Leaguers who've done nothing but fail in applying the blueprint as it's laid out in the book, the stat zombies are doing their best to ignore a team that has gotten the best bang for their buck----the Florida Marlins.

    A team that uses every tool available to them and finds players who are cheap and productive doesn't fit into the stat zombies' carefully constructed equation, so its best to ignore them; bide their time; hope that the numbers work out in the end, but that time is running out on both the stat zombies and Moneyball and the Marlins are the case study of how to run a franchise efficiently, effectively and frugally.

    The Marlins don't have a front office packed with numbers crunchers who've never picked up a ball in their lives and wouldn't know what to do if they did. They find cheap alternatives to their veteran players, are willing to trade anyone and everyone and they have the audacity to win while doing it! The stat zombies look at the Marlins and seem to be saying, "how dare you not do it our way, and how DARE you succeed!!"

    If anything is evidence of this, yesterday's come-from-behind 3-2 win over the Cubs was it. The Marlins are contending; they're doing it their way; and they're just as good a bet as anyone to emerge from the Wild Card muck and make the playoffs without a bestselling bit of creative non-fiction written by a hack to bring them into the mainstream. What they do can't be copied because there's no formula; just a bunch of smart and gutsy talent evaluators who do anything and everything to find players. Even if those players have been released, ignored, dumped, or unappreciated, if they can help the Marlins win one game, they've served their purpose. Let's look at the tree from yesterday's game.

    The starting pitcher Ricky Nolasco pitched seven innings and allowed 1 run, 4 hits, 1 walk and struck out 8. Nolasco was acquired from the Cubs along with Marlins reliever Renyel Pinto and Sergio Mitre for Juan Pierre.

    Matt Lindstrom pitched a scoreless eighth inning. Lindstrom, who throws close to 100-mph, was acquired from the Mets along with Henry Owens for Jason Vargas and Adam Bostick.

    Veteran Brendan Donnelly, whose days as a useful bullpen component appeared to be over after years as a member of the Angels sublime contingent of relievers, had bounced to the Red Sox and Indians before biding his time in Triple A for the Marlins until he was needed; he's got an 0.82 ERA in 13 games and vultured his way to a win yesterday after giving up a run and being the last Marlins pitcher in their walk-off win.

    Second baseman Dan Uggla homered to tie the game in the bottom of the ninth inning off of former Marlins closer Kevin Gregg (whom the Marlins traded to the Cubs before they presumably would've non-tendered him and got a power arm in Jose Ceda, who's currently injured). Uggla had spent five years in the Diamondbacks system, never getting higher than Double A before being taken in the Rule 5 draft by the Marlins after the 2005 season. He's hit 30 homers in the past two years and is on track to do it again this year with 19.

    Center fielder Cody Ross hit two homers, including the game-winner. Ross was purchased (not traded, purchased) by the Marlins from the Reds in May of 2006. This is after he was acquired by the Reds from the Dodgers a month before for Ben Kozlowksi; the Dodgers had acquired him from the Tigers for Steve Colyer. Ross has 17 homers in 2009 after hitting 22 last year.

    These were the main performers in yesterday's game, but the Marlins have been built finding players who'd been released (Jorge Cantu, Dan Meyer, Kiko Calero); smartly drafted (Josh Johnson, Chris Coghlan, Chris Volstad, Sean West, Rick Vandenhurk); acquired for nothing (Leo Nunez, Ross Gload, John Baker; Ronny Paulino); or blue chippers acquired as they traded veteran stars (Hanley Ramirez).

    For every stat zombie who tries to explain away the Marlins success as "luck" or simply ignores them because they're a wrench in their numerically-ordered, inaccurate and Moneyball-clinging lives, they're right there with a record of 55-50, fighting for a playoff spot and still willing to deal and to try and win as evidenced by their acquisition of Nick Johnson. What's the excuse going to be if they continue playing this brand of winning baseball? Will the zombies choose to shut their eyes, hold their collective breaths and hope no one will notice? Or will one of them defect to reality; admit they were wrong; and accept that numbers aren't the final arbiter in finding players? It's a stupid question because I think we all know the answer.

• Joe Morgan's flexibility is impressive for a 66-year-old man:

    Joe Morgan was yammering about how a big (6'2", 230 lbs) and presumably strong man like Matt Kemp uses such a light bat. It sounded like criticism and a preparation to suggest that Kemp use a heavier bat...until Kemp hit a rocket over the center field fence off of Braves starter Jair Jurrjens.

    Morgan's justification for Kemp's homer using such a light bat was his natural strength allowing him to still hit the ball out of the park with his light bat; but am I the only one who could envision Morgan going on an hour-long tangent about how Kemp needs to use a heavier bat if he'd had the thing broken by an inside fastball and popped weakly to third base? In a way, you have to admire his cluelessness, nerve and twisting of the facts and reality... Hey!!! Wait!!! I see a trend here...

• Morgan and the stat zombies, together at last:

    For all the criticism that the stat zombies levy against Morgan for his bizarre statements and self-contradictions, they and their prophet, Michael Lewis, did and are doing the same thing with their current adjustment of the Moneyball theory to try and save the spindly house of cards that the book and theory really are.

    Could it be that they're wallowing in the same crud after all? That the age of enlightenment, led by the Ivy League, doesn't really exist and that the stat zombies are just as inept and bewildered as Joe Morgan?

    That implication is worse for their collective psyches than any success the Marlins enjoy; or failures that the Padres and A's endure and what's worse is that it's really happening like a living nightmare and there's nothing they can do to stop it, "genius" be damned, marginalized and relegated, much like the dying creature known as the stat zombie.

• THE PADRES LOSSOMETER: 63     

• A competition you don't wanna win:

    Amid all the talk of "winners and losers" at the trading deadline and the clubs trying to one-up one another to improve, there's a more dubious competition going on. That competition is between the current leader in the clubhouse, Royals manager Trey Hillman, and the rapidly gaining Padres manager Bud Black for the distinction as the worst manager in baseball.

    Hillman's results speak for themselves as his club barrels toward 100-losses with no hope for improvement in sight. As for Black, it's a bit more murky. He did manage the club that won 89 games in 2007 and came within one game of a playoff spot; and last season's 99-loss campaign is hard to pin on him amid the disarray, in-fighting, factional disputes and money issues that relegated the Padres to their current status as laughingstock; but he has still done some things that aren't simply debatable, they're wrong. Having watched him, he is not a good manager; he lacks experience and has the stigma of being a former pitcher hanging over him as he tries to work around those two baseline issues (along with not having much talent on his roster).

    Last night, in the top of the sixth inning, newly acquired lefty Clayton Richard was working on a shutout against the Brewers with a 2-0 lead. Corey Hart grounded back to Richard for the first out; Ryan Braun flied deep to left for the second out; Prince Fielder homered to right...and Black yanked Richard.

    Richard, about to turn 26 and acquired for Jake Peavy, is supposed to be a part of the Padres future, right? He has great stuff and potential, right? How exactly is he supposed to learn how to pitch effectively as a starting pitcher if the manager won't let him pitch? Richard had thrown 90 pitches and had effectively shut down a powerful lineup for 5 2/3 innings.

    Why take him out?

    For what purpose?

    The Padres are going nowhere this year other than hurtling toward 100-losses, just like the Royals. Would it have made that big a difference to the organization if they lost last night because Black let Richard try to gut his way through the sixth inning? It's irrelevant that Black brought in Greg Burke who immediately allowed a game-tying homer to Casey McGehee; it's irrelevant that the Padres eventually won the game.

    Leaving a pitcher in the game when he's sailing through is the easiest thing for a manager to do; it's when the pitcher isn't sailing through and is battling that he learns how to get out of jams and learns how to pitch. Richard hadn't been dominant. He'd walked three and allowed two hits including the homer to Fielder, but what would've been the difference if, at the very least, Black allowed him to pitch to McGehee? It made no sense.

    This looked to be a situation where Black was trying to say to his bosses (including a new owner, Jeff Moorad) who must still be debating whether or not to move forward with someone else or to keep Black through the Padres rebuilding process, "look, I'm managing; I'm doing stuff!!! I'm using strategy!!!"

    The fact is that Black would've bolstered his case by not using the easy and explainable strategy in yanking Richard. Had he left Richard in the game and the Padres lost, he could've provided the harder, but more productive explanation that he left Richard in because the Padres have to develop their young players and the only way to develop is to let them figure things out on their own, and if that costs a game or two, so be it. Instead, Black did what he did and accomplished nothing more than adding a line to the list of reasons why he should be fired if the Padres ever want to get any better in the standings and in developing their players.

• Players available through waivers will be pricey:

    The only way that significant deals are going to get done is if an interested team is willing to take on a large salary. For the clubs looking for pitching, that means they're going to have to swallow the contract of a Bronson Arroyo, Barry Zito, Oliver Perez or any of the other names that are going to get easily through waivers without someone claiming them. For others who are on short-term contracts like Jon Garland, as soon as that name starts crossing teams' desks, he's going to get claimed long before getting to a team that could really use him like the Yankees.

    Because of this, the Yankees are going to have to settle for what they have now; or take an Arroyo's salary. With the way Sergio Mitre is going to get pounded the more he pitches, they're not going to have a choice but to move Phil Hughes back into the starting rotation or try the likes of Josh Towers, who's pitching in the minors and is only a slight upgrade from Mitre.

• Bet on the Tigers fading down the stretch:

    Justin Verlander is strong enough to be able to handle the workload of a push for the playoffs, but are Edwin Jackson and Rick Porcello? Jarrod Washburn has been pitching well and the Tigers solid defense will help him continue that trend, but the Tigers bullpen is horrible and their lineup is shaky. Porcello's on a pitch/innings limit and they've been riding Jackson hard to win right now (GameLogs); it's going to cost them in September.

    Unless Verlander turns into Orel Hershiser, circa 1988; and Washburn into Doyle Alexander, circa 1987, the Tigers are going to fall fast behind both the Twins and White Sox as the season winds down.

• A little Mets Magic?

    The Mets pretty much hit rock bottom with GM Omar Minaya's gaffe during the press conference announcing the firing of Tony Bernazard as he accused NY Daily News reporter Adam Rubin of a conflict of interest, implying that Rubin reported Bernazard's behaviors to try and get his job. Some in the media think Minaya's definitely going to get fired; I think that he'll be here for 2010 as long as nothing else embarrassing happens. 

    What's gone somewhat unnoticed is that the Mets have crawled to the outskirts of Wild Card contention with a solid week of play just as their injured troops are beginning to look like they're getting close to a return. After everything that's gone wrong since game seven of the 2006 NLCS; with the collapses and firings and controversies, is it so far-fetched that the Mets deserve a little good karma in August and September?

    They've been buried and counted out, but the names that may be returning over the next month----Billy Wagner, Jose Reyes, Carlos Beltran, Carlos Delgado and J.J. Putz----would be big-time acquisitions individually; how would they look to a team five or so games out of a playoff spot on the final sprint home?

    Stranger things have happened.

• Paul's Pulled Pork:

    I'm not getting enough attention other than my loyal, loyal, loyal (and much-appreciated) readers and those that are robbing me without giving me credit, so it's time for some expansionist measures.

    With that movie, Julia and Julia coming out and that Julie Powell getting a book contract and movie deal about her project/blog in cooking every recipe in Julia Child's book within a year, food stuff is in!!! And I doubt that Julie Powell is a better cook than me. Here's a few pics of my pulled pork that I cooked yesterday in the process of it being cooked. Maybe I can become the baseball/grillmaster genius of the 21st Century.

 Hour 1

 Hour 2

 Hour 3

 Hour 4

• Boston Red Sox:

     They held onto their most valued prospects and still managed to upgrade their lineup for "now and the future" (to paraphrase GM Theo Epstein as he tried to explain away the lack of movement in the lost year of 2006). Victor Martinez gives the Red Sox a power bat and built-in replacement for Jason Varitek behind the plate. The Red Sox are more equipped to carry Casey Kotchman's limited skills in their lineup better than the Braves could. 

•  Toronto Blue Jays:

     Believe it or not. 

    People keep going on about how they missed their opportunity to drastically improve by dealing Roy Halladay. GM J.P. Ricciardi's demands for Halladay were steep for a reason----they didn't have to trade him if they no one met those demands; no one did and they held onto Halladay, at least for now. Ricciardi managed to get rid of Scott Rolen before he got hurt again, dump his salary and get back an All-Star caliber player in Edwin Encarnacion and a couple of good arms.

    The stuff Ricciardi implied about Vernon Wells and Alex Rios becoming more productive next years sounds like he's into the patented Ricciardi self-preservation mode. I wouldn't expect anything from Wells for the duration of that atrocious contract; Rios is a salvageable talent. 

    Is is absurd for the Blue Jays to contend next year if Shaun Marcum, Dustin McGowan and Jesse Litsch all return to enter the rotation along with Halladay and Ricky Romero? No. They have a solid bullpen core and the lineup is good enough if they get the pitching. I'd still bring someone other than Ricciardi in if the club really wants to trade Halladay, but things could be a lot worse. 

• Philadelphia Phillies:

    They held onto their vaunted prospect Kyle Drabek and still managed to get a top-of-the-rotation starter in Cliff Lee. 

•  Detroit Tigers:

    I'm not the biggest Jarrod Washburn fan in the world and the Tigers needed bullpen help, but they upgraded their rotation and didn't give up a fortune to get it.

• Minnesota Twins:

    They got a rental with post-season experience and who's been playing up to his normal production recently in Orlando Cabrera and didn't give up anything to get him. They can reconfigure their infield a bit and are automatically better because their middle infield isn't a complete black hole anymore.

• Cleveland Indians:

    They cleared salary; loaded their organization with arms and a catching prospect; and have a history of turning things around fast when they do this. Don't be surprised to see the Indians being lauded for these moves two years from right now. 

• Seattle Mariners:

    They got Jack Wilson for pretty much nothing; got something for Jarrod Washburn and can always re-sign him in the off-season if they're so inclined. 

• Florida Marlins:

    Their offense and defense are drastically improved with Emilio Bonifacio moving into a utility role, Nick Johnson arriving to play first base and Jorge Cantu moving back to third.

• St. Louis Cardinals:

    They may have appeased Tony La Russa enough to get him to stay for another two years; Matt Holliday has done nothing but hit since he arrived and I think he's going to tell Scott Boras to make a deal with the Cardinals to stay no matter what. Mark DeRosa is a good hitter and hard nosed player who can play all over the field. 

• Chicago Cubs:

    They upgraded their pitching staff with John Grabow and Tom Gorzelanny for nothing.

• Los Angeles Dodgers:

    They still need rotation help and even though George Sherrill isn't that big a difference maker, he's another lefty and backup closer in case Jonathan Broxton's toe acts up again. The way Joe Torre manipulates (and overuses) his bullpen makes this a solid move. The playoffs require a deep and proven bullpen and Sherrill adds to that aspect from which Torre's championships emanated.

• San Francisco Giants:

    Their offense was atrocious and they were still hanging around the top of the Wild Card race (and only a hot streak away from reaching striking distance of the Dodgers in the division); anything they brought in would've been an upgrade. Ryan Garko and Freddy Sanchez make the team immediately better. 

• San Diego Padres:

    Again, believe it or not.

    The Padres finally got Jake Peavy's contract off their books and got some talent (I like that Clayton Richard) back. They were going to be terrible with Peavy, his contract and injury risk; they'll be terrible without Peavy, his contract and injury risk.

Losers at the deadline:

• Cincinnati Reds:

    They got a single A catcher for Jerry Hairston Jr and traded a young talent in Edwin Encarnacion and two pitchers for Scott Rolen. Rolen's injury-prone, making a lot of money and the Reds don't need him. Other than that, it was a good move.

• New York Yankees:

    They need another starting pitcher and didn't get it; instead, they settled for a utility player in Hairston who's not going to play.

• Kansas City Royals:

    They didn't get anything other than Josh Anderson and didn't dump that which needed to be dumped.

• Atlanta Braves:

    Adam LaRoche makes them a little better offensively, but not much. They needed bullpen help and didn't get it. They're talking about Tim Hudson as a reliever when he returns, so that might not be a bad idea and could solve the problem in-house.

• Houston Astros:

    My week-old assessment of their starting pitching not being good enough to contend is proving accurate and they didn't do anything to fix the problem; now Roy Oswalt is hurt too.

• Milwaukee Brewers:

    Claudio Vargas ain't gonna cut it.

• Texas Rangers:

    They're contending and have a load of prospects permeating the system. They needed pitching and didn't get it.

Incomplete:

• Pittsburgh Pirates:

    Who knows what the youngsters they acquired in the housecleaning will become? Might as well try something new.

• Chicago White Sox: