• You cannot do a full-scale rebuild in a big market town:

    That pompous, condescending clown Marty Noble offered the following as he answered questions from fans on Mets.com regarding the panic-stricken off-season:

A simple question: What would you have done this offseason if you were the Mets' general manager?
-- Russ J., Pequannock, N.J.

First I would have recognized that legitimately contending for a National League East championship in 2010 was unlikely, given the talent available in the free-agent market, the absence of a front-line catcher and questions involving Oliver Perez and Luis Castillo. And I would have acted accordingly.

But if contention in 2010 were the objective, I would have signed Matt Capps to set up Frankie Rodriguez, signed Jason Bay and made an early determination about Carlos Delgado. I would have opted to let him walk. Considering scouts' projections and the money the free-agent pitchers were seeking, I would have tried to sign one starter. My preferences, in descending order: Joel Pineiro, John Lackey (overpriced for a team with a suspect offense), Jason Marquis, Jon Garland, Ben Sheets, John Smoltz and Chien-Ming Wang. I would have pursued Bengie Molina, offering an option for a second year.

And I would have pursued trades for athletic Minor League outfielders.

I'm not sure all those moves would have been enough.

    This is pretty much why you never see a media genius running a club; why they can't run a club. The easiest thing in the world to say when a club has the struggles the Mets have had over the few years is "tear it down". This is what Mike Francesa continually said with his "break up 'da core" mantra; and this is what Noble appears to be saying in his response to that question. 

    I'm going to make this as clear as possible.

    Ignore the fact that none of these media members have any accountability; nor do they have the ability to run a club and recognize talent or lack of talent to begin with----push that to the side. The truth is that a team like the Mets; the Yankees; the Red Sox or any other club with a huge payroll and involved fan base cannot behave in the same way the Indians, Athletics, Pirates and Padres do. It can't happen.

    How would it look if the Mets were to suddenly turn around and tacitly (and inaccurately) admit that they have no chance to contend by doing as Noble suggests, signing pitchers who----aside from Lackey and Pineiro----wouldn't be much better than what the Mets already have or are coming off of injuries and have gigantic question marks surrounding them?

    If a club like the Mets, with a new stadium, coming off a horrible year and with a rabid and angry fan base, started in with a "rebuild" mantra; traded David Wright; Jose Reyes; Johan Santana; etc who's to say that what was coming back would even be worth the aggravation of doing it to begin with? If the Mets front office and scouting operation is under such fire because of the dearth of young players the minor league system is producing, are these "experts" expecting them to be able to do as the Marlins do and mine other clubs for their best prospects and have it work? 

    The Marlins are an exception to the "rebuild" strategy in that they do it again and again, are successful at it and win while doing it. The Indians have been able to deal their veterans and return to contention within a few years. Despite inept management, one would think that teams like the Pirates and Padres would've gotten enough bulk in their trades of veterans to formulate a team that could win more than 72 games; but they haven't. Nor does it hurt that teams like the above mentioned have fan bases that are willing to accept or don't care about such a purgatory of 2-3 years (or 20 like the Pirates) in which they can't expect more than mediocrity. Would Yankees, Red Sox and Mets fans accept that? In today's market in which every ticket sold is important? No chance.

    If you look at the patron saint of preemptive deals, Billy Beane, and you see that he's made some savvy decisions (Mark Mulder for Dan Haren); and other deals that blew up in his face (he got nothing of use from the youngsters he acquired from the Braves for Tim Hudson). Now that the Moneyball hangover is mercifully wearing off; that Beane is being scrutinized more closely for the work he's done instead of a false perception, it's obvious that his rebuilding efforts have fallen short, especially in the current incarnation of the Athletics. 

    Noble, Francesa, Joel Sherman and others come up with vague references for the Mets to make some "bold" moves; but what would the endgame be? Despite the struggles in recent years, are the Mets going to be so terrible that discussion of such a drastic reconstruction would be better than what they currently are? Could a team with the base of David Wright, Jose Reyes, Johan Santana, Francisco Rodriguez, Carlos Beltran, Jason Bay and Jeff Francoeur be expected to be so horrific that they all need to go?

    Then there are the other silly statements from Noble like Lackey is "overpriced for a club with a suspect offense"; what exactly are the Red Sox? Their offense isn't suspect? And the search for "athletic minor league outfielders"----what does that even mean? What is this obsession with athleticism? Drew Henson was athletic----the problem was he couldn't hit. Does Carlos Lee look athletic? Did John Kruk? The trend to search for "athletic" players is one of those floating terms that no one can define and has no practical meaning.

    If a team goes for improvement in the winter and sees no positive results from the decisions, then yes, at mid-season look to do something to bolster the future; but to simply clear the decks with the intent of somewhere, sometime contending in the future is ignoring the transient nature of acquiring youngsters to begin with. Sometimes they make it; sometimes they don't; and no GM can hit with every pick and assessment of prospects. What makes it worse is that the lack of accountability with these critics lets them say whatever they want without question regardless of non-existent expertise that just happens to have a high profile forum. 

•  Eric Byrnes vs Gary Matthews Jr:

    To stay on a Mets-centric theme for a moment, indulge me if you will in thinking about the difference between Eric Byrnes (signed by the Mariners days ago); and Gary Matthews Jr. (acquired via trade by the Mets a week ago).

    Putting aside what the respective clubs will be paying Byrnes and Matthews, is there is difference between the players and the evaluators that acquired them? 

    Byrnes and Matthews were overpaid for their results. Byrnes with $11 million coming to him (almost all paid by the Diamondbacks, who released him); and Matthews with $23 million coming for the next two years ($21.5 million being paid by the Angels). The money is irrelevant because that $1.5 million is chump change for the Mets. Neither player has performed well since signing their contracts; so what's the difference in perception?

    Has there been neverending ridicule of Mariners GM Jack Zduriencik for signing Byrnes for what will essentially be the same role as Matthews will play for the Mets? Similar to what's greeted the Mets in getting Matthews Jr. to be a stopgap/backup/emergency player in the absence of Carlos Beltran and if Angel Pagan falls on his face?

    Of course not.

    And why?

    Is it because Mets GM Omar Minaya has become a convenient scapegoat and target for writers to use for target practice and Zduriencik is considered the cold, calculating businessman as GM who uses scouting tools and stats to formulate his club?

    The reality is that neither player should be expected to contribute much to either team; but nor should they be taken as anything to be laughed at because everyone in both the Mariners and Mets organizations knows that they're only around because they're cheap and they might----however unlikely----serve a purpose.  

    It's another example of the perception that one organization doesn't know what it's doing and is savaged; and another supposedly does know what it's doing and receives a pass for making a nearly identical move that isn't going to make much of a difference in the club fortunes one way or the other.

• PECOTA's alterations:

    The adjustment of PECOTA from one set of predicted standings to another was odd enough; that they basically didn't acknowledge it as they changed it makes it curiouser. It's as if they're beginning to realize that their method of coming to conclusions is faulty on the surface as a rule and they're building a dam after their world has been decimated by flood waters from the overflowing river. 

    As much as the hard core stat zombies stand by PECOTA, they fail to acknowledge nor even realize that what PECOTA does is not analysis. It's numbers crunching. Nothing more. When taking a game that is played by humans and treating those humans as robots who perform in a certain way just because they've always done it in the past is a flaw they cannot comprehend.

    It takes no baseball knowledge nor analytical skills to look at a player as numbers on a pad. Anyone, whether they've ever watched baseball or know what a baseball is, can take the numbers that PECOTA relies upon and plug them into the algorithm (whether it's the "right" algorithm or not) and come up with a standings board. Is that something to be proud of even when it's close to being accurate? 

    One thing that Moneyball tried----and failed----to account for was the "human element". In fact, there's a chapter in the book with that very title. It's content is the story of Chad Bradford and how  a submarine style pitcher who in years past would've been little more than minor league filler became an important part of the A's bullpen and has fashioned a respectable major league career. Said "human element" tries to put a face on the numbers that were the genesis of the book----the "revolution" that Moneyball documented. 

    It's garbage.

    The human element is removed from PECOTA every time they come up with an excuse for their projections being wrong (from one day to the next apparently) as they claim as a caveat, "well, the player didn't reach his expected numbers". No kidding. That may be because he's a human being and can't be reasonably expected to do the same thing year-by-year, day-by-day because he's always done it before. 

    The real human element isn't found in Moneyball; nor is it found in PECOTA. The ignorance of Michael Lewis, who knows nothing about baseball, is clear as he tries to piece the puzzle together to defend his narrative against its inevitable downfall. The book is a farce not because it hasn't worked, but because it's not calculating the "human element"; in fact, it's trying to avoid it completely. 

    PECOTA and Moneyball advocates claim that they'd be better off if they never watched a baseball game to begin with and utilized objective factors rather than eyes and feel; and it's wrong. It takes no understanding, no knowledge, no nothing to plug numbers into a calculator or a computer and claim to know what one is talking about.

    If PECOTA's sudden adjustment in their numbers based on a supposedly faulty algorithm proves anything, it proves that. Remember, it was a human who plugged the numbers into the wrong formula to begin with, causing them to be redone.

    Do they understand that?

    Do they?

• Speaking of the "genius":

    Why is Billy Beane so intent on collecting no-hit, good-field outfielders?

    The Athletics are supposedly in "deep negotiations" with Gabe Gross.

    To do what?

    Gabe Gross is a fine defensive outfielder and, aside from a bolt from the blue hot streak shortly after he joined the Rays in 2008, has never been able to hit at all. What do the A's need him for?

    The A's are looking like a bizarre conglomeration of whatever's left available and Beane's reputation, still solid in certain circles, is saving him from an even greater number of bewildered looks at what he's doing. The team can't hit. They won't hit enough to account for the callow starting rotation even with a healthy Ben Sheets (an iffy proposition at best).

    If anything, there is an Oakland franchise that could use Gabe Gross for something----the Raiders. Gross was the starting quarterback for Auburn in college and the Raiders are hurting in that area. He'd be more use to them than he would be for the Athletics, that's for sure.

• Viewer Mail 1.31.2010:

Gabriel (Capo) writes RE PECOTA:

http://slidingintohome.blogspot.com/2010/01/pecota-picks-yanks-to-finish-3rd.html

This is the most I could do in a hurry. And they still bombed them. The A's in first is as unrealistic as the Jays in second.

Oh, and excellent Col. Nathan R. Jessep. 

    The link Gabriel provides sends you to the original PECOTA projections. Here are the refurbished ones----link. That's the thing about the internets, you can never get away from something you published no matter how hard you try. Ever.

    With the purposeful adjustment I made to the climactic scene in A Few Good Men yesterday, I never got a retort from Joe to let me know that he understood what I was doing. He might've thought I was simply yelling at him.

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

Sorry Damon fired off that last shot. I'm sure he wishes he could take it back.

    I can understand his hurt, but he needs to use some common sense. No one's to blame for his departure and shoddy job prospects other than Johnny Damon. Not the Yankees; not Scott Boras; Johnny Damon. Period.

Rob writes RE Damon, Randy Winn and the Yankees:

Hi, I just read your blog for the first time. Your attitude is refreshing among many Yankee fans and falls largely in line with my own. The reaction among Yankee fans to the Winn signing was really ridiculous. The sports shows didn't help matters by continually popping up side by side comparisons between Damon and Winn. This was really misleading. First of all Gardner and Winn will likely share playing time. The reality is that neither is directly replacing Damon. They may occupy his old field  position but in reality they are only replacing Melky Cabrera. Damon and Matsui we're replaced in the lineup a long time ago by Granderson and Johnson. Both are defensive upgrades in left field I might add.
   I also like those who say that Johnson can't hold a candle to Damon as a number two hitter. Johnson may not have Johnny's pop but getting 24 HR's out of you #2 hitter is a bonus not a prerequisite. A #2 hitter's job is to get on base and Johnson is among the best in baseball at that. As far as clogging the basepaths goes, Tex is not fleet of foot either and won't catch Nick if he has a headstart. Besides with Tex and a healthy
A-rod hitting behind him he may need to do little more than trot home much of the time.
  I think Cash did a great job this off season. Our pitching is deep, our lineup circular. He has also held the payroll in check to prepare for re-signing Jeter and Mo, not to mention next year's attractive free agent class (Carl Crawford please). Thanks for reading my babble...if you did.

    Thanks for reading. One thing I need to clear up that seems to be causing an unbelievable amount of confusion: I'm a METS FAN!!! I suppose it's a compliment that so many people believe that I'm a Yankee fan as it shows my objectivity when I write.

    With Johnson, his only issue has been health. Aside from his broken leg, there's always been some muscle pull or other malady that keeps him out of the lineup at a moment's notice. He's an inexpensive alternative to Damon and is an on-base machine. The Yankees did do a very good job this winter in filling their holes inexpensively and using necessary ruthlessness to cut the ties with Damon when he didn't want to sign for the initial contract offer.

    The whole Damon-Yankees thing might've emanated from a false belief on the part of the player and his agent that the Yankees adamant stance on not negotiating with him was a tactic rather than reality, and it cost him. A lot.

Kyle Johnson writes RE PECOTA:

I can't believe PECOTA didn't change their mind on the AL West predictions as well. I just don't see the Angels with the third worst record in the AL OR Oakland taking the western division.
WHAT-THE-HELL!?

    I don't truly believe that the people at PECOTA were sitting there and panicking because they were under such fire for their first projection. For what it's worth, I do believe that someone used the wrong formula.

    That said, the Angels have always been a club that's more than the sum of it's statistical parts; they win because they play the game the right way; rely on a deep pitching staff; and plug players into the right spots. Let me put it to you this way, without going into too much detail on my forthcoming book (I'm starting tomorrow): I wouldn't worry about the Angels this year and I wouldn't put much faith in PECOTA.

Michael Fierman writes RE Damon, Boras and Cashman:

"His abilities exceed the money that I have."

Honestly I think that was his way of throwing in Boras's face that in fact JD's abilities are not the ability level Boras is trying to sell. --just my take on it.

    I'm more of the belief that the Yankees set a price that they weren't----under any circumstances----going to go beyond for Damon. It was more coldblooded reality and money than any attempt to get back at Boras. The problem for Damon was that he didn't believe it.   

• Johnny Damon's anger begins to manifest itself:

    That didn't take long.

    The public facade of understanding and acceptance that the Yankees didn't value Johnny Damon's contribution to the club as much as Damon and Scott Boras did is gradually resulting in an anger that he's not going to get the big contract he expected. In fact, he's going to get a fraction of the Yankees final offer and he may have to go across the country to Oakland for a job. 

    Damon was classy in his initial interviews...until he popped out with the following nugget about Derek Jeter:

“I hope he is not offered a 45 percent pay cut.”

    Yah.

    Well.

    I have some news for Damon that might well come from Brian Cashman himself: Johnny, I work with Derek Jeter; Derek Jeter is a friend of mine. Johnny, you're no Derek Jeter.

    Did it occur to Damon that the Yankees offer to him was affected by the fact that they know they're going to have to pay Jeter after 2010 and need to save some space on the payroll? Or is he so oblivious to reality in his Boras-cage that he hasn't caught on? 

    Like Joe Mauer with the Twins, Derek Jeter is going nowhere. Ever.

    Johnny Damon----with his mercenary tendencies, high salary demands without leverage and reviled agent----was in no position to be so hardline with the amount of money he wanted. Blindly trusting the "process" as Boras and Cashman call it resulted in Damon leaving Boston when he didn't want to; and now the Yankees as well. The main difference is that when he left the Red Sox, he had a comfy and lucrative landing spot in New York; now he doesn't. Now he's about to land somewhere where everyone knows he doesn't want to be; somewhere where he'll either hope to be traded to a contender at mid-season, or to have a big enough year that he'll hope for a better economic climate and be able to cash in next winter with a large market club----like the Yankees.

    It's showing in his comments.

    This Derek Jeter silliness was the first in what will be a string of passive aggressive statements from Damon as he's poked and prodded by an all-too-eager press corps for something juicy to write about; something to create a fissure between the Yankees and Damon despite the "good terms" they're trying to maintain after this rejection.

    Who knows whether Damon has people whispering in his ear that he was done wrong by someone, be it the Yankees or Boras? Clearly, he's upset about the break, but he's more upset about the money; and even someone as spacey as Damon must realize somewhere deep inside that his trusted agent did him wrong; that he's screwed.

    It's understandable that he's going to utter these obvious messages. But he'd be better off either not doing the interviews at all or sticking to the generic ballplayer script that keeps them out of the papers or is more easily ignored. The Jeter comment wasn't opaque enough to explain away. What made it worse was that it was inaccurate and stupid. His handlers better rein him in because it's going to get worse as the winter rolls on.

• The change in tune from PECOTA:

    If you remember the 2010 PECOTA predicted standings from earlier in the week, they've now been changed. The bizarreness of the original predicted standings that had the Rays winning the AL East for example, was said to be because of a mistake in the algorithm they used to come to their conclusions.*

*Right there, the word "algorithm", should be a warning sign that they need to re-think how they interpret the game.

    My suggestion to the good people at PECOTA (and I'm being dead serious about this) is they would've been better off leaving their predicted standings as they were. Changing them now under fire is a sign of weakness even if there actually was a mistake in the algorithm. Their increasing panic will be even more evident at the decision to make the adjustment. Their method of assessment is dying anyway, why exacerbate it with desperation and alterations?

    And I'm still moving forward with my bombing campaign. There's no saving them now.

• My own contradictions:

    As concerned as I am about Tim Lincecum's small stature and his durability, it occurred to me after re-reading my posting from yesterday that I discussed the horrendous mistake the Dodgers made in underestimating the determination of Pedro Martinez to transcend his limited physicality and become one of the best pitchers of this generation----just as Lincecum is on his way to doing. 

    I'm still concerned about Lincecum's size; his quirky exercise regimen and whether he can maintain his stuff into his late 20s and early 30s; but as with Pedro, perhaps it's better to focus on the artistry of unique beauty he crafts with his natural gifts and ignore dogmatic and perceived limitations as the Dodgers did with Pedro----much to their regret. 

• Viewer Mail 1.30.2010:

Jeff (Street Boss) at Red State Blue State writes RE PECOTA:

Dear PECOTA,

You're full of shit.

The Oakland A's are gonna win the West with 87 wins? The White Sox will have a losing record? The Yankees will miss the playoffs?

At least two thirds of the above predictions are as sound as Carlos Silva is reliable.

Sincerely,
Me

    It's hilarious that they altered their projections. If anyone has a copy of the original somewhere, please send it to me. Are they hoping that we're still in the halcyon days of people simply accepting their nonsense as sacrosanct? Moneyball is over, my good stat zombies; the end of days is coming; and along with it, carnage and destruction.

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

Go get those PECOTA people and make them recant - and maybe even watch a baseball game or two.

    They've already recanted. Forgive me if I don't accept their change-of-heart and react with sympathy. I know not the meanings nor the significance of the words "sorrow" or "pity". The die is cast.

Joe at Statistician Magician writes RE PECOTA:

Do you have proof that you beat PECOTA last year? Actual, wins and losses proof? Pecota looks off this year, no doubt, I don't disagree with that. I just want proof!

    YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE PROOF!!!

    Son, we live in a world that has walls, and those walls have to be guarded by men with skills; men without fear.

    Who's gonna do it?

    You?

    I have a greater responsibility than you could possibly fathom. You weep for PECOTA and hype up your out-of-context stats; you have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know.

    And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives. You don't want the truth because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you WANT me on that wall, you NEED me on that wall. We use words like honor, code, loyalty. We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. 

    I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to the stat zombies who alter their beliefs and perceptions based on what's convenient to try and save themselves; what's the safest and most expedient way to protect their faulty and collapsing revolution.

    I would rather you just said thank you, and went on your way. Either way, I do not give a DAMN what you want!!!

    (You can find the "proof" you seek here if you scroll down and click the links under the bulletpoint "The Prince vs PECOTA". That should occupy you for much of the day.)

John Seal writes RE the Athletics:

Be gentle, big guy. You and I both know the A's aren't going to win the AL West...let me down easy, okay?

    Not a believer in PECOTA, John? I never pegged my West Coast spiritual adviser as a member of the stat zombie cult anyway----and I'm pleased.

    Why don't you join Twitter? You'll be able to enjoy my hilarious #fakebillybeanequotes and more!! Plus you get official, public recognition as a made member of the Prince of New York Family. Upward mobility is prevalent and based on quality of work and loyalty. I'm a benevolent Boss.    

• Peter Gammons may have lost more than his fastball:

    I'm not going to sit here in judgment of someone who came as close to dying as Peter Gammons did with his brain aneurysm in 2006. One who hasn't experienced such a thing has no right to interpret what that does to a person's perspective. On the other hand, it doesn't allow for impunity. When Gammons is off on a relentless and somewhat strange crusade to defend one party and inadvertently disparage another, it has to be addressed.

    Such is the case with the neverending stories of why the Red Sox allowed Jason Bay to depart without so much as a fight.

    I've long said that Gammons has lost his fastball as a reporter and this was happening even before he was stricken ill. Never one to take cheap shots and known for getting his stories by cozying up to players and management and not going over-the-top in criticism even when it was justified, Gammons used his likability to break stories as they were happening. That said, Gammons was a slo-pitch softballer long before the embarrassing interview with Alex Rodriguez. I can remember the lollipops he flung at John Rocker at the height of the silly, nonsensical, WWE-style antics that eventually got Rocker bounced from baseball because of his attitude and baggage----helped along that he couldn't get anyone out anymore.

    This makes it even more puzzling that he seems intent on defending the Red Sox for their conscious decision to walk away from Bay; and I have a question: What is his problem? 

    Never mind that he's got an unexplained lust for Theo Epstein; never mind that the Red Sox decision was made in part because they didn't want to pay Bay and in part because the voices in the organization seemed to be reluctant to move forward with the offense-first philosophy; there was an air of hesitation to keep Bay as if the club was a groom whose wedding date was rapidly approaching and they were looking for a way out by any means necessary. There's nothing wrong with a club making a choice to go in a different direction; but what's with all these leaks that are making Bay look like he's going to be in wheelchair before May is out? 

    Read the transcript from Gammons's interview on The Big Show and you'll see where this is going; how it seems that Gammons's connection to the Red Sox  has clouded any attempt at objectivity. The relevant quote follows (Gammons's answers are italicized):

What was happening with the Jason Bay situation, with the Red Sox requesting surgery as a condition of the contract?

No they didn’t do that though. Joe Urbon also said no. They said there is a possibility that you might need surgery if this thing gets any worse. They didn’t tell him he had to have surgery, that wasn’t a condition.

So what happened with Jason Bay and the Red Sox?

They wanted him, but they were scared to death of his knees. I never got the impression from either side, from his agents or his club, that the shoulder was that big of a deal. But they were really afraid of both knees and that’s why they dropped the offer from four years to two years.

Somebody said to me, “Gee, there was only one team that went after him the Mets.” I said, “Yeah, you don’t think that the Angels have requested MRIs? You don’t think the Mariners have requested? They weren’t in on him either.”

The Mets were the only team in on Jason, which is unfortunate because he played his heart out for that team. He’s a great guy but there were serious physical concerns that were there, and Dr. Gill thought it was a tremendous risk to giving him a four-year contract without any questions. John Lackey went with [a contract with conditions] and JD Drew went with it.

Bay’s people made it sound like the Red Sox doctors were the only ones who felt that way about the physical.

Yeah, but again, and I have great respect for [Red Sox team physician, Dr.] Tom Gill, the other opinions they had there were questioned by the agent. It’s a he-said, she-said. The fact is Tom Gill was very afraid of it, as were the other orthopedics at Mass General, and when the club studied it they said they didn’t want to guarantee four years.

    It's "unfortunate" that the Mets were the only team in on Bay? Is Citi Field a gulag? Have things dwindled to Pittsburgh Pirates-like lows with the club that no one wants to play for the Mets under any circumstances anymore, nor should they? What does that comment mean?

    This whole thing brings to mind the main reason that Pedro Martinez was traded from the Dodgers to the Expos (for Delino DeShields!!!): Tommy Lasorda thought Pedro was too small to make it as a starter long-term and doctors thought he'd break down.

    How'd that work out?

    Not only did Pedro become one of the top three pitchers of this generation, but it lit a fire under him to shove it to Lasorda and the Dodgers-----and he did it.

    Why is there this campaign to defend the Red Sox for letting Bay leave? It's as if the stories are being planted in a friendly ear like Gammons to justify and explain away the coming season before it even starts in case things spiral downward because of a change from power to pitching and defense on the part of the club.

    Why?

    What difference does it make now? The Red Sox claim they wanted Bay back, but made an offer knowing that the Mets would offer him more money and the four guaranteed years that Bay wanted. Like grasping for an outlet, the diagnosis of the team doctors being "scared to death" of Bay's knees gave them the escape hatch to do what they clearly wanted to do to start with and didn't know how to get it done----let Bay leave; sign John Lackey, Mike Cameron and Adrian Beltre, and try a different strategy.

    And there's nothing wrong with that.*

*There will be once the season is underway and the fans get a load of the new look, moderately punchless Red Sox and they fall too far behind the Yankees to catch them before they make a desperation move to remedy the problem, but that's neither here nor there.

    Drumming up a mob mentality in the "wag the dog" style is easy. There will be numbers and results to salve the wounds of the club and their fans if things go wrong, but people who think rationally will know the truth.

    Gammons and others have this affinity for Epstein and the Red Sox that's baffling. No one wants to criticize them when they do wrong or make a mistake. How many times has the club been trying to pull off "shock the world" three and four team trades with the clock winding down? They've managed it several times; other times they've been left sitting there looking like the kid caught with his finger jammed up his nose.

    Because of the club's success in the Epstein era, they've been shielded from much criticism, they certainly don't need someone who like Gammons, who has had a wonderful Hall of Fame career, providing alibis for them as if he's their one-man PR crew defending them before the fact. The more these stories come out, the more it looks like the Red Sox want Bay to get hurt; they want the Mets to collapse; not for any reason other than that it will build a fortress around their own questionable decisions this winter. It's going to get worse if the Mets are playing well and Bay is hitting and things in Boston don't go according to the computer model for the Red Sox. 

    Are we going to hear about this all winter? It's done; it's over; and the Red Sox won't let it go. The choice was made. Move along. The season's going to be here before we know it; then the games will be played on the field and the accuracy of the Red Sox doctors and the reality of the Mets decision to pay Bay will be seen in action. Maybe he'll break down; maybe he'll be an MVP candidate for the Mets. We won't know nor will we be able to judge until after the fact. This smear campaign is so transparent, it's sickening; and I expected better from a Hall of Famer like Peter Gammons.

• Where would we be without PECOTA:

    Our good friends at Baseball Prospectus have come out with their projected 2010 standings based on PECOTA. Since they did so well last year, of course it makes sense to take this with absolute seriousness. Here's PECOTA's 2009 projections if you'd like to judge----link.

    Nate Silver's "brilliance" at numbers crunching is based on little more than his pick of the Rays to improve drastically in 2008. Yeah. He had them winning 82 games; my non-stat zombie approach had them winning 76. But I was lucky in that prediction. Similarly to other calls from 2009 that few others had (the Marlins, Giants, Rays, etc.), but they had the numbers that justified their predictions even if they were flat out wrong and explained them away. It's luck, right? 

    That makes sense.

    Be that as it may, here are the 2010 projected standings.

    I'm not commenting now. Others are doing fine on their own. My response/retaliatory strikes are in the planning stages and will be begun in earnest on Monday in my bunker. (Knock at your own risk.) Suffice it to say I will again lay waste to PECOTA with my relentless, coordinated and precise attacks.

    What the unfathomable belief in PECOTA's accuracy despite practical evidence to the contrary is doing is reminding me of the scene in The Empire Strikes Back as Darth Vader responds to the incompetence of an inept underling by saying:

He is as clumsy as he is stupid.

General, prepare your troops for a surface attack.

    You don't need to be told the fate of the "clumsy" and "stupid" party in that case.

    I'm PECOTA's and the stat zombies' personal Dark Lord of the Sith.

    Except I'm worse.

• Johnny Damon and his fans have one person to blame...

    And that one person is Johnny Damon.

    For every Yankee fan having an irrational conniption fit over the loss of Johnny Damon and overreacting to the signing of Randy Winn as an extra outfielder, Damon and only Damon is responsible for his second career departure from a venue which he never wanted to leave in the first place.

    When he left the Red Sox after 2005, he got his money from the Yankees; now that he's been kicked out the door by the Yankees because of agent Scott Boras's unreasonably high asking price for a increasingly one-dimensional 36-year-old, Damon's fans are seeking someone to blame and the easiest target for the expression of their rage is the despised agent, Boras; but is Damon totally absolved from what his agent says and does? Is Damon such a brainless automaton that he simply spouts the company line echoed by too many athletes who have neither the capacity nor the willingness to take responsibility for themselves? 

    Scott Boras has a job: get the highest amount of money possible for his clients. His tactics are sometimes underhanded in using (at best) flexibility with the truth; or (at worst) outright lies. If Damon wanted to stay with the Yankees, he had a responsibility----not a right, a responsibility----to tell his agent to get the deal done no matter what; or he could've done what Alex Rodriguez did after his ill-advised opt-out during the 2007 World Series and circumvented Boras to get a deal done with the Yankees. 

    ARod is smarter than Damon; ARod had people around him telling him that he had to go against his agent/father-figure to do what was best for his career; and ARod managed to get another contract of nearly $300 million. Damon is not on a level with ARod on the field and he's certainly not in ARod's realm of intelligence. 

    None of this is an excuse. 

    For those looking to blame someone for Damon's departure from the Yankees, Boras, Brian Cashman and Hank Steinbrenner are tempting, though unrealistic, parties. The Yankees are obviously serious about not overspending; about not getting into bidding wars against themselves for players they can take or leave; and had a contingency plan in place if Damon stayed in lockstep with his agent. It's the end of January; how long were they supposed to wait for Damon to come to a decision before making a move? 

    The Yankees bargained in what appears to be good faith with Damon and Boras. In reading the following clip from the NY Times, I only believe every single word Cashman said:

On Dec. 18, after Nick Johnson agreed to a one-year, $5.5 million deal, Damon said in a text message that the Yankees had offered two years and $14 million, and that he had wanted two years and $20 million.

Boras said Wednesday that it was not an offer, because the Yankees told him they needed to hear from Johnson first. He added that the Yankees never called him to ask for an offer until after they had given one to Johnson, a contention Cashman disputed.

“On Dec. 17, Scott’s exact words were that he would not take a penny less than $13 million a year for two years,” Cashman said. “We believed him.”

    The Yankees weren't messing around; and unlike the case with ARod, Hank Steinbrenner had no intention of deviating from the budget or being "flexible" to keep a Boras client who'd made a giant mistake; and truth be told with all due respect to Damon, he's no ARod.

    Now Johnny Damon is really screwed. Where's he going?

    The Rays? They can use him, but don't have much money; the locale is perfect for him since he lives in Orlando, but he's going to have to take a fraction of the money he would've made had he agreed to rejoin the Yankees.

    The Athletics? Do you believe for a second that Damon wants to: A) go all the way across the country to play in the Bay Area; B) for a team that's not going to pay him; and C) join an A's team that, quite frankly, is iffy to contend?

    It could be that the best course for Damon and Boras would be to sit out for the first couple of months and see if someone gets hurt for a contending club and they give him a call a la Roger Clemens/Pedro Martinez. (If it's the Yankees, be prepared for a Suzyn Waldman meltdown of freaky/disturbing derangement.)

    As of right now, he's painted himself into a corner and it's not in the cage built by his superagent. He wasn't forced into it; he walked in willingly; and for that he has no one to blame but one person----Johnny Damon.

• And what of Randy Winn?

    Even the more rational Yankee fan panicked at not simply losing Damon, but at his "replacement". (Of course there were the coldly rational Yankee fans who saw things as they were and reacted accordingly----link.) Others freaked out once they saw Randy Winn's weak numbers from last year. 

    It was overt and unnecessary. 

    Despite Winn's poor 2009, he's been a historically good player who hits from both sides of the plate; he's good defensively and can handle all three outfield positions; he can run; has some pop; and is a quiet, stand-up guy. Yankee fans will come to appreciate his hustling, all-around style of play once they get a regular look at him.

    And here's a flash: he's not going to be playing all that much unless someone gets hurt or Brett Gardner falls flat on his face. Winn was brought in as a fourth outfielder/insurance----no more, no less. Gardner is clearly going to get a chance to win the job in left field; Winn is a respectable back-up plan and, as I said before, the Yankees can fill an outfield hole at mid-season (David DeJesus or possibly Damon) if needed. Winn will be a defensive replacement for Nick Swisher and get an outfield start twice a week. That's around 250-300 at bats. He's fine for that and a good pickup for the Yankees.

• More context for the Mets:

    Before anything else, I want it made clear that while I'm openly a Mets fan, I'm not a Mets fan who sees rainbows at every turn and is positive to the point of needing to be committed to a lunatic asylum (I may need that for other reasons, but that's neither here nor there). If anything is a testimony to this fact, you need only look at my predicted standings from last year for my objectivity on this matter. 

    Because the Mets still had that lingering hangover from the prior two years of failure on the last days of both seasons; and that they still didn't "feel" right despite their acquisitions to shore up the bullpen, I couldn't rightfully pick them to make the playoffs even though they were the odds on favorites in the National League.

    Now, they've become fodder for ridicule. No one is sparing them the vicious sword and Mets fans have become so beaten down by the last three years that they've either joined the bashing or sit quietly by without protest.

    And it's enough.

    To put things into context, in 2007, the Mets were the favorites in the National League to build on their game 7 loss in the 2006 NLCS and bust through to win the whole thing. There's something interesting to have a look at though.

    Here's the Mets starting rotation from 2007: Tom Glavine; John Maine; Oliver Perez; Orlando Hernandez; and a cast of thousands in the fifth slot.

    Here's the Mets lineup from spring 2007: C-Paul LoDuca; 1B-Carlos Delgado; 2B-Javier Valentin; 3B-David Wright; SS-Jose Reyes; LF-Moises Alou; CF-Carlos Beltran; RF-Shawn Green

    Digest that for a second.

    That team with that lineup and starting rotation was the favorite in the National League.

    Now here's the Mets projected 2010 starting rotation: Johan Santana; John Maine; Mike Pelfrey; Oliver Perez; Fernando Nieve/Jon Niese.

    And the lineup: C-Omir Santos; 1B-Daniel Murphy; 2B-Luis Castillo; 3B-David Wright; SS-Jose Reyes; LF-Jason Bay; CF-Carlos Beltran; RF-Jeff Francoeur.

    Aside from the floating piñata or the convenient punching bag the Mets have become, the teams---one that was a World Series favorite; and another that's considered to be a disaster----are almost identical.

    What's the difference between then and now?

    In 2007, the Mets were one inning away from the World Series six month earlier; a World Series they would've won. 

    In 2010, the Mets are coming off a season that was a train wreck. No team anywhere could have withstood the injuries that hit the Mets last season. Nowhere, no how. I don't care if it was the Yankees and Red Sox with their money and farm systems; the Cardinals with the strategic wizardry of Tony La Russa; the A's with the "genius" in the front office; the Dodgers with Joe Torre----each and every one of those teams would've fallen to 72-90 or worse.

    The avalanche was compounded by the allegations of medical missteps and the communication failures of GM Omar Minaya. The sense of ineptitude became a cause unto itself with everyone jumping onboard to kick and torture the wounded animal. 

    Is it logical?

    Is it fair?

    Is the Mets starting rotation worse than that of the Phillies? The Phillies, whose back-end has Jamie Moyer penciled in?

    Everyone has an agenda in attacking the Mets. The Yankee fans think it's hysterical even though I've been told privately by a large segment of them, in a conspiratorial whisper, "Look, we know how good the Mets should've been last year; what happened to them was ridiculous."

    Phillies fans think it's a great joke. I guess they got tired of cheering at the possibility of Michael Irvin's paralysis.

    Stat zombies----Keith Law, Rob Neyer----tear into them because they want to get one of their "own" into the Mets front office. With Billy Beane teetering in Oakland, it's repeatedly suggested that he or Sandy Alderson take over the Mets. 

    The leeches in the media----Joel Sherman----savage the Mets without providing rational solutions to what supposedly "ails" them.

    And the others----the true bottom feeders like Buster Olney----attack, attack, attack because they have neither the skills nor the ingenuity to formulate a coherent thought on their own.

    Of course it's unfair. But it's easy and it's fun. 

    The truth is this Mets team, if healthy and without another move, has enough talent to jump right back into contention. The club is reeling; they've been tormented so completely that the above mentioned "experts" are rubbing their hands together with glee at the pending collapse.

    A cornered animal is most dangerous. I expect the Mets to come out swinging with both fists. Then we'll see who's right and who's wrong.

• Viewer Mail 1.28.2010:

Jane Heller at Confessions of a She-Fan writes RE the Hall of Fame:

I hope Mussina gets into the Hall. Not that I'm in any way prejudiced!

    I have to believe that Mike Mussina will get in. Not on the first ballot unless it's a weak, weak class, but he's a Hall of Famer.

Becca writes RE Tom Glavine:

I was the one who left the comment about Glavine/Smoltz/Mussina/Schilling.

I agree that Glavine should be in the Hall. However, out of those four, he is the most borderline to me, though I agree with you that the "total package of durability and success" means he should be there.

If he was a control/finesse pitcher, then he should have struck out some more guys and, probably more importantly, walked a bunch less. He had arguably one of the greatest control/finesse pitchers of all time, Maddux, pitching alongside him for many years. Then again, I don't think "well, he wasn't as good as Greg Maddux" is really an argument that proves much, so yeah. Heh. I do think it's fair to mention strikeouts. In general, good strikeout pitchers are good pitchers (though let's not pretend Glavine wasn't a much, much better strikeout pitcher than most pitchers can hope to be) and Glavine's K/BB ratio is a liiiiittle ordinary...

As for the Cy Young argument, he should have won in 1991, but Glavine's 1998 Cy Young should have gone to Maddux or Kevin Brown. I'm not gonna list the stats here, but look 'em up.
Glavine had an awesome season that was definitely Cy-worthy - this wasn't the embarrassment of giving Bartolo Colon the award in 2005 - but two other guys just had better seasons. But clearly, the only reason he won that award was because he had the arbitrary 20 wins and the other guys didn't.

As for Cone, I think he belongs in the Hall of Very Good (same with Hershiser). He was a great pitcher, but he didn't pitch 3000 innings throughout his career and he obviously didn't have, like, ridiculous Sandy Koufax numbers. But he had a really good career that he can be very proud of.

    Glavine's modus operandi was to never give in to the hitters. He'd rather walk them when he fell behind in the count and hope for a double play than to throw a fat pitch and risk giving up a bomb. You can't argue with his success in doing that. The walks were a strategic pothole that he worked his way around. I have to look at John Smoltz's gamelogs to get a better gauge on his position as an "automatic". It's possible that the Braves sometimes shoddy bullpen cost him something on his win totals.

    In Colon's Cy Young year, Mariano Rivera deserved the award and got screwed. We may be seeing a change in the way the awards are doled out as Tim Lincecum didn't have the flashy win total, but deserved the award and won it.

    Had Hershiser not blown out his shoulder, he's be in the Hall of Fame right now. That he returned as a different pitcher and used his brain, determination and experience to still win gets him into the outskirts of the conversation even though he's not a Hall of Famer.

    On a note about Becca's comment, she added some WAR stats that I snipped out. You can feel free to cite stats with me, but in many instances, I tend to Z.O.N.E.O.U.T. when confronted with out-of-context numbers. I run my unit how I run my unit, taking everything into account including numbers and my powerful green eyes.

Jeff (Underboss) at Red State Blue State writes RE the HOF:

While I'm enjoying the debate on these fine pitchers, let us not lose sight of the real harrowing issue here: Schilling's bloody sock is in the Hall of Fame.

If ever there were a publicity stunt designed to make everyone focus on one rat-turd of a man, that was it. Schilling's pissy attitude was one thing, but creating that whole bloody sock thing to promote HIMSELF -- oh gee, imagine that -- was way out there and in my opinion, unforgivable.

Your ankle hurts? It's a little bloody? A little sore? Fine. Grow a pair and go about your business, pal, like every other man who plays the game and gives it his all. No need to go blab to the media about.

Schilling was a great pitcher and I respect that, but as a human he always reminds me of the BASEKETBALLS character "Lil Bitch".

I would so pay to see Mitch Williams kick his ass.

    I've been open in casting an askance gaze at the dubious nature of the bloody sock. With most pitchers, no one would consider such a think to be phony; but with Schilling, it simply seems like something he'd do. 

    Ah, Mitch Williams. He never hid his feelings for Curt Schilling after the 1993 World Series ("It wouldn't have been a problem because I would've kicked his ass.")

    "Here's a guy" (thanks Harold Reynolds) who's a winner on the MLB Network.

Gabriel (Capo) writes RE Orel Hershiser:

I saw Hershiser on the Indians-Marlins world series in '98. I admired his poise and his attitude, although my aunt told me his prime was past, when Valenzuela was his teammate and they made a hell of a 1-2 punch.

I support the small Hall of Fame. Most baseball players are famous, some are good, some are superstars, but only a tiny slice should be considered heroes, and only a very tiny slice of them should be considered legends. To me, the Hall of Fame is a place of legends, and Cone, Hershiser and Pettite are not legends, but they surely are heroes. I don't know about Smoltz, because of the three aces, he's the one with the "weakest" numbers, but he had some versatility. I think I'd vote for him. Glavine and Mussina are legends, and they should get in. I'll comment on Schilling tomorrow.

    No one who didn't witness Hershiser's devastation firsthand in real time in 1988 can appreciate what it was he did as he carried the Dodgers on his back to the World Series.

    The problem with the call for a "small" Hall of Fame is the unfairness that would be prevalent by scaling back the criteria. Once X player get in, how can you leave out Y player? You can't without it becoming even more capricious in excluding those that were better than players who are currently enshrined. Besides, it makes for some interesting arguments.

John Seal writes RE Billy Beane:

Hey Prince,

If the A's have an extra ten million to flush down the loo, why the heck not sign Bed Sheets? It gets the fans excited (hey, look! I'm excited!), theoretically takes some of the pressure off the Verducci Effect twins (Anderson and Cahill), and will provide a tempting target for contending teams come June/July, when Josh Outman (love this guy, and he wears his socks right!) returns from the DL. Assuming of course Sheets isn't on the DL himself by then...and if he is, so what, it's only somebody else's money!

    It's not just the money that perplexes me; it's that they agreed in the contract that they wouldn't offer him arbitration to get the first round pick after the season. Supposedly, because he missed all of 2009, it's highly unlikely that he'd be designated as worthy of a first rounder, but still, what if he goes 18-8? It's hard to see happening, but with his stuff, it's certainly possible.

    Sheets is worth a shot, but that's a lot of guaranteed money and they're on the hook for all of it if he gets hurt---a 50/50 proposition. Beane's getting desperate and it shows. This team literally can't hit either. With that young pitching, they might be really good----or superbad. Beane's all in now because he might be on the way out in Oakland depending on his new strategy that doesn't appear to be a strategy at all.

• Desperation breeds bewilderment:

    On the surface, the Athletics signing of Ben Sheets is a worthwhile risk, but for a guaranteed $10 million? Did Lewis Wolff have a load of money burning a hole in his bottom line that he's willing to run the risk of Sheets's extensive injury history spiraling into money directly down the toilet? And is he so enamored of Billy Beane's faltering "genius" that he's going to continue to let him do whatever he wants no matter how off the wall it seems?

    Sheets has wonderful stuff and for an incentive-laden deal the type of which the A's used to cash in on regularly----Frank Thomas for example----he'd be a great idea, but a guaranteed $10 million before he even sets foot on a mound? And how much is he realistically going to help the Athletics even if he comes close to repeating his work in 2008----far from a certainty, and in fact, highly unlikely? 

    Let's just say that Sheets is suddenly able to deliver 180 innings and 28 starts; then what? The Athletics are in a very, very rough division with a young starting rotation that could take the next step or take three steps back from a solid final two months of 2009. Hypothetically, even if the A's get decent performances from the young starters; a repeat of the bullpen work from last year; and the defense they expect from their reconfigured and punchless lineup; what are they? 

    Can they hang with the Mariners and their devastating 1-2 punch of Felix Hernandez and Cliff Lee? 

    Can they hit with the Rangers? 

    Can they find ways to win regardless of circumstances and departures like the Angels? 

    Even if everything goes right for the A's----the starting rotation blossoms; Sheets is healthy; Justin Duchscherer is functioning mentally and physically; and their defense accounts for their inability to hit----they're at best a second place team and a non-contender for a playoff spot. The chance of all these things coming together in a fortunate confluence of events is so far in outer space that the money they've spent on Sheets is only going to be worth it if he: A) is healthy enough to be deemed worthy of a first round pick when he leaves via free agency after the year; or B) they can trade him for top prospects at mid-season. 

    Aside from that, the A's are throwing darts (and money) at the wall because they've been so universally rejected by the likes of Marco Scutaro this winter. They're also after Johnny Damon.Why? Because he fits into the new emphasis on defense? Also, how bad does the decision to bring Jack Cust back as the DH at $2.6 million look when Jim Thome just signed with the Twins for a $1.5 million base? Who would you rather have? Cust or Thome? With Thome costing a million bucks less? 

    Billy Beane's getting desperate; as he examines his failures of the past three years, the "genius" monicker is gone and he's now reduced to overpaying to get a pitcher in Sheets who didn't pitch last year and hasn't been completely healthy since 2004. That's six years ago. 

    Can a miracle happen? Can the Athletics leap into contention with this Scotch taped and flawed roster in the rough AL West? Can they hang for a playoff spot with the Red Sox and Twins in the American League? Yes. But it would be a miracle; and one of the things that Beane's "genius" and cold objectivity was supposed to avoid was the need for divine intervention; but it's becoming increasingly clear that the presence of a deity wearing an A's hat is the only thing that could save them now.

    Maybe they should've tried harder to keep Grant Desme.

    They're going to need him now if not for his ability to hit, but for his piety and maybe to take confession and forgive Beane for his baseball related sins.

    Even if it's too late.

• Mets fans are getting more than antsy:

    Hours after the Sheets news came out, another target of affection for Mets fans, Jon Garland, was signed by the bargain-basement and last place bound San Diego Padres. Apparently, the Mets were never all that far in with Garland and understandably, the Sheets money was too rich for the Mets to roll the dice. Are Mets fans right in getting upset for these decisions?

    If Sheets was going to cost around $7.5 million guaranteed and the club had to offer incentives to push it up to $12 million or so (which they gladly would've paid if Sheets reached them), then yes, go for it; but for a guaranteed $10 million? No way.

    As for Garland, yes, at least you know what you're getting from him; but performance-wise, I don't think it's out of line for the Mets to believe they can get what Garland would provide from a combination of Jon Niese, Fernando Nieve and John Smoltz. (I'd avoid Jarrod Washburn.)

    What's upsetting Mets fans more than anything isn't the "losing out" on these questionable pitchers, but the lack of movement. People are forgetting that they did make a big move in getting Jason Bay; and it would be literally impossible for everything that went wrong in 2009 to again go wrong in 2010. 

    Trust me when I say that the non-signings of Jon Garland and Ben Sheets aren't going to be the difference between a drastic turnaround for the club and third place. The key for the Mets is the health of their core players and getting something from Oliver Perez. 

    One thing I believe the Mets do need to do is to sign a veteran, defensive catcher to handle the pitching staff. Yorvit Torrealba is sitting out there; won't cost all that much and the Mets can't go into the season with Omir Santos as their regular catcher. They need a veteran to nurture the pitching staff and Torrealba is the guy.

• This is a strange strategy:

    Here's a clip from MLBTradeRumors.com about the Phillies plan for Jose Contreras:

Colorado GM Dan O'Dowd told (Troy) Renck he was "surprised" when Jose Contreras signed with Philadelphia.  O'Dowd said the Rockies wanted to use Contreras out of the bullpen while the Phillies offered him a chance to start.  Interestingly, Phillies manager Charlie Manuel said today (as reported by Todd Zolecki of MLB.com) that Contreras will only start during spring training and will be a reliever by Opening Day.

    What possible sense does it make to use a pitcher who's been a starter his whole career; is an emotional and shaky acquisition to begin with; and use him as a starter in the spring only to stick him in the bullpen when the season starts? How is he supposed to prepare to get loose quickly as a reliever sometimes must do if he's prepping as a starter for six weeks in the spring? How's that supposed to work? And are they expecting Contreras to be effective doing this? (That's contingent on the false belief that he's going to be effective to begin with.)

    What's going on in Philadelphia? Have they really lost their minds on how to run a club and handle players?

• Why use five words when you can use thirty?
  

    Does Brian Cashman listen to himself when he speaks? Here's his quote on Johnny Damon:

"His abilities exceed the money that I have."

    How about simply saying, "I can't afford him,"? Or would that make Cashman sound less like an android and more like a human being? Good grief.

•  Viewer Mail 1.27.2010:

Joe at Statistician Magician writes RE John Smoltz:

Smoltz and Schilling were better than Hershiser.

    Joe, what did I tell you about the technical jargon-filled, long-winded comments?

    Orel Hershiser, in his prime and healthy from 1984-1989, was better than both Curt Schilling and John Smoltz. You can quote all the stats you want basing your one sentence non-analysis on whatever, but I saw all three and Hershiser, on his game, was almost unhittable and a stone cold killer. 

Anonymous writes RE: Smoltz:

Schilling and Mussina were both better than Glavine. Smoltz probably was too. But of all those guys, Glavine's considered the biggest lock of them all because of the ~magical~ 300 wins stat. I'm not trying to say that Glavine was anything other than an extremely good pitcher, but that's just kind of sad when you look at their stats.

Glavine:
3.54 ERA, 118 ERA+, 4413.1 IP, 2607 K, 5.3 K/9, 1.74 K/BB, 1.314 WHIP.

Mussina:
3.68 ERA, 123 ERA+, 3562.2 IP, 2813 K, 7.1 K/9, 3.58 K/BB, 1.192 WHIP.
(He put up these numbers while spending his entire career in the AL East.)

Schilling:
3.45 ERA, 127 ERA+, 3261 IP, 3116 K, 8.6 K/9, 4.38 K/BB, 1.137 WHIP.

Smoltz:
3.33 ERA, 125 ERA+, 3743 IP, 3084 K, 8 K/9, 3.05 K/BB, 1.176 WHIP.

After Glavine, Smoltz is the most borderline of those, because a lot of those numbers got prettier because he worked as a reliever. However, for ten years, he was still very very solid as a starter (3.29 ERA, 124 ERA+, 1.174 WHIP).

When Schilling is eligible for the Hall, I predict that the articles defending/dismissing him will reach, like, an all-time stupid level. You'll have people voting for him because of the ZOMG 2004, bloody sock!!!! factor and nothing else. (I saw some blog post or something that said Schilling should be in the Hall and not Moose because "you can't tell the history of baseball without Schilling and you can tell it without Moose." Whaaa?) You'll have people that will never vote for him because "he's a jackass," "he wasn't the best pitcher on his own team," and he only has 216 wins. I'm a Yankee fan and I can't stand the guy, but I don't really see the argument against him, unless you are an extremely small-Hall type, which is fine.

Also, I love Andy Pettitte more than life itself and, while I appreciate what Moose did for my team, I think he's a whiny baby. That said, unless Pettitte has a CRAZY good few years before he retires, the people that vote for Pettitte and not Mussina for the Hall will annoy me, too.

    The only thing more annoying to me than someone commenting anonymously is when someone writes something reasonably intelligent and doesn't....leave....a....name.

    Leave.

    A.

    Name.

    As for the comparisons, Glavine's stuff was nothing compared to Smoltz, but with Glavine, you're talking the total package of durability and success. Glavine won two Cy Young Awards and was in the top three four other times. His comparable pitchers includes the likes of Tom Seaver and the five 20 wins seasons are four more than what Smoltz had.

    It's totally unfair to mention strikeouts when comparing Glavine with Smoltz, Schilling and Mussina, who were considered "power" pitchers while Glavine was control and finesse. Pitching to the game has its place. If Glavine was throwing more hittable pitches because he had a lead and gave up an extra run here and there to diminish his stats, but still won, that can't be held against him either.

    The Schilling/Smoltz/Hershiser debate reminded me of another pitcher who was somewhat close to those three----David Cone. Cone won 194 games, a Cy Young Award and racked up the strikeouts, but like Hershiser has no shot at the Hall----nor should he. But you can't say Smoltz and Schilling were so much "better" and are "automatic" when David Cone wasn't that far from them in results.

    With Schilling, I'd ignore the bloody sock stuff; just as I'd dismiss his polarizing personality. He was a great pitcher, but he's borderline for the Hall of Fame. Like Jim Bunning and probably Smoltz, he'll have to wait a bit to get in, but eventually will.

    Mussina is a Hall of Famer. I don't see the argument against him.  

• John Smoltz may not be such an automatic after all:

    With the Mets said to be seriously considering signing John Smoltz, I took a look at his numbers to try and gauge if he really had anything left to offer as a starter or reliever. Before anything else, having watched him pitch last year for both the Red Sox and Cardinals, I do think Smoltz still has the stuff to get big league hitters out even if his results were rotten (with the Red Sox); and so-so (with the Cardinals). It's unwise to count on him as anything more than an extra piece/leader-type who can add to the club on and off the field, but he's still got something to contribute. 

    This led to an examination of his overall numbers; which led to the Hall of Fame argument for John Smoltz.

    It's long been said that all three of the Braves star pitchers of the late 90s are "automatic" Hall of Famers. Of course Greg Maddux and Tom Glavine are first ballot inductees; but what of Smoltz? On the surface, he looks like a Hall of Famer because of his consistency; his brilliance as a starter and a reliever; and his flashy post-season performances; but overall, does he cut it? Is John Smoltz a Hall of Famer?

    If Smoltz retired right now, his numbers would warrant him consideration, but are not----under any circumstances----guarantees of enshrinement. Smoltz won one Cy Young Award in 1996 with a 24-8 record. He finished fourth in 1998; third in 2002 as a closer; seventh in 2006 and sixth in 2007 as a starter again. Aside from that, he was never in the top ten in the voting. His career record is 213-155----impressive, but not as impressive as one would think considering the team he played for.

    His other numbers are very, very good as well. A 3.33 ERA; 3,084 strikeouts; and solid performance and durability across the board; but is "solid" enough to warrant going into the Hall of Fame as easily as Smoltz is expected to?

    What separates Smoltz from other iffy candidates in the eyes of many observers was his success as both a starter and reliever----he was a great closer----then went back into the starting rotation and pitched excellent ball. Adding his post-season brilliance into the mix and he looks even more like a Hall of Famer. 

    Smoltz has been one of the best clutch playoff pitchers in history. A 15-4 record and a reputation for sports-related heroism has lifted him into the conversation for the HOF in some circles as "automatic"; but it may not be as cut and dried as is implied. If you check Baseball-Reference.com on the above link to Smoltz's stats and scroll down to comparable pitchers and you see names that were just as good----if not better----and have almost no chance at the Hall of Fame.

    If you had to choose between Orel Hershiser at the top of his game and John Smoltz, who would you take? Having watched Hershiser singlehandedly destroy the Mets and Athletics in the 1988 post-season and the work he did in other big games, I'd take Hershiser. (Speaking of Hershiser, I believe Smoltz could have a similar function for the 2010 Mets as Hershiser did for the 1999 Mets.) 

    What about Curt Schilling? Schilling's numbers are nearly identical to Smoltz's and Schilling is a debatable Hall of Famer; and don't forget that Schilling spent a third of his career pitching for a bad Phillies team while Smoltz was rolling along pitching for the Braves; and Schilling was in fact better than Smoltz in the playoffs. Curt Schilling is by no means a sure-bet Hall of Famer. So, why then should be John Smoltz?

    All three pitchers----Smoltz, Hershiser and Schilling----came back from devastating injuries to regain their form and beyond. All three have cases for the Hall of Fame, but that doesn't mean the cases will yield a positive result for them in the final analysis.    

    There's no question that John Smoltz was a great pitcher and I haven't looked at his gamelogs in depth as I did with Bert Blyleven several weeks ago. I plan to do so on a slow newsday, but on the surface, his reputation as an "automatic" isn't as much of a formality as many seem to think it is. In fact, the same questioning tone that greets Schilling and Mike Mussina should apply to Smoltz. He's not getting in on the first ballot and, like Don Drysdale, may have to wait awhile to get in, if he gets in at all.

• Orioles sign Miguel Tejada...to play third base:

    For one year and $6 million, what's there to lose for the Orioles? They needed a third baseman; Tejada's a well-liked person on and off the field; and they got him short-term and cheaply.

    Obviously, Tejada's not going  to put up the PED-aided power numbers he did with the Athletics, but he can still hit; moving to third base will mask the steps he's lost defensively; and he'll help the Orioles.

    The Orioles are going to be a very interesting team this year. Their lineup will score some runs and their bullpen will be solid; they're in a similar position as the Rays were in 2008 in which the improvements are clear, but no one can gauge how far and fast they can take the next step. The key is that young starting rotation. If they can stay competitive until June 1st, the young pitching behind Kevin Millwood will have gained enough confidence that they'll believe in themselves; that they can pitch in the big leagues; and if that happens, they could make a run at or around .500. 

    The AL East is hellish, but not as rough as it's been in recent years. The Blue Jays are reloading; the Rays are going to need a managerial change (so might the Orioles in fact); but the Red Sox are weakened as well. Keep an eye on the Orioles; they might be legit.

    Andy MacPhail is thisclose to turning them around.

• Maybe the Yankees should give Brett Gardner a shot:

    Until Johnny Damon signs somewhere, his presence will be a hovering over the Yankees constantly. It's clear that they'll have him back under their terms, and those terms seem to be at a bargain basement price. Damon's pride will be wounded that it would be hard for him to accept a lowball offer even if it means he has to go to Oakland or Detroit or wherever rather than face the perception of crawling back to the Yankees although that's where he wants to be.

    With that in mind, the Yankees are waiting for Damon's answer (so too, I would think, is baseball's version of a an active player/gossip columnist----Jerry Hairston Jr----so he can be a yenta and open his big mouth telling tales out of school) and are weighing their options that are said to include Reed Johnson and Jim Edmonds. I've been under the impression that Brett Gardner doesn't hit enough to be a semi-regular, but after looking at his numbers in both the Majors and Minors, I'm changing my tune.

    Defensively, Gardner is light years ahead of Damon. At the plate, he has no power but he can absolutely fly on the bases and did have a penchant for getting on base in the minors. If the Yankees bat him ninth, as the game wears on, it'll be like they have a second leadoff hitter. He even hit well enough against both righties and lefties that they could consider----consider----him as a semi-regular; I'm talking 400 at bats to see what they have; or at least give him the job until mid-season and make a move if they feel they need an upgrade such as David DeJesus from the Royals. 

    That Yankees lineup can carry him if he's mediocre, but judging from what he did last year and in the minors, Gardner might be able to handle the job on a full-time basis. I'd give him the chance. 

• Ozzie Guillen will make the call on Jim Thome's return:

    The interesting dynamic between White Sox GM Kenny Williams and manager Ozzie Guillen has the two trusting one another to such a point that Williams is allowing such an important decision as whether or not to re-sign Jim Thome to be made by the manager----ESPN Story.

    Guillen's pondering regarding Thome has more to do with the number of at bats he'll be able to give the veteran slugger than any analysis of whether or not Thome can still contribute----he undoubtedly can----but would the White Sox be better with Guillen's plan of a rotating DH with Carlos Quentin, Andruw Jones, Tyler Flowers and a couple of others? If it was me, I'd bring Thome back, but I can understand the argument for keeping that flexibility. According to Guillen, the decision will be made by today. 

    The relationship between Williams and Guillen is unlike almost any other in baseball. It's rare to have a GM as prominent, opinionated and fearless as Williams allow his manager to make such a call and it's a window into how confident Williams is in his own position and in the judgment of his manager.

    People----myself included----have often wondered how Williams is able to tolerate the frequent bouts of lunacy that accompany Guillen wherever he goes; Nuclear Ozzie goes off on anyone at anytime and has at times challenged his GM to the point where anyone else would've fired him. Not Williams.

    It may be because Williams is able to separate a person's reputation with who that person really is and what he brings to a club. How else do you explain his penchant for acquiring players with bad reputations and troubled pasts like A.J. Pierzynski and Bobby Jenks and getting them to produce and behave?

    It's the same thing with his manager.

    There are times in which I'm sure Williams would like to strangle Guillen; but he doesn't let that interfere with a cold analysis of the positives and negatives of Guillen. What's lost amid the off-the-wall comments and meltdowns that happen about five times a year (at least) with Guillen is what a savvy baseball mind he is. He's crazy, but he's not stupid. He has a temper, but he doesn't let that affect him negatively.

    There's no simmering anger between the two; everything is on the table. Both men respect one another and knows where the other stands even when they disagree. It might seem like a chaotic and odd way to run a club, but if more GMs and manager worked in tandem in such a way, understood each other and what the sides bring to the table and were able to take all that energy created by disagreement, they might be a lot better off and have a similarly solid relationship on and off the field.

• Another contract extension doled by the Phillies:
  

    The Phillies signed catcher Carlos Ruiz to a 3-year contract extension worth $8.85 million. To me, that's a lot of money for Carlos Ruiz even with the way he crushes in the playoffs. This is another overpayment/odd maneuver for the Phillies in this head-scratching off-season. The team that couldn't afford Cliff Lee now is on the hook for the following guaranteed contracts (we'll exclude the essentials like Ryan Howard and Chase Utley):

Roy Halladay: $60 million through 2012 (age 33)

Joe Blanton: $24 million through 2012 (age 29)

Raul Ibanez: $23 million through 2011 (age 38)

Brad Lidge: $23 million through 2011 (age 33)

Jimmy Rollins: $16 million through 2011 (age 31)

Jayson Werth: $7 million for 2010 (age 31)

Cole Hamels: $16 million through 2011 (age 26)

Jamie Moyer: $6.5 million in 2010 (age 47)

Placido Polanco: $18 million through 2012 (age 34)

Shane Victorino: $22 million through 2012 (age 29)

Ryan Madson: $9 million through 2012 (age 29)

J.C. Romero: $4 million for 2010 (age 34)

Danys Baez: $5.25 million through 2011 (age 32)

Chad Durbin: $2.25 million for 2010 (age 32)

Greg Dobbs: $1.35 million for 2010 (age 31)

Brian Schneider: $2.5 million through 2011 (age 33)

Ross Gload: $2.6 million through 2011 (age 34)

    Far be it from me to question contracts and salaries. The only time the amount of money a player receives is an issue for me is when there's blatant hypocrisy and spin-doctoring (see the Red Sox of Boston); or if money issues----real or claimed----prevent a club from doing what they need to do to be the best that can be. 

    In looking at some of the above contracts, are you still buying the nonsense that the Phillies would've been unable to afford to keep Lee?

    The amount of money they've thrown out the window on the likes of Jamie Moyer and Greg Dobbs; the diminishing returns on Brad Lidge and Raul Ibanez; and the bizarre extensions they've given to Ruiz and Victorino among others, along with said players advancing ages, makes it clear that in their attempts to do the "right" thing in keeping a championship team predominately together, they've missed out on an important factor----doing what's perceived as the "right" thing isn't the same thing as doing the smart thing.

    It's easier for Amaro to keep what was there to begin with and make the trade for Halladay (that almost everyone was afraid to question) than it would've been to be bold, keep Lee, and possibly sacrifice the likes of Victorino in the next year or two. 

    These contracts are going to cost them. This team is going to take a fall this year and are a good bet to utterly collapse by 2012. It's happened before and it's happening before our eyes with the Phillies.

• A most disturbing thing about the Pirates:

     I was thinking about the Pirates signing of Octavio Dotel to be their closer and it's not simply that they have a better option in-house in Joel Hanrahan to close games that's the biggest issue for me; the biggest issue for me is that the Pirates "braintrust" doesn't realize that Hanrahan is better; that Hanrahan should be allowed to learn the job now while they're supposedly (in theory anyway) trying to build for the future.

    What possible good does it do the Pirates to have Dotel at age 36 closing games for them? If it were a veteran closer who'd actually been good at the job, it'd be one thing; but Dotel was always shaky as a closer; he gives up too many homers and if one thing goes wrong, he unravels. What's he going to teach Hanrahan? The Pirates have no chance at competing this year; they're going to lose over 90 games again; why not give the young power arm of Hanrahan a yearlong education in closing rather than sign a pitcher that they're only going to trade at mid-season anyway?

    Why I bother asking these questions is a mystery to me. They're the Pirates for a reason----questionable signings, stupid trades and misreading of talent has made them into what they are. Their construction is an end unto itself; and that end is located at 68-94, last place; they reside in the basement and have little chance of upward mobility anytime soon.

• Viewer Mail 1.25.2009:

Joe at Statistician Magician writes RE Jason Bay and the Red Sox:

The Red Sox have showed a willingness to lock up players for more than they are worth (on a few regrettable occasions). Both Varitek and Lowell have been well overpaid the past few seasons.

Sure, the organization is cutthroat. But I wouldn't want it any other way. I don't want them holding onto players simply because they are good guys and have played well in the past. I want production.

If they were concerned at all about Bay's health, then they very well should have tried to cover their asses. Bay was a questionable signing at four years to begin with. If health concerns were a reality, then what is wrong with trying to add in some protection for the club?

It is simple, you value Jason Bay much more than the stat guys do. You see a middle of the order bat who probably is better defensively than given credit for.

We see a terrible UZR, and poor defensive metrics across the board. A guy whose 'WAR' was only 3.5 in a perceived "great" year by the average fan. And we see a player who has skills that will take a hit in the coming years, based on age.

It is simply a difference in philosophy.

    My question regarding Bay----which no one appears willing to answer----is if he was so terrible; was such a great physical risk; and a defensive liability, then why did the Red Sox want him back to begin with? Why not cut the tethers, let him leave and go "defense, defense, defense" as they've done since? Why? 

    The Red Sox can run their team any way they want, but what irks me is this Holier than Thou attitude that comes from their reliance on stat zombie tenets when it conveniences them and ignoring them at other times when they have to, as you put it, "cover their asses". Logically, when they collapsed at the end of the 2006 season, a cold rational person would've realized that the collapse had little to do with hitting coach Ron Jackson, but who got fired? 

    The "don't blame me" attitude is the epitome of self-protection. As I said yesterday, John Henry loses out on Jose Contreras, Alex Rodriguez and Mark Teixeira, they want a salary cap; Theo Epstein isn't getting the credit he wants, he throws a tantrum and quits; Pedro Martinez and Jason Bay leave because they feel unappreciated, rip them on the way out the door after trying to keep them.

    I can tolerate the way stat guys run their clubs----at least they're consistent in what they believe even though they fail miserably. The Red Sox are supposedly teeming with stat guys, but when the stats don't add up into what they expected on the field, they use money to repair the mistakes that have been legion.

    I can't take hypocrisy; so what's going to happen this year at mid-season when they're 8 games behind the Yankees, fading and fighting with the Twins and Mariners for the Wild Card? Are they going to panic and trade for Adrian Gonzalez? Or are they going to stick to their floating "plan"? You know the answer to that even if you refuse to admit it.

Jeff (Underboss) at Red State Blue State writes RE Tim Lincecum:

People say the same thing about Roy Oswalt, that he'll break down due to small stature. So far, so good.

    Oswalt's frame is sturdier than Lincecum's. If you compare the two, Lincecum is tiny; Oswalt, despite only standing around 5'10" is wider through the torso and in his powerful legs. I never had similar durability concerns about Oswalt that I do Lincecum.

    On another note with Jeff, I knew I'd seen the Harold Reynolds/"here's a guy" discussion someplace and Jeff wrote about it here almost a year ago to the day.

    Here's a guy----my Underboss----who's ahead of the curve. I pick quality people for my crew.

Jane Heller at Confessions of a She-Fan writes RE Jose Contreras/Patrick Ewing:

Patrick Ewing did sweat a lot. But he was running up and down a basketball court. Contreras sweats standing in one place waiting for the manager to come take him out of the game!

    Wait til the Phillies fans get hold of him after gacking up a lead. He'll melt. 

Isaac at A Baseball Thing writes RE the Phillies: 

In all fairness to Halladay, Amaro hadn't proved his incompetence yet when Halladay was asking for the trade. And at least for this year, the Phillies still have a better chance at the playoffs than the Blue Jays do. The Red Sox might be worse than last year, but they'll still beat toronto, and the Rays are still better than a Halladay-less Blue Jays club. The Phillies got worse, but no one in the division got significantly better.

    You can't really compare the Blue Jays----a rebuilding club stuck in the Halladay bear trap sprung by J.P. Ricciardi----and the Phillies----twice running National League champs. The NL East has gone from total panic at the prospect of dealing with Halladay and Lee to looking at the series of ill-thought-out deals the Phillies have made and been emboldened thinking they have a chance.

    The Blue Jays are undergoing a positive transformation now that the dark cloud of Ricciardi is gone; it helps that new GM Alex Anthopolous really seems to know what he's doing.

    Getting Halladay for the Phillies? Good move. Trading Lee for Halladay? Bad move. And they're going to pay for it figuratively and literally.

• Does this look familiar?
  

    Unlike Buster Olney and his regurgitated/idiotic crap on ESPN, I have great respect for Bill Madden of the NY Daily News; that said, here's a clip from his column posted yesterday about the Phillies off-season:

So the Phillies sign Joe Blanton to a three-year, $24 million contract last week and follow that up by locking up Shane Victorino for the next three years at $22 million. Then, for good measure, they sign Jose Contreras to replace Chan Ho Park as the long man in their bullpen. Indeed, it would seem the Phillies have covered all their bases in their effort to make a third straight trip to the World Series.

But here's what makes no sense: Instead of bumping Blanton from $5.4 million to $8 million, why didn't they just keep Cliff Lee at $8 million and virtually guarantee themselves a long run into October? Isn't that essentially what Mariners GM Jack Zduriencik is doing with Lee now - especially after signing his staff ace Felix Hernandez to that five-year, $78 million extension this past week?

When Zduriencik acquired Lee from the Phillies as the caboose to the three-team mega deal in December that sent Roy Halladay from the Toronto Blue Jays to Philly, he didn't know if he could sign the Cy Young-winning lefty after this season anymore than the Phillies did. What he did know was that Lee and Hernandez would give him the most formidable 1-2 starting pitching punch in the American League.

All the Phillies did was trade one No. 1 pitcher in Lee for another in Halladay. They're no better in their starting rotation than last year when the drop-off after Lee was the difference between them and the Yankees in the World Series.

The Phillies' explanation for trading Lee was weak - they said they needed to replenish their farm system after all the prospects they gave up for Halladay, and that Lee had indicated to them he wanted to test the free-agent market after this season.

Lee denied that and the fact is, even if Lee did bolt after the season, the Phillies would have gotten two high draft picks as compensation. Meanwhile, the Phillies' starting rotation after Halladay is as much a vulnerability as it was in the World Series against the Yankees - especially if Cole Hamels fails to regain his '08 form.

The Phillies' payroll - $149 million committed to just 14 players for 2011 - is going to be the highest in their history, but with pitching being as important as it is, the Mariners, with Lee as their No. 2 starter, look to be a lot better bet to make the World Series.

    Now click here and see what I wrote over a month ago. OVER A MONTH AGO when no one anywhere was saying anything of the kind because they were going on and on about the Phillies acquisition of Roy Halladay as if they'd actually improved the club; hypnotized as they were by the glossy name of Halladay and the afterglow of the complicated blockbuster that was completed, no one took the time to examine the deal in depth with a cold, realistic detachment----except me. I wrote it and said it in my Podcast appearance last week.

    I'm starting to lose my prodigious temper.

    And I'm just getting warmed up.

• And they call the Yankees the Evil Empire?
  

    Imagine if you would that you're employed as a computer programmer or a lawyer.

    Your contract is due to expire and your company wants to keep you even though you'd be in demand elsewhere if you chose to depart. You want to stay, so you readily enter into negotiations for a new contract. You come to an agreement and part of said agreement is what should be a formality----a physical exam. You feel fine; you're doing your job; it's nothing to worry about.

    In said physical exam however, there's a discovery of the beginnings of carpal tunnel syndrome or a slightly bulging disc in your neck that you neither knew about nor are concerned will affect your ability to do your job. You don't think it's a problem.

    Your employer, however, feels differently

    Your employer wants to reduce the length of the contract and wants you to undergo surgery to correct the medical issue that you didn't realize you had. 

    Sound ridiculous? 

    Sound like something out of the Soviet Union, a dictatorship or a sweatshop? 

    Would it shock you to learn that this was exactly what the Red Sox wanted to do with Jason Bay as a prerequisite to signing off on a contract extension?

    Well, it shouldn't.

    According to this article by Rob Bradford of WEEI, the Red Sox deal with Bay broke down for exactly this reason----the club wanted to protect itself from an injury that didn't bother Bay; nor did it hinder his play.

    Here's the relevant clip:

The team wanted to replace the guaranteed four-year contract offer with a two-year deal — at the same rate of $15 million per season — that included third and fourth years that would be contingent on Bay’s health and productivity. The contract offer also included a requirement that Bay would have to undergo surgery on his knee immediately after the 2009 regular season.

“I was shocked, to say the least, that I was being told to have knee surgery in order to get the contract,” Bay said, “particularly since I wasn’t hurt.”

After digesting the initial shock of that turn of events, Bay and Urbon arranged in late August for an independent orthopedic surgeon to examine the MRIs on both the knees and the shoulder.

"I felt great, so I didn't believe that there was anything wrong,” Bay said. “I felt extremely confident that if I had another doctor look at my films, the diagnosis would be different."

As Bay predicted, the physician came to the conclusion that there was no cause for concern.

Bay and Urbon did not share the results of the second medical opinion with the club until the Red Sox re-opened the negotiations with Bay by making a revised contract proposal in late October.

Although the new proposal still included the medical contingencies in the final two years of the deal, there was one major omission: Bay no longer was required to undergo knee surgery.

“Nothing had changed with me physically since the club’s diagnosis back in July, so I just couldn’t understand what was going on,” Bay said.

    This is shedding light on exactly how the Red Sox do business. While Bay wanted to stay with the club, is it any wonder that he's now wearing a Mets uniform? The sheer audacity of trying to force a player who'd performed brilliantly and behaved in an exemplary manner since joining the club is bad enough; but to slam him as he's out the door is a window into exactly how the Red Sox operate. This paranoia and floating self-justifications that permeate the organization in the John Henry/Theo Epstein era are exposing what goes on in Boston as standard operating procedure and has for years.

    Does anyone still wonder why Bay left a team he didn't really want to leave? To join the Mets, who are considered to be a club in utter disarray, but don't treat their employees like this? You hear stories like this time and again emanating from Boston. There's always someone to blame except the powers that be.  

    They tried to go with the ridiculous "closer-by-committee" in 2003 and lost? Blame Grady Little.

   They lose out to the Yankees for Jose Contreras and Alex Rodriguez? They call for a salary cap.

    Pedro Martinez, Nomar Garciaparra and Bronson Arroyo are dealt away or allowed to leave? Rip them on the way out the door.

    The attempts to make complicated three and four team deals to stave off a 2006 collapse are trumped by the Yankees filling every one of their needs in trades? Claim poverty.

    An enraged fan base wants satisfaction after that same season? Spend, spend, spend to fill every hole. 

    The Red Sox are the darlings of baseball for the ruthless way they run their club. They let stars leave when they no longer have use; they're willing to give youngsters a chance to play; and they win.

    But there's a limit.

    The hypocrisy and brutality with which they run their club should be seen in a new light as the mountain of evidence builds as to how they treat their players when they no longer have a similar use or won't bow to the abusive demands that are the hallmark of an arrogant and oppressive regime.

    The Yankees are the Evil Empire? I think not. The Red Sox are worse.

    Hiding behind the success that the club has achieved in recent years is an easy veneer of self-protection. What they've done has worked, so that makes it okay. Players join teams for money more than any other reason; a chance to win comes next; but what happens if the Red Sox positive on-field results deserts them as I suspect it will this year? Will a team like the Mets look so terrible in comparison? Will the Yankees still be seen as an Evil Empire?

    Bay was ravaged by the team, the fans and the media out the door.

    He was welcomed with open arms by the Mets.

    In hindsight, don't be surprised to see Bay express relief that he got away from that poisonous and venomous atmosphere. Say whatever you want about the Mets, at least they'll treat him like a human being.

    The Red Sox organizational depravity is making them look hideous.

    Maybe because they are.

• Here's a guy, there's a guy, everywhere's a guy, guy:

    I tried. Give me that much.

    I wanted some information about the still-available free agents like Ben Sheets, Jon Garland, etc, so right after Joel Pineiro signed with the Angels, so I tuned into MLB Network's Hot Stove show. 

    All due respect to Al Leiter (who I met when I was a kid and was the nicest guy in the world, literally); and Jon Heyman who comes out with accurate reports most of the time, but the show is unwatchable. I have no interest whatsoever in hearing player interviews because I couldn't care less what they have to say 99% of the time; the Hot Stove stuff is easily read on MLBTradeRumors or Twitter; and as for Harold Reynolds? Jeez.

    Let me put it this way and run the risk of being the target for an inappropriate bout of hugging, touching and grappling, but here's a guy who's a guy that's a guy who should try concentrating on what he's saying rather than uttering the same phrase "here's a guy" to refer to....every....single...player that's discussed. 

    As much as people goof on Chip Caray for his obsession with the word "fisted", Harold Reynolds is to "here's a guy" what Caray is to "fisted" and I don't want to hear it. "Here's a guy" (Harold Reynolds) who should stop saying "here's a guy". It's called concentration on what one's saying. Try it. 

• Still lingering concerns about Tim Lincecum: 

    When the arbitration numbers were exchanged between Tim Lincecum and the Giants, clips of the diminutive righty were shown the news reports over-and-over again----and I can't shake the thoughts that he's an injury waiting to happen.

    He is so, so small. 

    Even with the back-to-back Cy Young Awards; even with the durability he's shown along with the dominance that have made him arguably the best pitcher in baseball, I can't be alone in thinking (although others are petrified to say it openly) that the same worries that led other teams to shun him in the draft aren't still simmering under the surface for members of the baseball community that his frame is too limited to be able to maintain his power pitching over the long term. 

    I can't shake the thought that he's going to break down. 

    I'm well aware of the unique training regimen and the success he's had, but it's always there. That slender body, narrow shoulders, torque and power he generates is not something to be ignored as he's collecting Cy Young Awards and is about to make a wheelbarrow full of money. It's going to be interesting to see if the Giants look to lock Lincecum up long term, because there have to be voices in the organization saying the same thing privately----he's going to break down because he is so, so small.

• Viewer Mail 1.24.2010:

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

Contreras sweats more than any player I've ever seen. He needs someone to mop up after him - literally.

    I burst out laughing at this comment. Leave it to Jane...

   One thing, are we going just by baseball with this (thankfully) impossible to quantify assessment? You do remember Patrick Ewing, right?

Franklin Rabon AKA Bravesbloggerinlawschool writes:

hey paul,

Just to clear up confusion, the last line "has there ever been a borderline HOF..." was just meant to say "wow what a prospect Andruw was." Not predict HOF success from MiLB numbers.

My point is that today when the term "uberprospect" gets attached to guys with decent speed and 25 HR power, Andruw Jones was a real super prospect. I remember Francouer being referred to as a super prospect. Jeff Francoeur was nowhere in the same ballpark as AJ prospect wise.

My point was that the term "super prospect" or the even worse "uberprospect" gets so overused, that numbers like Andruw's put things in a little perspective as to what a true superprospect is.

also, not sure its clear, but just so I dont get in the quasi-anon smackdowange, this is franklin rabon.

    I knew it was you, Franklin. The only thing that annoys me is Anonymous. As long as there's a name attached, it's fine.

    With Francoeur, while I'm not going to search in detail, I can guarantee you that the same things that are hindering his rise to fulfill that potential in the majors were present in the minors----specifically swinging at everything within the zipcode of the stadium (and slightly beyond). The Braves didn't address them because he was hitting with power and getting on base at a decent clip for someone who didn't take walks. 

    Bottom line, they let it go while he was doing well and once he started to struggle, it was too late to do anything about it as everyone was dumping on him and giving him advice----advice that he tried to cut and paste into his game to try everything. The fractured relationship with the club and GM Frank Wren had a lot to do with Francoeur's struggles.

    Those things must be handled in the minors if they're going to be handled at all. Also, the personalities of the two players is so different that there's no way to compare them. Jones looked like was asleep half the time from the way he was oblivious to the post-season pressure in 1996 to the relaxed way in which he pursued flyballs in center. Francoeur always looks like he's on the verge of spontaneous combustion because he's such a package of energy. That contributed to his rise and fall with the Braves----he's better off with the Mets and his results will show that in 2010 as they did over the second half of 2009.

A follower on Twitter who took the name of NYGovPaterson (he's not the real Gov. Paterson) writes:

Excellent work! I lived the read and will definitely return for more in the future.

    I aim to please, even fake Governors of NY. In many cases (such as the former Governor of Alaska) a fake Governor is a more viable candidate and public servant than the real one.

Gabriel (Capo) writes RE Roy Halladay:

I feel bad for Roy Halladay. He's not going to win a lot of games because of the bullpen :(

    Don't feel bad for Roy Halladay. He wanted out of Toronto; he wanted to go to Philadelphia; he'll get what he gets from that decision. I don't think he realized he was going from one incompetent GM (J.P. Ricciardi) to another (Ruben Amaro Jr.) He'll learn. The hard way.

Jeff (Underboss) at Red State Blue State writes RE Gov. Patterson:

Gov. Patterson's eyesight must've improved. He's commenting on your site!

Perhaps he's also available for the Phillies bullpen... I mean, his eyesight can't be any worse than Contreras', right?

    If not his eyesight, at least his taste has improved. Even if someone has to read it to him, that's at least two new readers for the Boss. 

    I didn't know a lack of vision contributed to Contreras's lack of directional skills with his pitches; even if he can see perfectly well, after a few outings the Phillies fans will wish they were the ones with the vision problems. Or they'll shut their eyes. Or simply get up and leave.

• The Mets image issues add to the feeling of disarray:

    There's a problematic disconnect between the Mets and their fans that needs to be addressed if the club is ever going to shed this label of repeatedly missing the mark on what they're trying to do. Concerned as they were to the public reaction to Bengie Molina's rejection of their offer exemplifies a need to be more in tune with fan response and maintaining a necessary detachment from what's popular as opposed to what's right for the team on and off the field.

    When the news started to break that Molina had chosen to return to the Giants for less money than what the Mets offered, the team wasn't as saddened by Molina's decision as it was frightened at the fan reaction...

    ...to Bengie Molina...

    ...choosing to go back to the Giants.

    This wasn't as if the Mets had lost on on a Mike Piazza-style catcher who they desperately needed; it was Bengie Molina.

    Molina, still a good receiver who can throw and hit the occasional homer, wasn't going to be the difference between the Mets contending or not this year. He would've been a nice pickup on a short-term, inexpensive deal to fill a hole, handle the pitching staff and mentor the club's young catchers. But his decision to go back to San Francisco was no calamity for the Mets.

    Molina was not the referendum on the club's off-season that some thought it would be. The stat guys said that the Mets dodged a huge bullet with Molina deciding to go back to the Giants; the rank and file Mets fans reacted with a shrug, more offended that Molina didn't want to play for the Mets than they were at upset at losing him as a player.

    Still, the club was petrified without basis.

    There was a similar misreading of the fans yesterday when the Mets acquired outfielder Gary Matthews Jr from the Angels for righty reliever Brian Stokes. Just like the game of telephone that sprouted when Carlos Beltran's injury and surgery became known, the club let it leak out that they were working on a deal and the announcement would come shortly. Fans unaccustomed to the way things evolve in Met-land (or simply hoping for something different this time) speculated what that meant.

    Ben Sheets? Bronson Arroyo? Carlos Delgado? Nobody knew.

    Then it came out that it was...Gary Matthews Jr.

    I think my reaction summed it up perfectly with the following on Twitter:

THAT'S the deal they're making? RT @SI_JonHeyman #mets are acquiring gary matthews jr. from angels, according to an AL source.

    It was the cryptic and strategic filtering of the information that the Mets "had something cooking" that raised expectations as to what they were doing and led to the head shakes and anger in the fan base along with more ridicule from those that lie in wait for anything and everything the Mets do to provide ammunition for their comedy. (Some are funnier and from more charming individuals than others; but still, eventually it gets to a point where you don't want to hear it anymore and this is adding to the Mets paranoia.)

    After the news came out that it was Matthews Jr, the thought was that it was Luis Castillo going to the Angels, clearing the way for the Mets to sign Orlando Hudson. Instead, it was Stokes going to the Angels and Matthews and over $20 million coming back to the Mets. After the wearing off of the shock and annoyance of this move not just being made, but of the Mets trying to use it as some sort of ripple by letting the information come out slowly, it was easier to examine it with some clarity.

    Gary Matthews Jr is a no-lose proposition for the Mets.

    First, the odds are that Angel Pagan is going to be playing center field everyday in Beltran's absence; but Matthews provides competent defensive insurance in case Pagan falls flat on his face or gets hurt.

    Second, they're not paying Matthews Jr anything (the Angels are picking up almost the entire contract) in the worst case scenario, if Matthews doesn't hit or can't provide anything of use, the Mets can simply release him when Beltran gets back.

    Third, all due respect to Brian Stokes, he's not a pitcher who's going to be missed on the field all that terribly. Stokes's 98 mph fastball was pin straight; he gives up a lot of homers; and despite that velocity, he doesn't strike out hitters. He gets rocked by lefties, so he's one-dimensional; and the Mets had acquired him from the Rays in 2007 by purchasing him. Stokes is from Southern California, so the move is a positive for him on a personal level. He's the epitome of the pitcher who needs another pitch----a sink on his fastball; a change-of-speed forkball; something----to become more than what he is; and what he is is a journeyman reliever who's easily replaceable.

    There's this feeling throughout baseball that the Mets have a million voices whispering in the ear of a rich kid boss in Jeff Wilpon and he's treating the club as his plaything and making capricious and uneducated decisions on what to do. People don't realize that Jeff Wilpon actually played baseball professionally out of college; and it wasn't a Marc Sullivan-type situation in which he was a pro almost exclusively because his father owned a club that drafted him; in 1983, Wilpon was drafted in the fourth round by the Expos. (There's talk that the drafting was done as a favor to Fred Wilpon, which makes little sense; why waste a 4th round pick as a favor to an owner for another team?) He's just as qualified to make assessments on players as a chunk of people in prominent scouting positions today; but the label the club has acquired as completely discombobulated incites the chain reaction that greets the club no matter what they do even before any evenhanded analysis has taken place.

    It's the air of disarray and of trying to please everyone that's caused a multitude of the Mets problems. They're too nice. They want to be fan-friendly and all things to all people and are taken advantage of because of this fact. If the Mets dispatched this fear of the public and trusted their evaluators on an even-keeled and brutally honest basis, they have no reason to apologize or explain away the decisions they make. Just do what's right and let everything else fall in place.

    If you trust your people, there shouldn't be an issue. That's what the Mets, as an organization, must learn and adhere to in running the club.

    There's something from yesterday that's being missed here. Amid all the hilarity that ensued regarding Gary Matthews Jr, no one seemed to take the continued missteps of the Phillies as a reason to unload on the National League champs; and their latest move is a thousand times worse than anything the Mets have done this winter; the Phillies have truly lost their minds if they intend to get big outs and innings from...

• ...Jose Contreras?

    Are they serious?

    Not only have the Phillies signed Jose Contreras, but they're expecting him to contribute in the role inhabited by Chan Ho Park last year.

    Uh. Yah.

    Jose Contreras.

    Jose Contreras, who cannot handle any pressure at all.

    Jose Contreras, who the Yankees dumped for Esteban Loaiza----Esteban Loaiza!----because Contreras couldn't function in New York and manager Joe Torre couldn't trust him. 

    Jose Contreras who needed the White Sox to acquire Orlando Hernandez almost exclusively to babysit him.

    Jose Contreras, who since 2006----when some imbeciles anointed him as the "best pitcher in baseball" after a hot streak for a championship team----has been atrocious as he's been rocked repeatedly. 

    Jose Contreras who always looks on the verge of a nervous breakdown if the umpire misses one call; if a fielder behind him makes an error; if he gives up two bloop singles in a row.

    That Jose Contreras.

    They're taking a mentally weak and emotionally fragile pitcher, inserting him into games with big outs necessary and expecting him to deliver.

    They're doing this in a bandbox called Citizens Bank Park.

    They're doing this while sticking him in the middle of the zoo to deal with the most abusive fans in the world----the charming fans in Philadelphia no less!

    I have no idea whether Phillies GM Ruben Amaro Jr. looks into the mentality of his prospective free agents before signing them, but if he did, there's no chance he'd have signed Contreras, who's going to be an absolute disaster in Philly. In fact, it's becoming clearer and clearer that Amaro doesn't know what he's doing. 

    How anyone can look at the decisions the Phillies have made this winter and suggest that they've done anything but facilitate a downslide that's going to result into a reversion to what they were before everyone fell in love with them; a skid that will render meaningless the "gutty and courageous" Phillies and turn them back into the misshapen and self-destructive crew that never, ever showed any fortitude to win when it counted.

    It's easy to forget now, but it won't be that easy once it's happening; once people see the unraveling on the horizon. They're going to crash even if the arrogance of the club and the fans refuse to see it.

    One thing I'd suggest to the Phillies is to hire a qualified psychologist and put him in the bullpen to counsel the likes of Contreras, Brad Lidge and Ryan Madson; it won't help, but at least they'll have tried to avert the coming catastrophe that they themselves have created.

• Viewer Mail 1.23.2010:

Jane Heller at Confessions of a She-Fan writes RE Gary Matthews Jr and the Royals:

Congrats on Gary Matthews Jr. I guess he'll be a nice bat for the Mets, although he didn't get much playing time with the Angels, did he? And you forgot the biggest deal of all for the Royals: Wilson Betemit! LOL.

    I'm getting annoyed at the overreaction (specifically of those idiots on ESPN) to the trade for Matthews Jr. It's a nothing deal. Whatever he gives the Mets----if anything----is gravy.

    Ah, Dayton Moore; what would we do without you? On the bright side, Wilson Betemit fits in perfectly with what the Royals are trying to do, whatever that is. 

Bravesbloggerinlawschool  writes:

So you've correctly went on a few times about how teams value questionable prospects perhaps too much these days to their detriment. Also, how the "super-prospect label" gets applied to far too many players in the minors.

So when I read these minor league stats and scouting reports I thought "now that is a real prospect"

First full season in the minors, 18 years old, single A: .277, .372 OBP, .512 SLUG, 41 doubles, 5 triples, 25 homers, 104 runs, 100 RBI, and 56 SB. Also, a scout was quoted about his defense "best defensive player in MiLB, regardless of position. Could be best defensive OF in MLB, right now. Best CF arm in minors, best OF range in minors, best CF instincts in minors, dives for ball better than any player I've seen at any level ever. Has bigger impact on game from a defensive standpoint that any player I've ever scouted.

Then the next year, 19 YO, 2nd full season in minors: began that season in Class A, where he had 17 homers, 16 stolen bases and a 1.024 OPS in 86 games.

After being promoted to Double-A that summer, he played even better, hitting .369 with 12 homers, 37 RBI and 12 steals in 38 games, with a 1.107 OPS.

And after being promoted to Triple-A five weeks later, hit .378 with five homers, 12 RBI and a 1.213 OPS in 12 games. (ie not only did he tear it up, he improved in a single year every time he went up a level in the minors).

Player? Andruw Jones

Has there ever been a borderline HOF player who possibly didn't live up to his potential?

    I'm not sure what you're trying to say here.

    Even though the stat zombies have tried to boil down scouting from "subjectivity" to "objectivity" and have in fact done worse in finding players than the old-school scouting clubs have, there's never been, nor will there ever be an infallible way of determining what a player can or will become. Considering what Andruw Jones became (through some possible *outside help*), his tools in the minors had to have been so blatant that anyone who had an idea of what they were talking about would've known what he had the potential of becoming.

    The only way to determine a player is in retrospect. Did anyone look at the 5'11", 150 lb Greg Maddux and think that he'd develop into one of the best pitchers ever? Highly unlikely.

    I can look at a guy and see superstar potential; label him an "untouchable" in trade talks and be wrong. The Hall of Fame is such a pipe dream for 99.99% of professional players, who can say whether one who has the tools will fulfill that "possible Hall of Fame" label. Albert Pujols was a 13th round draft pick; obviously a lot of people missed him and Pujols is the Joe DiMaggio of this generation. 

    On the same token, with the Mets for example, when I watched Fernando Martinez----a "five-tool prospect"----I felt that he's not someone I'd refuse to part with in the right deal. He may blossom into an All Star; he may not; but that's where the scouting comes in. It's no exact science. 

    If you're looking for a player who had borderline Hall of Fame talent and didn't reach that level, I have two words: David Wells.

    If David Wells had kept in shape; not lived as hard as he did; not been such a pain to every organization he'd pitched for, he could very well have been one of the best left-handers ever to pitch. A rubber arm; a smooth, clean, deceptive motion; and fantastic control of all his pitches made Wells a mega-star in waiting, but it never came through as it should've. Of course there were moments like the perfect game in 1998 and the post-season performances; but with Wells there was always a "just missed" footnote to his career.

    He still won 239 games, but he was never, ever what he should've been based on talent-level. It's doubtful that Wells would ever change anything in his life or career, but he could've been so much more. To me, Wells is the epitome of a Hall of Fame talent who didn't reach his ceiling even with a great career filled with memorable moments. 

• Ah, the Pirates:

    The Pirates are in a league of their own when it comes to cluelessness.

    What other explanation can you formulate for a team that needed offense desperately and decided that Akinori Iwamura and Ryan Church were the answers to this problem? For a team that needed a veteran starting pitcher to mentor the youngsters and have yet to get one in a favorable market? For a team that had a decent bullpen last year and chose to spend their limited resources to overpay for a journeyman (Brendan Donnelly) and a veteran who struggles when he closes (Octavio Dotel)?

    Why?

    Never mind the fact that they intend to give Dotel a chance to close when they already have a closer with All Star stuff in Joel Hanrahan; never mind that they non-tendered their erstwhile closer, Matt Capps; nor that they felt that Iwamura and Church were upgrades for a lineup that was last in the Majors in scoring----ignore all of that. All you have to do is take a look at what the successful teams who have limited resources do to fill the holes the Pirates think they "filled" and you'll see how backwards things are in Pittsburgh.

    The Marlins and Rockies never spend lavishly on the bullpen, yet are consistently finding fill-ins to get the job done cheaply and effectively. Is this an accident? Spending a lot of money on middle relievers and mediocre-to-bad closers never works; it's always a mistake. Even teams with money like the Yankees are shying away from bringing in the Mike Gonzalez-type of pitcher who absolutely would've been a perfect fit for them.

    So why are the Pirates so insistent of signing Donnelly, who has use for a contender, but not for the Pirates and not for a guaranteed $1.5 million? And Dotel for $3.5 million when they already have someone who can close (Hanrahan) and cut loose another pitcher who could close (Capps)?

    Oh, and I have news for the Pirates----Hanrahan is better than Dotel!!! For what reason do the Pirates, with no chance whatsoever at contention, need to use Octavio Dotel to close when they must have a look at their in-house options like Hanrahan? 

    Any team spending on the bullpen needs to spend on the closer; get a good set-up man; and bring in fill-ins who have shown a propensity for getting outs once through the lineup or have one pitch that can dominate for a short burst. Spending as they have on Donnelly and Dotel; trading for Iwamura and signing Church aren't moves designed to improve the club on the field; they're moves to have trading chips at mid-season as the club stays on the road they've been on for the last seventeen years, that being the road to nowhere. 

    That's why they're the Pirates.

• Ugh, the Royals:

    Rick Ankiel?

    The Royals didn't learn their lesson in one-dimensional players who do little other than hit the occasional homer after they traded the golden arm of Leo Nunez for Mike Jacobs (and subsequently non-tendered Jacobs after his horrific 2009) and decided to bring in someone worse than Jacobs in Rick Ankiel for $3.25 million. For what?

    The Royals starting pitching has great potential; they needed bullpen help and a bat. They've gotten no bullpen help; for bats and they've brought in Ankiel and Scott Podsednik. For what?

    There's no explanation for this other than shopping just to shop; other than seeing something what's been sitting on the shelf for so long----and that no one in whom any team with half-a-brain had interest in----and grabbing it just because it was there; and they paid said item well with over $3 million! If they were getting Ankiel for $800,000, why not? Take a risk on him; but for $3.25 million?

    Ugh.

• Doing the "right" thing isn't always doing the "smart" thing:

    Let's see if I understand this correctly.

    The Phillies couldn't afford to keep Cliff Lee, but they're going to pay Joe Blanton and Jamie Moyer nearly $15 million for 2010? And they've locked up Blanton through 2012 at $8 million per?

    I have no problem with Joe Blanton; but he's a mid-to-back-of-the-rotation innings eater. He throws strikes; he guts his way through; but his stuff is average. He's okay; no more, no less; and when he's not on his game, he gets blasted. Is Moyer even going to be able to pitch this year? Or is that going to be another sunk cost like the Adam Eaton disaster from a couple of years ago?

    The Phillies also signed a contract extension with Shane Victorino for a 3-year extension at $22 million. This is the latest in a winter of bizarre and ill-thought-out decisions by the Phillies.

    Placido Polanco? $18 million guaranteed.

    Jimmy Rollins? Declining and had his contract option for 2011 exercised out of fear of his mouth more than anything else----$8.5 million for 2011.

    Danys Baez? Guaranteed $5.25 million through 2011.

    Just add all these dollars up and you start to wonder why they were so insistent that they didn't have the money to sign Lee and trade for Roy Halladay.

    There's showing guts and doing something outside the box; and there's doing weird and safe things to keep intact a club that has holes. Phillies young GM Ruben Amaro Jr is looking increasingly overmatched and afraid to do what's right over what looks good and is more easily explainable. From the end of the season onward, he's made one questionable move----financially and practically----after another. 

    And the Phillies are going to pay for them-----financially and practically.

    Watch.

• I said this stuff already, Part II:

    In case you missed it yesterday, Buster Olney was a month behind me in putting into writing my confusion at the Phillies decision----The Phillies Sign Their Own Death Warrant----to trade Lee for Halladay; and if you'd like to hear my "sexy raspy voice" (not my words) expressing said bewilderment, check out my Podcast appearance on SportsFanBuzz last week and I said the same thing.

• Viewer Mail 1.22.2010:

Jeff (Underboss) at Red State Blue State writes RE the Phillies and Joel Pineiro:

No doubt on the Phillies' death warrant! Last night on the MLB Network, Heyman, Verducci and Rosenthal got into a discussion about this... so I wouldn't be surprised if Olney was rippin' from those guys! Ha! What a doof...

I have to disagree on Pineiro though. In my opinion, the man IS a Dave Duncan reclamation product and that's just based on what I've seen plus his stat lines. Before last year, you have to go to the 2001-2003 stretch with the Mariners to find comparable, good seasons.

I could care less how Lackey does in Boston, but I would be very surprised if he didn't have a better year than Pineiro.

    What good is an opinion if it's expressed a month after the fact? They're just lazy or idiotic at ESPN and I've had enough of it. Consensus out of convenience is for the weak.

    With Pineiro, there was a foundation of a good pitcher prior to his involvement with Duncan; Duncan refined Pineiro into what he was last year and, in opposition to the likes of Jeff Suppan and Kent Bottenfield----who weren't any good before or after Duncan----I think Pineiro will be able to transfer that success to the Angels. He'll at least repeat the majority of his numbers from last year and I think more.

Jane Heller at Confessions of a She-Fan writes RE Jerry Hairston Jr:

Jerry Hairston Jr. had his big moment in the sun when he lucked out and won a WS with the Yankees. He can dine out on that for years, but to comment publicly on any team's plans is a little much. 

    I doubt we'll be hearing too much out of Jerry Jr in the coming months. I can't imagine he didn't hear about that from Brian Cashman and others he saw fit to discuss out of school.

Gabriel (Capo) writes RE the Mets:

I wanted to tell you that the Mets should pursue Barajas. He handles pitchers very well (excellent years for Tallet and Romero) and he can hit.

I think Lackey will be hit hard during the first months in Boston. I don't think the Sox's defense is up to par with Angels'.

    The problem with Barajas is that he'll cost a first round pick. I don't think he's worth that.

    I like Lackey, but Pineiro will be a fine replacement for him; and that "off" feeling I'm getting with the Red Sox extends to the Lackey signing.

Kyle Johnson writes RE the Angels:

Paul,
With the addition of Joel Pineiro the Angels now have five quality No. 2 & 3 pitchers, but no dominate ace in the staff. Could this lack of a "go to guy" become a problem durring the final push for a play off spot or in the play offs themselves. Where do you think the Angels starting rotation ranks amongst the other top organizations?

    The Angels have never had that dominator at the top of their rotation and have functioned fine. Their playoff failures have had more to do with bullpen meltdowns and lack of execution than anything else. They've always been a "sum-of-parts" team than rather than one that was top-heavy with stars.

    I'd prefer to have the Angels rotation of Jered Weaver, Joe Saunders, Ervin Santana, Scott Kazmir, Pineiro than what the Diamondbacks have (for example) with Brandon Webb and Dan Haren or the Mariners with Felix Hernandez and Cliff Lee----and questions following them. I'd definitely feel more comfortable with what the Angels have than what the Red Sox are planning with a back-rotation including Daisuke Matsuzaka and Tim Wakefield.

    The one team whose rotation appears stronger----apart from the Yankees----is the White Sox. Jake Peavy followed by Gavin Floyd, John Danks, Mark Buehrle is tough to beat in-season and in a short series.

    Those that are counting out the Angels due to the flashy moves of the Mariners and the rise of the Rangers are doing so at their own risk and ignoring what it is the Angels have built. Their template and consistency should be respected by now, yet in some circles it isn't----to the peril of those that choose to ignore it based on numbers.    

• No one wants to hear from journeyman utility players:

    Even before it was revealed by Jerry Hairston Jr that Brian Cashman and the Yankees are waiting for Johnny Damon's price to come down so they can re-sign him at a reasonable price, I was questioning the propriety of Hairston being an employed player for a team and sitting in the studio of ESPN's Baseball Tonight analyzing and questioning the machinations of other organizations. Then when it broke----via Jim Bowden's radio show----that Hairston had opened him mouth again about internal discussions that should've been kept private, it became even more incestuous for a player----and not all that good a player----to be talking so much.

    Jerry Hairston Jr, with a career batting average of .259; OBP of .328; and unimpressive numbers across the board, is the epitome of a player you can find cheaply on a Triple A roster; and he's certainly in no position to be so loquacious that he's providing a running commentary of the Yankees front office plans; nor should he be expressing his wonderment at what other teams are doing. To compound matters, he had the audacity to preface his comments (about the Mets for example) with the "covering one's bases" caveat that (I'm paraphrasing from memory) "the Mets might want to sign me next year". 

    Uh. No thanks.

    It's not unheard of for current players to be in booths, studios or on-set to discuss the current state of the game. Some are honest, self-effacing and provide great inside information about how things are run. In the late-70s/early 80s when ABC carried baseball, Reggie Jackson and Jim Palmer both entered the booths to broadcast during post-seasons. 

    That's the key.

    They were Reggie Jackson and Jim Palmer. Reggie, being Reggie, said what he wanted because he was Reggie; Palmer was handsome and well-spoken and was a great, great pitcher. They could get away with saying things that could be construed as somewhat out-of-bounds for the brotherhood of players and the business dealings of teams. Jerry Hairston Jr is not is such a position. Jerry Hairston Jr is lucky to have a big league job.

    For Hairston to reveal such a sentiment (that Cashman denied) is out-of-line and self-destructive because if I was a team that considered signing Hairston next year, I'd take a look at the whole package and wonder if his penchant for yapping was worth what he does on the field. Telling tales out of school----tales that may not even be accurate----and discussing competing organizations in a questioning tone as if he's some grizzled front office vet is not the way to win friends throughout baseball.

    Hairston should look into the mirror; and more importantly, should look at his career numbers. Then maybe he wouldn't be such a fountain of inside information that would best be kept to himself if he wants to have employment as a player; and trust me when I tell you, I think it's a little more lucrative and enjoyable to be a big league player (even for the Padres) than it is to be sitting at a table next to Karl Ravech.

• Angels sign Joel Pineiro:

    Joel Pineiro agreed to a 2-year, $16 million contract with the Los Angeles Angels in what is likely to be the bargain of the off-season. All the talk of Pineiro being a product of the Cardinals' Dave Duncan/Tony La Russa and their reclamation machine is ridiculous. You read it here first: Pineiro will have a better year in Anaheim than former Angels ace John Lackey will have in Boston. The Angels solid defense and well-run organization will allow Pineiro to continue the excellent work he did in St. Louis.

    This is a great move for the Angels to do as they always do----shore up the pitching staff and worry about the lineup later, and they did it cheaply.

    The Pineiro signing leaves other interested teams like the Mets and Dodgers scrambling. The perceived disarray with the Mets and Dodgers is scary to an in-demand player like Pineiro; and if similar deals are on the table, it's not surprising that Pineiro chose the stability of the Angels. The sniping against teams with front office turbulence and on-field questions is unfair. It only takes a few months of good play (and money) to lead a player to ignore possible disarray to sign with any team. It wasn't long ago that no one wanted to play with the Phillies because of their repeated late season stumbles; and in 1990, did anyone want to play for the Yankees of Dave LaPoint and Andy Hawkins? 

    The Mets have a few choices: via free agency, they can roll the dice on Ben Sheets; or they can go after an innings-eater like Jon Garland. They could also try and swing a trade for Bronson Arroyo. There's talk that they're very seriously interested in John Smoltz, but Smoltz alone isn't the answer even though he can still pitch. Would the Mets be willing to forgo the fear of Sheets's injury rap sheet and pay him enough money to entice him to come? If Sheets is healthy, a front two of Johan Santana and Sheets is a lethal combination; but that's the question with him: is he going  to stay healthy?

    The Mets have to do something drastic. They got Jason Bay at their price and it would behoove them to shut their eyes and sign Sheets, hoping that the prospect of another crack at free agency in 2011 at age 33 will spur him to stay on the mound.

    At this point, I'd hold my breath and sign Sheets and Smoltz and hope to hit a home run; or at least a ground rule double.

• Uh, I think I said this first:

    This is great.

    This is funny.

    This is gonna make me cranky.

    Over a month after the fact, here come the bandwagon jumpers who are looking at the stupid move the Phillies made in trading Cliff Lee essentially for Roy Halladay and wondering whether it would've been a better idea to get Halladay to combine with Lee.

    Here's a clip from Buster Olney's posting today regarding Lee:

For about the same as it will cost them to have a rotation led by Halladay, Cole Hamels and Blanton, they could have had an extraordinary front three of Halladay, Lee and Hamels.

This could've easily happened. The Phillies were concerned during the Halladay negotiations that the swap of Kyle Drabek and two others would be a body blow to their farm system. So in order to blunt the impact of trading Drabek, they rapidly arranged a deal of Lee to the Mariners, getting back reliever Phillippe Aumont and others. This came together so quickly that at the time of the blockbuster trade, executives from many other teams say they hadn't even known that Lee was available.

The Phillies' choice, at its heart, came down to this: They preferred to add Aumont, a very talented and unproven reliever, over having an overpowering rotation of Halladay, Lee and Hamels for 2010.

Another way to look at it: In July, near the trade deadline, if the Phillies were in contention, would they give up a young reliever like Aumont for a No. 1-type, Cy Young-caliber starter like Lee, would they do it? Undoubtedly.

    Uh. Yah.

    Someone unloaded on the Phillies when they did this; when they made the stupidly capricious decision to trade Lee for Halladay. 

    Let's see who it was.

    I wonder. 

    Oh.

    Yeah. 

    It was ME!!!!!

    Here it is. It's a posting entitled The Phillies Sign Their Own Death Warrant. I think you'll see some familiar sentiments that are going to grow as the season moves along and the reality of what the Phillies did hits home and is an utter failure now and in the future.

    My posting was more eloquent, organized and better executed; but what's the difference? ESPN is the "Worldwide Leaders in Sports" and I'm a loose cannon. But my regulars already knew that; and they know whom to trust.

   Nice work, ESPN. You keep hiring these guys who either mail it in and/or don't know what they're talking about and the results speak for themselves in both cases. Great job. 

• Divergent reactions to the Mets "loss" of Bengie Molina:

    In general, the Mets have become fodder for ridicule regardless of what they do even if it's not their fault. From the Carlos Beltran-surgery controversy to everything that's gone on in the past three years, they've become a convenient punchline on the receiving end of cheap shots by those who haven't the imagination nor the capacity to come up with something accurate or clever.

    Strangely, such has not been the case with the drawn out negotiations/waiting game the club played with Bengie Molina which resulted in Molina spurning the Mets hard-line offer of one-year plus an option to return to the Giants on a one-year contract. Reaction has run from the usual laughter at the perceived shambolic nature of the Mets to the sentiment that the Mets were lucky that Molina chose the Giants instead----with very little in-between.

    In truth, Molina appears to be one of those players who's always flirted around the Mets, but wound up elsewhere for one reason or another. It happened after 2005 when the Mets put identical offers on the table for Molina and Ramon Hernandez----both rejected----and instead of negotiating, turned around and traded for Paul LoDuca. Molina was forced to take a 1-year deal with the Blue Jays.

    It happened again this winter as Molina seemed to be such a perfect fit for a team that needed a veteran catcher who could handle the pitching staff and would hit enough so as not to be a total liability; but Molina wanted three guaranteed years from the Mets.

    That wasn't happening.

    Then he wanted two years.

    No dice.

    Their offer was one year and an option. That's it. 

    Even with the Mets offer at $5 million guaranteed for 2010, Molina chose to return to his comfort zone of San Francisco for less money, in a slightly easier division and a more stable situation than to join the Mets. And it's fine.

    It became increasingly clear from the 2005 contract talks and what went on this winter that Molina was looking to the Mets for a big payday; and the Mets, to their credit (and whether anyone wants to admit it or not) set a price they felt was fair for Molina, didn't panic and stuck to it even if it meant losing out on a player they wanted. Overpaying for players who weren't totally invested in being a member of the Mets is exactly what's gotten them in trouble in the past and it's a positive sign that they refused to cave into Molina's demands.

    The truth about Molina is that he's not as bad as everyone is saying. He can still handle a pitching staff (back-to-back Cy Young Awards for Tim Lincecum is a pretty good addition to one's resume); he has some pop in his bat; he can still throw; and he's a well-liked guy. He's slow; but he was always slow. He's fat; but he was always fat. Is he a player upon whom the Mets should be lamenting that they "lost"? No.

    As I said months ago, if Molina wasn't invested personally in being a Met; if he wanted to join the club to get paid; if he was always keeping an eye on the circumstances in San Francisco to return, then let him go back there and move on. It's not like the Mets just lost Mike Piazza's bat or Yadier Molina's defense. For a team that's been savaged for overpaying for aging veterans, ripping on the Mets for not doling a 2-3 year contract on a player who'll be 36 in July is second guessing for the sake of it with no basis in reality.

    So, what's next for the Mets?

    They're said to be pondering spending the money they had earmarked for Molina on extra pitching, which is a great idea; but going with some combination of Omir Santos, Henry Blanco and Chris Coste behind the plate is risky. I've been pushing for them to make a move on Pirates catcher Ryan Doumit for months, but it's never even been mentioned as a possibility anywhere that I've seen; but no one had discussed LoDuca at all before the Mets swung that deal in 2005, so who knows what they're thinking?

    The easier thing to do would be to sign Yorvit Torrealba or Rod Barajas. Barajas has more power and is a better thrower; but Torrealba handles his pitching staffs very well and is well-liked. A big plus is that Torrealba kills the Phillies and has had numerous big hits in the playoffs. I'd feel comfortable going with a combination of Torrealba/Blanco/Coste if I were the Mets as long as they get another bat. A lack of power is repeatedly mentioned with the types of names still available for the Mets, but that works both ways; if they didn't have any power before, said lack of power won't be affected negatively by Citi Field.

    One bat I'd look at as a complement to Daniel Murphy is Xavier Nady. 

    Pitching and a defensive specialist behind the plate is what the Mets should focus on.

    Speaking of which, they're supposedly very interested in John Smoltz. Smoltz can still pitch and if he's coming out of the bullpen, that could be a big win; on the same token, the importing of a veteran Brave in Tom Glavine produced middling results; but I have great respect for Smoltz----a proven winner and post-season money pitcher. I'd do it.

• The one interesting arbitration hearing:

    Unless the financial award precipitates a player being put on the trade market, I have almost no interest whatsoever in the arbitration process; but there's always one or two offers/submissions that pique my interest. Last year, it was Ryan Howard; this year, it's Tim Lincecum.

    Lincecum, the twice running NL Cy Young Award winner and arguably the best pitcher in baseball, asked for $13 million; the Giants countered with $8 million. One would think that there's room to come to an agreement in there at around $10.5 million and the chance at a long-term contract extension; but if Lincecum has his heart set on $13 million and the Giants want to wait and see about his durability into his mid-20s, this could go to the table. 

    Speculating on an arbitration hearing is a waste of time because no one can know where they're going to go, but if I had to bet, I'd say that the Giants would win a hearing. Jumping from $600,000 to $13 million----even for a two-time Cy Young winner----is a gigantic leap that's hard to believe will happen. We'll see.

• Viewer Mail 1.20.2010:

John Seal writes RE Bengie Molina:

Prince, with Bengie Molina re-signing with the Giants, it looks like your 74% accuracy rate has taken a hit. Frankly, I think the Metropolitans dodged a bullet: Bengie is just about ready to join AARP and he couldn't beat Dave Parker in a foot race. Which, of course, makes him a mouth-watering proposition for Brian Sabean.

    I'd kinda hedged on Molina. When I did my Giants hot stove preview, I mentioned that there was the chance he'd return if they didn't think Buster Posey was ready, which they evidently don't. I'd give Molina more of a break than others have. As I said before, he still calls a good game and Lincecum and Matt Cain are comfortable with him. The Giants will be more than the sum of their parts this year.

    One funny thing I heard was "Barry Zito credited Molina...." Credited him for what?

Jeff (Underboss) at Red State Blue State writes RE the Red Sox:

Ah, yes, the Red Sox whine-fest continues. I'm pretty numb to it all now, though I have to say I thought it would all end in 2004.

I was wrong.

And I have a feeling it'll be a looooooong time before the old schoolers let Bonds/Clemens in.

    It's one thing to let Bay leave, but why slime him after he's gone? I don't get it.

    With the Hall of Fame, I really don't know what's going to happen with Bonds/Clemens. The sentiment is hard to grasp; possibly because not even a huge chunk of voters know what they'll do. Both are Hall of Famers. Keeping them out would be wrong.

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

Jason Bay is a jewel thief. LOL! I guess Nomar, Pedro and Damon are too. They all got dissed after leaving Boston.

    That stuff can't be lost on the other players. And I'm wondering if his shoulders, knees and horrendous defense inhibit his take when he goes on a heist.

Joe at Statistician Magician writes:

The Red Sox aren't exactly working on a budget this season. They will invest about $160 million into the payroll. And they have spent about $33 million on Lackey, Cameron, and Beltre this off-season. A lot of money comes off after the season though in Ortiz, Lowell, and Lugo. 

    The budget stuff was sarcastic to a point; but I love how they cry about financial constraints with that amount of money invested; and Joe, do you think it's right that they're planting all this stuff in anticipatory self-defense of the decision to let Bay leave and go with the idea of defense over offense?

    Taking the high road and saying, "we made a decision and that's it." isn't a bad thing. Why keep coming out with this stuff? Why?

Gabriel (capo) writes RE the Pirates:

Let's form a group to manage the Pirates: Joe in charge of the stats, Jeff and I in charge of scouting, Jane as the PR consultant and Paul as the GM. Maybe we could get them in contention in 6 years.

    I might murder Joe (or at least hit him over the head with a paperweight) if I had to deal with him and his stats on a daily basis, but I'm willing to give it a shot. The Pirates could use my kind of jolt.

• The Red Sox focus on defense began from within...specifically with self-defense:

    So what's next in this whisper campaign trying to discredit Jason Bay?

    First his defense is so horrific in left field that the Ted Williams statue outside Fenway would have slightly less range.

    Then his shoulders were in such poor shape that the club didn't want to up the offer to keep him.

    Now it's been revealed that the Red Sox and Bay had agreed on a 4-year, $60 million contract at mid-season, but conflicting medical views on the condition of Bay's knees led the Red Sox to reduce the offer to something that was clearly designed to fail----NESN Story.

    What's next?

    Jason Bay is a jewel thief.

    Jason Bay has ties to organized crime.

    Jason Bay wanted for questioning in Massachusetts-area serial killings.

    Jason Bay is not a generous tipper.

    It's becoming ludicrous; and this is a byproduct of the paranoia and floating self-justifications prevalent in Boston during the John Henry/Theo Epstein era. From the time Epstein took over there were always an aura of "we'll say and do this now and worry about later later because we can always adjust our story".

    It's evidenced by the "closer-by-committee" failure in 2003; to the silliness of the Epstein "resignation" and the gorilla suit therein in an ego-related battle for power and credit; to the "now and for the future" nonsense during the lost year of 2006; to the mountain of money they threw at all their problems to placate an angry fan base for 2007; and now the fortress they're building as they hedge their bets with the worry that the new emphasis on defense won't work.

    Clearly, the signings of Mike Cameron and Adrian Beltre and the questioning reactions to these decisions----along with the choice to let Jason Bay leave----are hitting home to the point that stories are filtering out to lay the foundation of excuses for failure.

    The standard operating procedure of this team is unmistakable. Fans are unsure of what to make of the idea that the lack of punch in their lineup will be counteracted by a new emphasis on pitching and defense; that lack of conviction is leading to a rip job on a player who was nothing but a loyal Red Sox; a player who behaved and performed beyond reproach; one who desperately wanted to stay in Boston----Jason Bay. 

    They can quote all the numbers they want as to why this approach will work; why the gloves of Beltre and Cameron will yield just as much productivity as the power bat they're losing in Bay, or what they could've acquired in Adrian Gonzalez, Miguel Cabrera, or Matt Holliday; why they've calculated the value of the runs they'll save and how the power bat won't be necessary with their pitching and defense.

    But if they're so confident in their beliefs, then why do these stories keep coming out? If the numbers and sabermetric theories are so sacrosanct, why do they change on the fly at the first sign of trouble?

    For those who treat the Red Sox organization as infallible, I have two words: Julio Lugo. And two more words: Daisuke Matsuzaka; and three more words: closer by committee. 

    It goes on and on.

    This club has the prospects and the money to get whichever player they want; we'll see how quickly they alter course if they see a playoff spot in jeopardy in June as they fall hopelessly behind the Yankees and are in a dogfight for the Wild Card. Will the Padres demands for Gonzalez no longer be so incongruent with the "future" they so often refer to? With the faux budgetary constraints they claim?

    It's funny how the darlings of the media are allowed such leeway in their public stances. Everyone loves the Red Sox because they're bastions of data and scouting----backed up by money; but when they strategically drop these little bombshells such as the continued and growing list of reasons why they let Bay leave, you have to question the motives. If they believe so strongly that they did the right thing, why not take the high-road and let the past go?

    Bay's a Met now; the Red Sox are a scrappy, pitching and defense club working within a budget. We'll see who was right in the coming months, but the every man for himself attitude can't be lost on the players; the ruthless player personnel decisions of the Red Sox----most of which have worked----don't have to extend to kicking a guy when he's long out the door to shield the organization from criticism. It's called class. Maybe they should try it sometime. 

• Am I the only one who sees something wrong with this?

    With baseball echoing the need for "financial sanity", three deals yesterday struck me as a little out-of-line with performance:

Aaron Heilman----$2.15 million from the Diamondbacks.

Jody Gerut----$2 million from the Brewers.

Chad Durbin----$2.125 million from the Phillies.

    Am I mistaken in thinking that these are bizarrely high salaries for two pitchers who plainly and simply aren't that good; and a journeyman outfielder?

    Heilman wants to be a starter; is with his fourth organization within a year; he gives up so many home runs and is so scarred by his high-profile failures as a reliever that the only option with him now is to make him a starter and hope. Is that worth $2.15 million? Would it be hard to find a similar pitcher for a quarter of what Heilman's set to earn? 

    Gerut had an awful year in 2009 with the Padres and Brewers and has a history of injury that make him a giant risk and most certainly not worth $2 million.

    Durbin returned to earth in 2009 after a fantastic 2008 in which he was an integral part of the Phillies bullpen in their championship year. Does anyone think he's going to return to that level again? And he's going to be paid over $2 million? For what?

    These are just three examples of teams overpaying for lower echelon talent; talent that is easily replaceable. While I disagree with many things Rockies GM Dan O'Dowd has done, one thing he's been absolutely great at is finding pitchers on the scrapheap, signing them, sticking them in his bullpen and getting great use out of them cheaply only to dispatch them when they become too expensive knowing he'll be able to repeat the process. The Marlins do the same thing.

    With the bullpen, the proper strategy is to pay for your closer; pay for a good, reliable set-up man and slot in the other spots with fill-ins. For a backup outfielder, you can certainly find someone more reliable than Jody Gerut. 

    I'm not on-board with whining about the salaries of the top tier and star-level players like Jason Bay, Matt Holliday, Felix Hernandez, et al. You get what you pay for in both the cases of the star player and the journeyman. Paying such comparatively lucrative salaries to the likes of Heilman, Gerut and Durbin rarely works out and it's something that needs to be reconsidered very seriously.

• Begging and pressuring is never attractive----and it rarely works:

    I'm referring to dealings with women, but the above statement applies in other areas as well.

    Jim Edmonds proved he could still play after he was released by the Padres in 2008 and helped the Cubs win the NL Central; it was a surprise that no one signed him last year because he still had use. I felt Edmonds was totally shot after seeing how horrid he was with the Padres, but that might've been a result of playing for the Padres more than anything else.

    Edmonds's massive power numbers from his prime Cardinals days are *suspect*; and his range in center field is gone; but could he help someone as an extra outfielder? Why not? He's a better risk than Jody Gerut, that's for sure. The problem is when someone is so desperate that they do things such as publicly putting people on the spot as Edmonds is currently doing with the Cardinals----ESPN Story----it's a bit unseemly.

    If I were the Cardinals, I'd bring Edmonds into camp and have a look----what's the difference?----but this could've been handled more deftly by Edmonds himself. Desperation is a repellent; not an attraction no matter the venue.

• Viewer Mail 1.19.2010:

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

I hope Damon takes your advice!

    I have a 74% success rate of people taking my advice. I don't think Johnny Damon listens to anyone aside from Scott Boras because he doesn't like to (or hasn't the capability) to think for himself. He's made some bad choices this winter.

Gabriel (Capo) writes RE steroids:

Probably the only way the whole steroids issue is going to be forgotten is when the last of the steroid era has been removed from the Hall of Fame ballot, either because of its induction or else.

   McGwire/Palmeiro won't be the test cases. The test cases will be Roger Clemens and Barry Bonds----both of whom are worthy of induction because they were Hall of Famers before they allegedly started using PEDs. Whether they get in or not will be the indicator of how this whole era is treated and perceived. I'd vote for both Bonds and Clemens without hesitation; the old-school voters? I dunno.

Jeff (Underboss) at Red State Blue State writes RE the Pirates and Jack Clark:

I would applaud MLB stepping in to take the reins away from current Pittsburgh ownership/management. What a joke.

As for Jack Clark, I love the guy and all, but he really is one of those guys who just likes to hear himself talk. Remember when he ripped your '86 Mets calling them ALL cheaters, fakes, phonies? This ain't the first time.

And if he feels so passionate about it, why wait until now to say something so harsh? He's had plenty of time to get these soundbites in. Having followed Clark for most of his career, I think he was looking for a way to re-establish his dominance as the go-to Cardinals slugger... especially right before his appearance at the winter warm up, which was all about creating drama for drama's sake.

Meh.

    The problem with MLB getting involved with the Pirates is they already have Frank Coonelly----a former senior VP in the Commissioner's office---as the club president and he's participating in this travesty. You'd never have thought they could've found someone worse than Dave Littlefield, but they somehow managed it.

    With Clark, believe me when I say I had no love for him whatsoever during the mid-80s when the Mets-Cardinals rivalry was nearly as vicious as Yankees-Red Sox/Dodgers-Giants. He's a bit of a drama queen, but I love it when guys don't stick to the "book of quotes" and speak their mind, even if it's a notoriously over-the-edge.

Joe at Statistician Magician writes RE the Twins:

Didn't the Twins acquire JJ Hardy? :)

    Joe's right. I forgot completely about the Twins trade for J.J. Hardy, making my statement that they've done "nothing" inaccurate.

    They can still use a bat for third base and some pitching help. They're walking a fine line considering how good the White Sox are going to be. You can't let the season come down to the final weekend every year and consistently expect to have it work out.

• The Prince on the Podcast:
  

• The final dominoes to fall:

    In the coming week, there should be resolution with the two remaining free agents who are in any demand at all----Bengie Molina and Joel Pineiro. Once they fall, the rest of the names----Jon Garland; Doug Davis; Rod Barajas----will find work somewhere.

    For some reason, the noted political philosopher/icon Sarah Palin's words repeatedly pop into my head when thinking of Bengie Molina. All that needs doing is to replace the name "Vladimir Putin" with "Bengie Molina" and you get the similar effect:

As [Molina] rears his head and comes into the air space of the [Mets], where does he go?

    Molina has nowhere to go other than the Mets.

    He knows it; the Mets know it; the rest of baseball knows it.

    Because there are still other catchers available like the aforementioned Barajas and Yorvit Torrealba, Molina's bargaining position is so weak that he's had to back off of his loony demand of three guaranteed years and come down to two. The Mets are smartly holding out on Molina, safe in the knowledge that he has no choice but to accept that the best he'll do is get a year plus an option based on games played/performance. 

    He's coming to the Mets. The sooner he and his reps accept it and take the deal the Mets are offering, the sooner everyone can move forward.

    With Pineiro, I had him pegged as coming to the Mets months ago (and mentioned as such in my podcast appearance on  SportsFanBuzz last week); with only the shambolic Dodgers pursuing him, he didn't have much choice either; but now, according to Jon Heyman, the Angels have entered the mix.

    With the Angels involved, the Mets are going to have to up the ante to get Pineiro. I can't see the Angels breaking the bank for Pineiro, my best guess is that they'll offer somewhere in the 3-year, $21 million range at most; if the Mets have to raise their 2-year, $15 million offer, they're going to have to do it to get the pitcher. If it takes 3-years, $23 million to lure Pineiro, I'd be willing.

    Unlike the frozen-in-place Dodgers, the Angels are more stable than the Mets; more of a relaxed locale. The Mets have gotten all of their deals----from Jason Bay to the likely Molina signing----done at their price. If they have to go a bit higher than their original intent with Pineiro, I believe he's worth it given how he's re-invented himself as a contact/ground ball pitcher who'd thrive in Citi Field.

    Once Pineiro falls, so too will Jon Garland and Doug Davis. The final frenzy of free agency is in motion; only the panic is on the part of the players and not the teams. It's an ongoing trend.

• And what of Johnny Damon?

    He's pretty well screwed. That's what.

    Talk about having nowhere to go. Nowhere to go, thy name is Johnny Damon.

    People are waiting to see if the Yankees are going to jump back in on Damon. Even with their insistence that they don't have the money to pay Damon, they still haven't taken steps to fill the hole in left field. Would Damon be better off going to the Tigers----where he's been rumored----or swallowing his pride and returning to the Yankees, where he didn't want to leave in the first place?

    The Tigers aren't going to offer much more money than the Yankees; forget the Braves and Giants. Damon's in a box. There's no one to pay him; nowhere for him to go. One would have to believe that Damon is coming to grips with this simple fact.

    You have to wonder if Damon hasn't spoken to his fellow Scott Boras client, Alex Rodriguez, about dealing with the situation and coming back to the Yankees. The misplaced embarrassment will pass; does he really want to go to the Tigers?

    I'm starting to think that Damon will return to the Yankees on a team-friendly deal partially because the circumstances dictate it. He overplayed his hand. Why make things worse by going to a less enticing venue like the Tigers? My advice to Damon would be to make the best deal he can with the Yankees and move on----if they'll still have him, that is.

• Yes, I'm really writing about Mike Redmond:

    I was stunned that the Twins let Mike Redmond leave to sign with the Indians for $850,000. It's not that Redmond's departure is that devastating a loss for the Twins, but he was an important part of their clubhouse and had turned into a useful backup for Joe Mauer. So what if he's about to turn 39? How much was he going to play behind Mauer anyway? The point is that this is a symptom of one of the two teams from last year's post-season that have done absolutely nothing this winter----the Twins and the Dodgers.

    For a team like the Twins, that has had playoff chances come down to a one-game-playoff in each of the past two years, they have little margin for error. Because of their attention to fundamentals and discipline, they're contenders again-and-again despite losing players via budgetary constraints; that can only last for so long before one wrong move or bad break sends them from 87 wins and a playoff spot, to 82 wins and mediocrity. Add in that the White Sox are primed for a massive year, and the Twins are in trouble.

    Understandably, the Twins are coming to grips with the mega-deal they'll have to negotiate with Joe Mauer; and make no mistake, even with a slight hometown discount that Mauer will give the club, it's still going to be worth at least $150 million to start with. Mauer's not leaving Minnesota, but they'll still have to pay him. The short-term reality of this is that they lost an underappreciated component to what they do in Mike Redmond.

    With the Dodgers, they've literally done nothing.

    Because of their young talent, they'll still be respectable next season, but as their chase of Joel Pineiro proves, they're outgunned by both the Mets and Angels financially. Being locked in the vacancy of the McCourts divorce, they'll have trouble competing in a rough division next year without a slight tweak here and there, especially in the starting rotation. They'll be relying on Clayton Kershaw to take the next step----something he's fully capable of doing; but the back of their rotation is an issue. I love James McDonald's stuff, but he struggled last year and if they need him to be more than a back-of-the-rotation rookie, they've got a problem, hence the chase for Pineiro.

    Manager Joe Torre's magic in steering his teams into the playoffs is legendary, but without some movement this winter, even Torre's cachet might not be enough to counteract the quicksand that the divorce has created. The thing about quicksand is that if you panic, you sink faster, and the Dodgers are sinking with no tree branch nearby to save them.

• Why the Pirates are the Pirates and the Marlins are the Marlins:

    The Marlins signed veteran journeyman Brendan Donnelly last July in the hopes that he could be insurance for them late in the season. It was a cheap flier the type the Marlins repeatedly take and from which they get production and more. Donnelly was great for the Marlins as an invaluable set-up man, bolstering their roll to 87 wins and contention until the final days of the season.

    He was cheap.

    He was excellent.

    Then they let him leave confident that they could find someone else who could do exactly what Donnelly did for a similar price.

    And of course the Pirates took Donnelly's short-term performance and gave him a guaranteed $1.5 million with incentives that could add up to $3 million. Similar to the ridiculous signings from last year of Ramon Vazquez and Eric Hinske; and their haphazard trades of Nate McLouth; Jack Wilson and Freddy Sanchez, the Pirates are the definition of anarchy.

    They have no plan. They just "do" things; and while the Joker (or I) behave in such a way and the lack of planning ("Do I really look like a guy with a plan?") tend to work to their desired effect and are----at the very least----entertaining, the Pirates do their drunken stumble; lament the money they don't have; and fail to notice that they do notoriously stupid things not because of a lack of money, but because they're stupid!!! 

    MLB stepped in with the Marlins last week for reasons that I can't understand; but why are they not stepping in on the Pirates, whose organizational viability has been non-existent since 1992? They're a train wreck and instead of sifting through the wreckage and fixing the problems, they spend $1.5 million on Brendan Donnelly.

    That's why they're the Pirates.

• Viewer Mail 1.18.2010:

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

It's really hard to get worked up about steroids at this point, although I can understand Jack Clark's sentiments. The point is, as you stated, "everyone was complicit in this mess."

    I find the whole Mark McGwire apology to Bud Selig insulting. Selig's "head in the clouds" routine is tiresome. As much as baseball tries to make this go away, it's not going to heal until they really clean out the wound and playing dumb is not a strong enough antibiotic. If it takes people like Jack Clark to blast away at the guilty until the whole episode is complete, so be it.

• You have to admire a guy who's free of pretense:

    Jack Clark's scathing attack on Mark McGwire and Cardinals manager Tony La Russa is indicative of the type of no-holds-barred, fire-breathing, polarizing figure Clark's always been. The comments, pointed and with merit, exemplify Clark, and you have to admire it.

    Disgusted by the spin-doctoring from the McGwire camp; and the feigned disbelief by La Russa that McGwire was using PEDs, Clark came out with the following nuggets culled from ESPN Story regarding McGwire, and La Russa's response:

"A lot of them should be banned from baseball, including Mark McGwire..."

"All those guys are cheaters -- A-Rod [Alex Rodriguez]. Fake, phony. Rafael Palmeiro. Fake, a phony," Clark told the newspaper. "[Roger] Clemens, [Barry] Bonds. [Sammy] Sosa. Fakes. Phonies. They don't deserve to be in the Hall of Fame.

"They should all be in the Hall of Shame," Clark said. "They can afford to build it. They've all got so much money. And they could all go there and talk about the next way to rub something on your skin. The whole thing is creepy.

"They're all creeps. All these guys have been liars."

"They're not really a man's man," Clark said. "They're just whimpering boys who are just sad to watch. They try to put it off on somebody else. I don't know how they sleep at night, looking at all their fame, let alone the money they took by faking everybody out and lying to everybody."

And of La Russa:

"[McGwire's] own manager never knew that [Jose] Canseco and McGwire and anybody else ever had taken steroids?" Clark said to the Post-Dispatch. "Trust me, from [a former player], I have a lot of insight into who did what and when but I'm not even going to talk about it. It really doesn't matter."

    McGwire's not going to retort to Clark's statements; and La Russa can't dispute Clark given the preposterous nature of his decades long defense of his slugger and friend. There's supporting a friend and there's going all in with a losing hand hoping to bluff through; La Russa did the latter with McGwire and is dealing with a similar blowback to what McGwire is facing.

    Despite his protestations to the contrary, does anyone really believe that La Russa didn't have an inkling that McGwire was juicing? And in reality, what could he have done about it? The answer is nothing.

    Everyone's missing a major point about PEDs in baseball while they were at the height of their use----they weren't banned by MLB!

    Even if the arguments that the illegality of the drugs in the United States indirectly implied that players weren't supposed to be using them, they're legal if prescribed by a physician and are perfectly legal in Mexico and the Dominican Republic among other places; so nothing was to stop a player from going to Mexico or the D.R. and getting their boost when they were cycling; nothing was to stop them from finding a quack physician to write the prescription for the right amount of money.

    Everyone was complicit in this mess. The players who are admitting what they did or are being outed unwillingly are bearing the brunt; the managers and executives who protected them are being savaged; but everyone in baseball is responsible for what happened then and is happening now.

    With Clark, you have to admire him for his honesty.

    He was a beloved Cardinal from the 80s and works as a sometime studio analyst; as was his wont, hasn't shied away from speaking his mind. Clark was a tough guy as a player and alienated one front office after another with his lack of tact or respect for the caste systems that permeate a baseball clubhouse. 

    The Jack Clark story is explained almost perfectly in the Sports Illustrated article by Rick Reilly from July 22, 1991----link.

    In his career, Clark took on the San Francisco Giants management for making him play the outfield on artificial turf with a badly damaged knee----he told them to "go die".

    While playing for the Padres, he challenged Tony Gwynn's perceived selfishness.

    If ever there were two "get me out of here" moments, these were it; and they were only two of the more memorable incidents in Clark's career. It shouldn't come as a shock that he's unafraid to speak his mind about McGwire, La Russa and the rest of the accused. 

    What defense do these players have from someone like Clark, who's almost a contemporary and is simultaneously revered and reviled by diverging forces in all the organizations for whom he played. When you list Frank Robinson, Tony Gwynn, Ozzie Smith, Lou Piniella and now McGwire and La Russa among those with whom you've butted heads; and Whitey Herzog, Roberto Alomar and Andy Van Slyke who defend you to the last, you're not interested in perception, just the truth. 

    If critics are going to rip Clark for saying publicly what many others are saying privately, then they're in the same boat of disingenuousness as McGwire and La Russa. I say this with the greatest respect for La Russa as a field manager; and the belief that McGwire is decent, well-meaning guy. Both put themselves into their current position not by the involvement and blind eye they cast on what was going on, but by their half-truths (McGwire) and silliness (La Russa). 

    Just as he did in his playing career, Clark put into words what many were feeling and afraid to say. Clark never cared about perception as a player; and he doesn't care about it as an analyst. In a sea of semantics, it's refreshing for someone to come out on a side and challenge the establishment, and that's something Jack Clark has never avoided.

• Because it's edible doesn't mean it's good:

    The other day, I clipped from the newspaper a recipe for breaded chicken stuffed with ham and provolone.

    It looked good.

    It looked easy.

    When I cooked it, it was okay; not great; not terrible. But it didn't turn out right. It was edible, but that doesn't mean it worked.

    I thought of this when I saw the reports that Cubs manager Lou Piniella intended to bat the newly acquired Marlon Byrd fifth in his projected 2010 lineup with Alfonso Soriano hitting behind him.

    Um, okay...

    Marlon Byrd is not a fifth place hitter. The primary function for a fifth place hitter is to protect the 3rd and 4th hitters; does Byrd do that? Derrek Lee and Aramis Ramirez are money in the 3-4 slots, but if he's going to shift Alfonso Soriano out of his preferred leadoff spot, why not bat him fifth? Byrd has neither the power nor the intimidation factor to bat fifth. Pitchers are going to be challenging Byrd to beat them from the first pitch of the season onward and he doesn't have the capacity to answer that challenge. It's not his fault; he is what he is and Piniella batting him fifth is going to expose that far quicker than if he were batting second, where he should be batting.

    Is the notoriously finicky Soriano even on board with moving out of the leadoff spot and batting sixth? Soriano has adamantly insisted on batting leadoff. This obstinacy has extended to him going into slumps that one could only assume are self-created because he's so miserable whenever he's asked to bat anywhere other than leadoff.

    I've long felt that Soriano needed to be moved down in the order. I'd have batted him third even though he's not a prototypical three hitter; the three hitter is supposed to be the best overall hitter in the lineup, but with Soriano, it would get him an at bat in the first inning to assuage his complaining about not batting leadoff. It's a conciliatory maneuver to account for him not liking hitting fourth and it gets him into a more advantageous RBI position.

    Batting Byrd fifth and Soriano fifth is misusing of ingredients (that aren't all that fresh or in-season to begin with) and it's going to cost the Cubs. Badly.

    This is yet another reason why this Cubs season is destined for disaster. They're an aging, overpaid and flawed roster; have a manager who knows that his window to win with the current group is closed and is aware that his time with the club is coming to an end; and an embattled GM, Jim Hendry, under the watchful eye of a new ownership. With an aura of devastation hovering around the Cubs, this latest statement will all add to another season of misery. It's another coal on the fire.

    Piniella can't say he wasn't warned.

• A reality-check for the bashers of Omar Minaya:

    Those that are insistent that they want Omar Minaya out as Mets GM because of the list of gaffes----perceived and real----that have pockmarked his overall positive tenure as GM had better wake up and realize that even if the club decides to dismiss Minaya (something that's highly unlikely), there's not going to be a Pat Gillick/John Schuerholz-style GM coming in to take over. If Minaya is fired, there's one person who's going to take over as permanent GM and that's assistant GM John Ricco.

    The very idea that the Mets are going to go outside of the Mets "family" to bring in an outsider is refuted by history. The Mets don't do that. They don't bring outsiders in to take over and "clean up" the organization. If anyone advocates Billy Beane coming to the Mets regardless of the mess he's created in Oakland, then fine; but it's not happening. Some have suggested the names Sandy Alderson (why?!?) and Kevin Towers among others, but the truth is, the Mets are better off keeping Minaya.

    Ricco has expressed himself well as the pseudo-front man for the organization and it was said to have been Ricco who suggested the excellent move of getting Ryan Church out of town for Jeff Francoeur. He's more of a contract man and to me it's better off letting Ricco handle the incidents----like Carlos Beltran's surgery----that require a bit more verbal finesse than Minaya is capable of and keeping Minaya as the talent evaluator; trades-man; and organizational representative for the good things like the Jason Bay signing.

    It's not a unique experience for a club to delineate responsibilities in such a way where there's one contract guy; a front man; and an evaluator. The idea that an "organizational czar" is the answer is ignoring what absolute power can create. The better organizations like the Red Sox, Marlins and Angels all have a variety of people providing input. There's nothing wrong with that.

    If you look at other arenas like boxing, when Mike Tyson was on the rise, he had two managers---James Jacobs and Bill Cayton; and the behind-the-scenes manipulator, Cus D'Amato----handling his affairs. They created a monster of publicity and financial might; along with Tyson's formidable skills in the ring, there was little chance of failure. Cayton handled the contracts; Jacobs was the front man for press conferences, charming the gatherings with wittiness and a smile; and D'Amato was the master planner.

    To think that one "genius" is going to walk in and recreate the culture of the Mets----which has been sullied by circumstances more than anything----is irrational. The Mets might as well keep things as they are unless it crashes totally; and that's not going to happen this year anyway. Just leave it be. A compartmentalized series of duties is actually a very viable way to run an organization, it just doesn't make people as happy if they have one voice emanating from the club, even if that voice might end up making things worse.

• Viewer Mail 1.17.2010:

Jeff (Underboss) at Red State Blue State writes RE Billy Beane:

Moneyblind!

Brilliant!

I believe there's some sort of cosmic harmony in the back-and-forth-edness of Beane and DePodesta's dealings with one another. It's like they're at the party no one else was invited to... but instead of feeling privileged, now they're both just miserable.

    You'd have to believe that they regret Moneyball now even if they never come right out and say it; but it'd be refreshing if they did. It might even get me to lay off. Maybe.

Gabriel (Capo) writes RE yesterday's Beane posting:

Brilliant quotes indeed.

On my weekly ramblings about the Blue Jays, it's said that they're scouting Ben Sheets. I'd like another bat, but I don't think it's a bad idea to give Sheets a cheap deal with incentives.

    The Blue Jays are loaded with young pitching, they don't need Ben Sheets. You're right, they need a bat more than they need him; and they're not going to pay Sheets even if it's a reasonable, incentive-laden deal. Then again, why not go and have a look? What's there to lose?

John Seal writes RE the Athletics:

Uncle, uncle, uncle!! You wrote all that just to get a comment out of me, didn't you?

I do think the Kouzmanoff trade makes sense for the A's...and, yes, it does improve the team. Look, the options at third for the last few seasons haven't been pretty ones. Jack Hannahan was a spectacular glove at the hot corner...but he couldn't hit a lick. Adam Kennedy had a hot bat last year...but, oy, that glove did not play at all well at third. At least Kouzmanoff gives the team a good--not great--bat, and a good--not great--glove at the position. He's reliable, and since Chavez began to suffer all his owies, reliability has been in short supply for the A's. AND we've still got Dallas McPherson and Jake Fox in case Kouzmanoff completely sucks!

Hairston was clearly surplus to requirements, and while I'm a Cunningham fan, how much better is he than Ryan Sweeney or Travis Buck? With Davis, Sweeney, and Crisp, the A's are set in the outfield glove-wise. Very good pitching and above average defense will win the A's their share of games in 2010, and when Carter and Taylor are ready (June?), they'll start to score some runs, too. Come 2011, the division is ours!

Hey, it's January, spring training is around the corner, and I've renewed my season tickets, so don't bring me down to Earth just yet, Prince.

    Somehow I knew this was coming, but you should know by now I'm free of the constraints of agenda.

    This trade----and the whole winter, in fact----is more of a symptom of what ails the A's and Beane than anything else. It's a decent trade for both sides. You keep hearing the caveats that Moneyball changed the playing field and everyone's using the same stats now, but that's when an executive has to be able to recognize unquantifiable attributes that come from a keen scouting eye. Does Beane have that eye? Apparently not. This is a problem. He can't function without the advantage he supposedly had as anything more than a mediocre GM. This switch to an emphasis on defense looks to be more of a desperation decision like settling for whatever's left in a bar at 4 AM. It'll serve a purpose, but nothing more. 

    Kouzmanoff won't suck; but he won't be the answer either. The concerns I would have would be two-fold: 1) Will the offense do anything at all? And, more importantly, 2) Will the young pitching continue their growth from the second half of last season?

    Taylor's going to be a star; but right now, the offense is not very good; and in that division? They're going to have to score to win. With the pitching, teams have had young pitchers who looked like they were learning on the fly and ready to take the next step fall flat on their faces as the new season started. If everything goes right, the A's could contend----really----but realistically, with an entire crew of youth in a starting rotation, you can't expect a miracle.

    What they can really use is a gutty, teaching veteran starting pitcher like Doug Davis who'd benefit from that defense and would show the kids how to win with stuff that can't even be classified as mediocre; but the A's look intent on moving forward, sink or swim with the babies. If they were in the AL Central, then they'd be a trendy pick to be near the top of the division, but in the AL West? I can't see it. If Beane's getting the credit for what he did right in earlier years, then he's got to take the blame for what's happening now. 

• My Podcast appearance:

• ...or in 2010 Oakland A's parlance, 73-89:

    Baseball's resident "genius" struck again last night as the Athletics acquired third baseman Kevin Kouzmanoff and infielder Eric Sogard from the Padres for Scott Hairston and Aaron Cunningham.

    The A's needed a third baseman desperately after they whiffed on attempts to get Adrian Beltre and were faced with the prospect of minor league journeyman Jake Fox as their everyday third baseman. Kouzmanoff has pop and is a very good fielder; but how much does he help a woeful A's offense?

    Kevin Kouzmanoff is an ancillary piece who'd be a better fit on a club where the holes in his game would be more easily negated. He strikes out a lot; doesn't get on base; and the thought that getting away from the cavernous Petco Park will help him in Oakland is ignoring the fact that Oakland isn't exactly a home run haven either. There were 11 more homers hit in Oakland than there were in San Diego. Add in that he is a notorious up-the-middle hitter and his power isn't going to improve in Oakland.

    He's an okay player. That's it. He's never fulfilled the expectations that came with a year in Triple A for the Indians that could only be described as ridiculous (.379 average; .437 OBP; 22 homers; 75 RBI in 94 games); then he made things worse for himself (in retrospect) when he hit a grand slam on the first pitch he saw in the big leagues for the Indians. Getting away from the Padres is a positive step for any player at this point; but going to the A's in that hellish AL West isn't that far a step up for him or the team.

     The other player heading to the A's, Sogard, is a middle-infielder who's shown an ability to get on base in the minors and has a little power; he'll be 24 in May.

    Objectively and without ridicule based from the Moneyball nonsense, it's about time to question A's boss Billy Beane's abilities not only to judge players based on their physicality, but based on his beloved stats.

    The failures of the players he got for Dan Haren and Tim Hudson to name two are sullying his reputation more than the dreamworld of Michael Lewis ever could. Daric Barton was the centerpiece of the trade of Mark Mulder to the Cardinals and has done absolutely nothing in the big leagues. The haul he got from the Diamondbacks for Haren included Cunningham, whom he dispatched in this trade. They got no use at all from the players acquired for Hudson.

    The A's have a load of young pitching and the potential to be pretty good if the pitching matures and performs----that's a big if; and when a team can't score to counteract any hiccups for a young pitching staff, they're going to have trouble winning. That division has the potential to be a nightmare and the A's have shown neither the ability nor the wherewithal to deal with their issues in anything other than a baseline manner of scotch taping it together and hoping for the best.

    For years, Beane's "genius" allowed him to get away with doing whatever he wanted with impunity as the firewall of Moneyball protected him. That firewall has been breached; and if the A's stumble again, Beane's going to be in trouble. Big trouble. 

• As for the Padres...

    Trading Kouzmanoff was a salary dump, but in fairness, it made plenty of sense. Kouzmanoff was due for a big raise from $432,000 to around $3 million; plus they have a cheap replacement in Chase Headley who'll hit his 15 or so homers and get on base at a better clip than Kouzmanoff.

    Aaron Cunningham is moving onto his fourth organization in three years, but that doesn't mean he can't play. His minor league numbers indicate he can hit and be productive if given the chance. With the Padres situation of slashing payroll, it made sense to make this move.

    Then we get to Scott Hairston.

    I always find it funny when there are certain players whom the stat zombies repeatedly deal to-and-fro. Hairston----like Russell Branyan; Milton Bradley; Jack Cust; and J.D. Drew----is bartered back-and-forth for some unfathomable reason that they'd be able to justify with some obscure, out-of-context stats.

    Hairston has some pop and some use, but on a good team, he's a fourth or fifth outfielder; on the Padres, he'll get 450 at bats, especially if and when they trade Adrian Gonzalez at mid-season and shift Kyle Blanks back to his natural position of first base.

• Fake Billy Beane quotes:

    Back to Twitter-inspired hilarity (or moderate chuckling). After the Kouzmanoff trade became public, I began a series of #fakebillybeanequotes on Twitter. Some of the better ones follow. It is to laugh!!!!

#fakebillybeanequotes E=MC squared and there you have......Kevin Kouzmanoff and Coco Crisp. Or as the A's 2010 record will put it, 73-89.

#fakebillybeanequotes No, I didn't write Moneyball. Moneyball wrote me. And it made me look like a dick.

#fakebillybeanequotes Yes, Paul DePodesta and I have again joined forces to rock the baseball world by trading Scott Hairston back and forth.

#fakebillybeanequotes Michael Lewis is combining The Blind Side 2 with the sequel to Moneyball. It's called "Moneyblind". No, it's not good.

#fakebillybeanequotes What's your problem with Coco Crisp? Oh.....yeah. He's Coco Crisp.

#fakebillybeanequotes We're gonna win with pitching and defense. That's why we re-signed Jack Cust.

#fakebillybeanequotes Why do people keep comparing me to Caesar? I don't even like pizza.

    The Dark Side of the Force is a pathway to many powers and abilities that some would consider...unnatural.

• How stupid do the Braves look now?

    Adam LaRoche made a huge gaffe in misreading his market as he turned down a 2-year deal from the Giants for about $17 million; instead, he wound up with a year and an option from the Diamondbacks for a guaranteed $6 million.

    This is a great, low-cost pickup for the Diamondbacks. LaRoche has long been underrated. He hits the ball out of the park and is an excellent defensive first baseman.

    So, what are the Braves thinking as they look at the team-friendly deal LaRoche was forced to sign as they didn't even tender him an offer? They instead went the cheap/risky route and gave the oft-injured Troy Glaus $2 million to be their first baseman. 

    With their solid pitching and need for a power bat from whom they could at least know what to expect in terms of offensive production, defense and durability, you tell me whether the Braves would rather have Glaus manning first base or LaRoche. 

    Why is no one savaging the Braves for this hideous off-season in which they've taken a championship contender and plundered it to this point due to nothing more than stupidity?

• Viewer Mail 1.16.2010:

Jeff (Underboss) at Red State Blue State writes:

"Laughing and cheering at the misfortune of others is great until that call to figurative and literal vengeance is heard and its consequences underway."

That's a really nice sentence.

I saw that Johnson signing and looked at the structure of it and thought to myself, "I know what's goin' on here..." and felt smarter than everyone else. That's a pretty common occurrence in my world.

    Thanks RE the sentence. I swear, sometimes I write stuff that I have no idea from whence it came----then I don't even remember it after the fact. 

    With Johnson, this is the exact same deal the Marlins would've offered him no matter what. You'd have to think that while the settlement between the club, the PA and the league was being negotiated, the Marlins were holding off on the Johnson extension to make it appear as if it wasn't business as usual. They're the geniuses of baseball.

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

So are you predicting that the Mets will win it all in 2010? Is that what your "unexplained good feeling" means?

    I haven't come to a final conclusion on my World Series pick yet (I have a preliminary pick, but that's staying with me for now); it's highly unlikely I'm going to pick the Mets. The "unexplained good feeling" might just be a season that's free of calamity.

    Truthfully, I'm glad everyone's dumping on them so viciously because that only adds to the thought that they'll have a massive turnaround. I really believe (and this is non-partisan) that they'll have a big year and that includes a playoff spot *pending the other moves they make this winter*.

• My Podcast appearance:

     On Wednesday, I was on Sal's SportsFanBuzz podcast. Here's the link----Prince on the Podcast.

    Reaction has been, shall we say, enthusiastic? My voice has been called "raspy/sexy" and credited for waking certain people from their doldrums. Click on the link and give yourself a thrill!! 

• It works both ways:

    After the Mets held a conference call led by assistant GM John Ricco in which they expressed disappointment in Carlos Beltran's decision to move forward with surgery on his troublesome right knee without specific club approval----Mets.com Story----Beltran shot back with the following statement disputing the Mets version of events:

“I am totally surprised by the reaction to my recent knee surgery.  Any accusations that I ignored or defied the team’s wishes are simply false.  I also spoke to Omar Minaya about the surgery on Tuesday.  He did not ask me to wait, or to get another doctor’s opinion.  He just wished me well. No one from team raised any issue until Wednesday, after I was already in surgery.  I do not know what else I could have done. The most important thing here is that the surgery was a total success and I expect to be back on the field playing the game I love sooner rather than later.”

    With all due respect to Carlos Beltran and trying to keep from sounding like a pompous jerk, I say the following: I'm a writer and I can tell you right now that Carlos Beltran did not write, nor did he utter the above statement. 

    I find it stunning that the same people who unload on superagent Scott Boras for his relentless prevarications in defense or promotion of his clients are so eager and quick to lap up a retort to an bewildered and understandable reaction from an employer's wishes being ignored. With the way GM Omar Minaya has been so embattled over the past year because of his faults, Boras is smart enough to know that the plan of attack in parrying allegations to protect his player is to drag Minaya into the argument as having "known" of the surgery. It's a figurative landmine for Minaya to again trip and set off yet another public relations waterboarding for the club. 

    Who really knows who heard what when? Who said what when? Whether the workman's compensation forms were filled out as a formality and signed in the event of the surgical procedure being agreed to by the third doctor the Mets preferred Beltran consult before moving forward? Who knows?

    The timeline is essentially irrelevant. Nothing legal is going to come of this and it's turning into a war of attrition between the Mets and Boras; and neither has looked particularly good in the past or present. In this case, without going into detail of the "lack of trust" the players suddenly have in the Mets medical staff or whether or not the surgery was absolutely necessary (it sounds like it was), was the Mets request for Beltran to get a third opinion on the surgery such an outrageous thought? The surgery would've been pushed back a week at most. Why couldn't they wait if that's what the employer preferred?

    It's an easy story to attack the Mets now, but is Boras some innocent who is relaying a nonplussed response from his player? Or is it a greater goal of protecting the contract in the ludicrously unlikely event the club tries to avoid paying it? Think about it logically and you'll come up with an answer.

    If the media members who make a living bashing the Mets would look at the circumstances with some semblance of objectivity, they'd realize that both sides aren't wrong here; nor is this fodder for another "Mets as train wreck" story. It's done; it's a mess because of a miscommunication and has little to do with what happened last year with anyone other than Carlos Beltran.

    Anyone intimately involved with the club from the players to the on-field management to the front office to the broadcasters has become so beaten down by the past three years going back to the collapse in 2007 onward that they're waiting for negative things to happen. They're helping to add to the litany of reasons why the club is snakebit. Even fans are partaking in ripping on their own team to exacerbate the situation and give unsaid approval to others in stepping up their attacks.

    No one's willing to step back and see that this isn't that big of a deal. Beltran's not out for the year; the consensus is that the surgery worked; and that once he's back on the field, this will all be forgotten if the club plays well. They've had a very good off-season in their own right and due to the arrogance of the Phillies and insipid stupidity of the Braves. There's no reason to ratchet it up and expect another disaster because of a few bad days that have been blown out of proportion to an absurd degree. 

• Speaking of the Phillies...

    From the classiest fans in sports, the same people who cheered at the possibility that Cowboys wide receiver Michael Irvin might've been paralyzed in the hit that ended his career, we get the beginning of the end.

    So it was absolutely hilarious that the Mets are again dealing with a PR nightmare; the Phillies fans took great joy in laughing hysterically at the possibility that Beltran was out for the year...until it was revealed that Brad Lidge required knee surgery too and may miss opening day.

    The arrogance----absolute and an invitation to disaster----is well on the way to being a self-created prophecy and life-lesson. Despite the idiotic masses cluelessly doling positive feedback on the series of moves the Phillies have made so far, the Lidge injury is the latest in the unraveling of the National League champions.

    All the talk of Lidge having been awful last year is fine; but he's still their closer; and they still need him to perform. The club has not addressed their needs aside from the bench with Ross Gload. Their bullpen was atrocious last year and the losses of Chan Ho Park and Scott Eyre will not be counteracted by the acquisition of Danys Baez. Their starting rotation is very, very shaky; and their lineup aging. 

    Are you ready to trust Baez or Ryan Madson to close games for a team with championship aspirations? To expect anything from Jamie Moyer? To hope that Cole Hamels returns in a better frame of mind than what he was when he wanted the World Series to end----regardless of the result----so he could go home? That Jimmy Rollins will rebound? That Placido Polanco is the answer at third base? That Raul Ibanez's rotten second half was a byproduct of a slump and not of hitting the wall? That Jayson Werth will repeat his career season after years of injury and mediocrity?

    Maybe they can sign Kevin Gregg as "insurance"----then their off-season underhaul will be complete.

    The Phillies have gotten fat over the past three years, mostly at the expense of the Mets; but it's glossed over that the epitome of a club that crumbled at crunch time from 2003 until that fateful September in 2007. The rest of the league hates them with a passion; they've made some ghastly personnel mistakes in the past three months and, most importantly, they and their fans are pushing fate with no thought to the consequences nor a memory of what life was like in those lost years of failure. Laughing and cheering at the misfortune of others is great until that call to figurative and literal vengeance is heard and its consequences underway.

    You push fate too hard, and fate pushes back.

    They won't learn until it's too late.

    But they will learn. You can write that down in ink.

• Marlins signing of Josh Johnson is business-as-usual for the club:

    On the surface, the timing of the Josh Johnson 4-year, $39 million contract extension with the Marlins is easily connected to the agreement between the club, the Players Association and MLB itself to spend more money on players and development; but the truth is the Marlins would've provided this contract to Johnson one way or the other; and it's not going to stop them from trading him after 2011. 

    If you look at the details of the contract, Johnson will receive----$3.75 million in 2010; $7.75 million in 2011; and $13.75 million in 2012 and 2013----is top-light. You'll notice that they're not paying him all that much money for the next two years and this is a similar situation to the contract to which the Marlins signed Carlos Delgado in 2005. They backloaded the deal so they only paid him $4 million in 2005 of the $52 million guarantee and went for another championship. They didn't make the playoffs and traded Delgado to the Mets before the contract escalated. 

    Do you really believe the Marlins are going to change the way they do business to that degree? Johnson's value, if he pitches well, will be so huge by then despite his salary that they'll be able to do what the Marlins do time-and-time again by dealing him at his highest value while he's still locked up and bring back a bounty of prospects. The new ballpark; the agreement with the league and PA won't have anything to do with that ruthless and savvy front office from doing what needs to be done for the club. 

    It's business as usual in Florida.

    And that's a good thing.

• Viewer Mail 1.15.2010:

Jeff (Underboss) at Red State Blue State writes:

The podcast was great. I like listening to it at work. Go there, Prince!

As for the Mets... this all blew by me unawares. I'm glad I know about it now, and for your sake, that it ain't that bad. Queens might sink if the Mets have another injury infected season.

    In contrast to previous years, I have an unexplained good feeling about the team this year. Perhaps because everyone's piling on now; or because they were quietly having a very good off-season before this, but they're going to be laughing by October. I can sense it.

Isaac at A Baseball Thing writes RE the Marlins:

I really respect the marlins front office, and I agree with you in that their system is very efficient, but I'm not so sure they'd be so great if they spent more money. I mean,  I think it's possible that they have become so good at finding unappreciated players and making good trades because they have had to. Maybe if they had the money to lock up some players, they might miss chances of trading them for others who will be even better in the future, and might be able to sign free agents they want, but might become detrimental to the team later. I don't know if that will happen, but I wouldn't rule out the possibility.

    The Johnson signing exemplifies what they do even if it's misinterpreted as a drastic change. If anything, they'll continue doing what they do and pour more money into scouting and development. If the organization is famous for anything, it's adapting and altering their system to spend some more money is a problem I'm sure they don't mind having. The Marlins will still trade anyone at anytime, without remorse.

• My Podcast appearance:

• In context, the Carlos Beltran surgery isn't that big of a deal:

    Amid the onslaught still bombarding the entire Mets organization from the front office to the medical staff, it's ignored that the reality of the situation is only seen as being so horrific because it's the Mets and due to what happened last year.

    Most of the criticism of the organization is coming from those that are invested in the Mets struggles----Yankees and Phillies fans----or those that are looking for ways to tear into the club based on their own agendas. Those agendas could include anything from not having the imagination or mental acuity to find things to write and talk about during the lull of January; because they dislike the way Omar Minaya runs the club; or they're simply mean-spirited with no basis in fact. 

    Taking the situation as it is without looking at this latest medical mishap as part of a greater calamity reveals that the Beltran surgery is not that big of a deal. 

    Given the way the "Injury Expert" on Twitter came out with his cryptic: "Big news pending for mets. Doesn't sound good," it's natural that the whole thing turned into a frenzy. Without anything further coming from anyone for the better part of an hour, the rumor mill started cranking. 

Beltran had microfracture surgery and is out for the year.

The club knew nothing about the surgery. 

Mets forced Beltran to play through the initial injury in 2009.

    It went on and on.

    The Mets and their fans, sensitive to the criticism; battered by the inferences of ineptitude and the reality of the series of ludicrous injuries to every one of their stars in 2009, were bombarded with laughter and ridicule.

    When the real news finally came out (and is still coming out as we speak), it's turned out to be something that isn't all that bad if it's taken as it should----as one incident rather than part of a whole series of disasters.

    The surgery was done to clean out an arthritic area of Beltran's knee----Mets.com Story----the same knee that cost him half the season in 2009. Beltran, having returned late in the season and resumed preparations for 2010 in the Fall and Winter, began having pain again.

    The Mets were not on-board with him having surgery, but it's not as if he went to Dr. Nick Riviera ("Hi, everybody!!!) from The Simpsons to get the surgery done with a rusty screwdriver and rubber mallet. Dr. Richard Steadman is a pioneer in this type of surgery and the injury issues that have hampered Beltran.

    After the widespread panic that multiplied like an internet-exacerbated strain of a virus, the actual facts were a relief to any person with some shred of human decency <insert your Philadelphia fan, fact-based joke here>.

    Out for 12 weeks? Possibly back by mid-April? At worst, May? Is this bad news? To me, this is great news considering the very real prospect of Beltran being out for the entire season was floating around for over an hour led by irresponsible word-of-mouth.

    As for the criticism of the Mets and their medical staff, there are reasons to cast a jaundiced eye on the way things have gone down in the past two years from Ryan Church's concussions onward; but this is the same training/medical staff that catered to one of the healthiest teams in baseball from 2006-2008. Because they had a series of nightmarish/freakish injuries in 2009 is no reason to treat the entire staff and front office as if they're a callous and cold-blooded crew of incompetents that have no concern whatsoever for the welfare of their players. Such an idea is so nonsensical if for no other reason than it would behove them to have their players healthy and on the field for team/financial purposes.

    Is this a continuing trend of hellish lightning bolts? Or is it one instance that should be taken for what it is rather than as a portion from a greater smorgasbord of torment? Angel Pagan can handle the position on a short-term basis. Despite his penchant for rockhead maneuvers in the field and on the bases, he can hit, run and play the outfield; the Mets will survive without Beltran for a month. In fact, Pagan looked great for stretches last year with a quick bat and surprising pop. 

    Given how for an hour and due to the self-serving dropping of bombshells and rumor mongering, everyone thought Beltran was out for the year and such turned to not be the case, this is great news; and if it helps Beltran play at or close to his best, will anyone even remember this? Of course not.

    This is all piling on of the Mets for the sake of comedy and convenience.

    And it's enough already.

• Viewer Mail 1.14.2010:

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

If I were a big market team having to fork over millions to small market teams in revenue sharing, I'd want to see where my money was going. Nothing wrong with that. I feel the same way about the government's bailout money!

    I don't see why it's an issue if the team receiving the money is successful in what they're doing; and I don't believe that the bigger market teams should have a say in what the lower-level clubs are doing with the revenue sharing money. Are they supposed to dictate to the Marlins which players they're supposed to keep or trade? I'm waiting for an explanation as to how that works; and if the Marlins do start spending more lavishly, then how good are they going to be? The rest of the league is going to regret stirring up this hornet's nest. 

Gabriel (Capo) writes RE the Marlins:

Interesting opinion on Rose. As for the Marlins, maybe there's an agreement on how the money it's supposed to be spent and the Marlins are violating it because they're very smart. Other than that, it's an invasion. Revenue sharing gives the club the right to spend it wherever they like to improve their club, as big market teams can do. If the Marlins feel healthy finances are going to help them to win because they have the players covered, then leave them alone.

    The only thing I can come up with on this issue is that there's an in-writing agreement as to how the money is spent. Perhaps it's sort of like government grants that revert back to the government if they're not spent by a certain date; rather than give it back, the beneficiary of said grants just spends it on something----doesn't matter what. To me, that's worse than then using the money to pay down a debt or even buy a nice coat.

Jeff (Underboss) at Red State Blue State writes RE the Marins:

I'll have to read over that NYT article, because I'm shocked that the league would scold a team like the Marlins for being savvy and competitive. Since their inception, I have always enjoyed watching the Marlins clubs because they're frequently young, fresh and exciting -- a bunch of young fellas intent on establishing themselves as real deal Major Leaguers.

So, given all that... why don't they have any fans? If I were the Marlins front office, I'd take that extra money and go do some marketing, to get butts in the stadium. I'm always saddened by the "crowd" shots in Miami. You know, the ones with no crowd.

    Part of the lack of appeal of the team in Florida is that there's almost always a threat of rain in Florida; maybe people don't want to sit though a 3-hour game and a 1 1/2-hour rain delay every night. Florida is also a notorious football town. The combination of the NFL and NCAA reduces baseball to something they'll pay attention to when the team is contending or actually in the playoffs. Aside from that, they don't even bother. There's always something else to do in Miami.

Mike at The Brooklyn Trolley Blogger responds similarly to Jeff's comment:

They don't show up to games out there because one, it's too hot and two, the chances of rain are good, and three, not much outside of the Dolphins and U.Miami really moves them. The Panthers are drawing from transplanted NYers. I'm there too often, there's a lot of apathy for their baseball team in SoFlo.

    I was surprised that they never tried to move the franchise through all the years of failed attempts to get a new ballpark. We'll see what happens when the new stadium is up.

• My Podcast appearance:

    I was again a guest of Sal Cartusciello on his excellently run site SportsFanBuzz yesterday. We discussed Mark McGwire, the Hall of Fame voting and the moves and non-moves from this winter. You can listen on the SportsFanBuzz site.

    And here's the direct link----The Prince on SportsFanBuzz. 

    In the appearance, I'm my normal shy and reserved self.

    Yah.

    Right.

• MLB, The Players Union And Their Wrench In The Machine----The Marlins:

    I'm not entirely sure how this is supposed to work.

    In an agreement with Major League Baseball and the Players Association, the Florida Marlins have agreed to spend proceeds from revenue sharing on player development and salaries. Baseball was concerned about the Marlins penchant for either pocketing said proceeds or using the money to pay down debts; with the club's new ballpark on the way, they took steps to intervene----NY Times Story.

    Here's the problem: the Marlins win and develop players without spending tons and tons of money. So how exactly is baseball supposed to regulate how they do business when the way they do business is profitable and successful?

    If the Marlins were the hapless Pirates or the inept Padres, then maybe they'd have some cause to interfere in their template; but the Marlins are the best and smartest front office in all of baseball. They contend; they win; and the two times the organization has gotten into the playoffs, they've won the World Series. Aside from the Yankees and Red Sox over the past twelve years, can you name one team whose success you'd rather emulate than the Marlins? Then when you add their business acumen and profitability, you have no reason to mess with it aside from self-serving complaining from those that can't replicate what the Marlins do.

    The stat zombies conveniently omit the success of the Marlins because they don't use stats as the end-all be-all of existence to build their club. The larger market teams complain about the Marlins pocketing the trickle-down of their massive spending. The other clubs with limited payroll look at the way the Marlins are successful and snort with jealousy. 

    It's for no reason other than the fact that the Marlins are successful doing what they're doing rather than following a blueprint of numbers, numbers, numbers; of flinging money at their problems; or of not even trying to compete while complaining about payroll disparity and lobbying for a salary cap.

    I can promise you that if there was a salary cap or minimum payroll, the Pirates would still be the Pirates because their front office so hideously overmatched and clueless that no amount of communist-style redistribution could help them in any way, shape or form; nor could it save them from their lot in life as the punching bag and factory for veteran help to contenders that they currently are.

    How is this going to be regulated? Is someone going to look at a contract the Marlins are negotiating with Josh Johnson and tell that terms agreed to by both parties aren't lucrative enough to assuage baseball and the union? Even if Johnson and the Marlins are happy with the agreement?

    Are they going to tell them not to trade Dan Uggla even if another club offers two solid prospects for him? Two prospects that the Marlins are confident will be useful in some capacity? 

    The Marlins payroll at the end of 2009 was around $37 million.

    They won 87 games and were in contention for a playoff spot until the last weekend.

    Other teams like the Royals ($81 million); the Orioles ($79 million); the Mets ($142 million); the Cubs ($141 million); the Astros ($108 million); the Indians ($77 million) yielded embarrassing results not in comparison to the Marlins, but embarrassing results period!

    Then there are the supposedly "smart" teams that use sabermetrics and economically-wise principles to build their clubs. The Red Sox ($140 million); the Athletics ($61 million); the Rays ($71 million) all spent a load more money than the Marlins and didn't come anywhere close to similar results per dollar.

    And there are even the similarly "small-market" clubs like the Pirates ($47 million); and the Padres ($41 million) who plainly and simply don't know what they're doing. How can someone look at any club and buy into their cries of poverty when the Marlins do what they do within the budget they do it?

    Putting money into salaries?

    Why?

    The Marlins strategy of dealing burgeoning stars who are becoming too pricey to keep for top minor leaguers has worked in the cases of Miguel Cabrera and Josh Beckett to name two. Because they find players the likes of Jorge Cantu and Cody Ross on the scrapheap, rehabilitate their careers and get massive production, it's somehow seen as a negative?  

    Player development?

    The Marlins have a loaded farm system because of their skills at spotting talent in the draft, in the Latin American free agent market and by committing repeated masterful robberies of youngsters due to other clubs' stupidity. They also give their youngsters a chance to play.  

    It's almost like a case of Atlas Shrugged in which those that are the trend-setters and creators are forced to share their brilliance with the rabble that rides on their coattails contributing little to nothing to the greater cause. Through some specious sense of entitlement, clubs from both the big market and small market are dragging the Marlins into their cesspool because of the Marlins success. It's a farce and I can't see how it's supposed to be enforced. 

    The issue isn't that the Marlins aren't spending the money enough to keep every subpar organization happy; it's that they're spending the money wisely. It's as if they're being scolded: "How dare you not spend the money that we generously provide you through revenue sharing; and how DARE you be successful at it!!!!" 

    I'd love to see more details as to how this is going to work because if they really start spending money, the Marlins might create a dynasty, then the rest of baseball is going to regret having set this in motion to begin with.

• Viewer Mail 1.13.2010:

Jeff (Underboss) at Red State Blue State writes RE the Cubs hiring Greg Maddux; and the Mark McGwire "confession":

I think that's the smartest move the Cubs have made all offseason.

As for McGwire, I was pretty shocked at his refusal to fess up that his numbers were padded from steroids. I used to rally behind Mark for the HOF vote, thinking his numbers would've been on par even if you take away the boost he got from 'roids. But as a human being, I have a hard time rallying behind anyone who looks right in my eyes and tells a stone cold lie -- that he could've hit 70 HRs that year without the 'roids -- and for that I have to walk away from my allegiance to Mac for the Hall. I hope he does well as a coach in St. Louis and I look forward to hollerin' at him during batting practice this season, but in evaluating him as a player over his career, I'm totally over it, him, all of it.

    I'm not defending him, but he couldn't have planned his remarks all that thoroughly and once he was into the fire of the interviews, he didn't have a clear idea of what he was saying. The whole admission/apology tour had to be pretty overwhelming and something of a heady relief.

    We've all been in the situation of trying to be ready for whatever and then suddenly find ourselves in the middle of it and seeing the original intent go off the reservation. It's possible that he really believes that the PEDs had nothing to do with his power surge, but clearly it's absurd to think otherwise. The muscle development combined from the juice combined with a super light bat and terrible pitching turned shots that would likely have gone to the warning track into legendary blasts. 

    And like I said yesterday, at this point, who cares?

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

I'm with Jeff. That statement about being able to hit 70 HRs without the 'roids because he was such a natural as a kid rang hallow. And the low doses? Please. But the funniest was when he said he didn't want to look like Schwarzenegger. Does he think he looked like Olive Oil?

    Wouldn't we all have been happier with McGwire's confession if he's done what I suggested when it was announced he was hired as Cardinals hitting coach and said the following: "I did it; I used the drugs to help my health and my performance. I now wish I hadn't done it. They obviously helped me extend my God-given ability past what was realistic without the drugs. And I'm sorry." 

    Plus any bodybuilder, doctor or steroid guru will tell you that unless you use the drugs properly in their required doses, they won't work.

Joe at Statistician Magician writes RE the Mets outfield:

I was wondering if maybe they should just play Beltran in left center, and play Francoeur in right. That might be a better defensive outfield than having Bay out there at all :)

    And would these cute comments be coming from you if Bay had stayed with the Red Sox, Joe? I wonder...

Mike at The Brooklyn Trolley Blogger writes RE Mark McGwire:

I think we share a brain about "Puff the Mutant Slugger"
McGwire. Certainly not a surprise and pretty yawn inspiring by now, but with it out in the open, kinda, sorta, they can receive their due individualized slings and arrows. They aren't sorry...so I say let em squirm and, if need be....Cry! whatever it takes. man enough to juice? take your lumps however long they last. It's all we have as fans.

    Maybe I'm misreading the fan reaction, but the palpable indifference will prevent any full-scale unleashing on McGwire once the season gets started. Only those who are really beered up or just scream at the players for the sake of it are going to go to the effort to yell at the hitting coach, who they'll only see if they show up for batting practice, if then.

David writes RE Mark McGwire:

And here's the comparison that I love to bring up everytime a 'roids story busts open: McGwire "fully" admits to his crimes, and gets a borderline letter of condolence from Selig, and a job with the Cards that seems almost guaranteed with LaRussa's backing. *Yet*, Pete Rose, an extraordinary athlete who never did drugs and was known for his hustle is still banned for life for betting on games. I'm not advocating Pete Rose as Mother Teresa here, but sad irony, anyone?

    The league was tacitly complicit in the PED use, so there's not much that Selig and company can do aside from accept the apology and move on hoping it goes away as quickly as possible. Like the apology itself, the rapid acceptance of said apologies is more self-serving than anything else. I doubt even Bud Selig believed that McGwire was clean. 

    The difference with Rose was that it was gambling. Rose's banishment for life stemmed from his initial insistence that he didn't bet on baseball. The agreement for lifetime banishment never contained a conclusion of guilt or innocence. It was a tactical move on Rose's part. Had he admitted what he'd done in 1989, he would've been suspended for a year and that would've been it and he'd probably be in the Hall of Fame now.

    He'd have been back in baseball pretty quickly and all would've been forgiven. Under no circumstances would he have gotten another managing job, but he would've been allowed to broadcast or maybe coach at least in spring training. He made his own mess with his lies.    

• Mark McGwire's confession is predictably anti-climactic:

    If anyone was expecting a penultimate scene between Mark McGwire and an angry public, stung by betrayal of lies and self-serving semantics, as he finally confessed to that which everyone with any concept of logic knew was the truth, they were sorely disappointed.

    The public admissions were nothing like the scene in A Few Good Men between Jack Nicholson and Tom Cruise in which Nicholson justifies his behavior based on reality and Cruise demands the truth as to what really happened under Nicholson's command.

    "You can't handle the truth!!!" was unspoken and unnecessary during the Bob Costas-McGwire interview; nor in any of the other forums in which McGwire made his "I'm sorry and ashamed" tour.

    There was no climax; no stunned silence as the explanation was proffered. Like two people whose interactions show any observer paying scant attention that they're clearly in love without it being openly admitted; or Clay Aiken coming out of the closet; or Bill Clinton's confession to an "inappropriate" relationship with Monica Lewinsky----no one's all that bothered or interested other than in a selfish way of how this can help them in their own agendas. 

    No one's shocked.

    No one really cares.

    Does it matter that McGwire still refuses to come clean about what happened? With the nonsensical excuses of trying to recover from injuries; of using low doses of steroids whose names he can't recall; of believing that he still could've hit 70 homers without the use of PEDs, what's the difference at this point?

    People will speculate on the potential accuracy of these statements; they'll dissect everything he said; doctors, trainers and experts in bodybuiding and drug use for muscle gains will present their opinions on the believability of McGwire's assertions; some will defend him; others will condemn him. Everyone will get their fair share of play from this non-event. But does anyone care? Are they truly shocked?

    Aside from a disturbingly naive Tony La Russa, did anyone really believe that McGwire had been clean all those years? In a bizarre way, McGwire's credibility is non-existent next to that of Jose Canseco, who's still torn to shreds as a "liar" or someone who was looking to sell a book, but has had just about every one of his major allegations from the Alex Rodriguez revelation on down proven to be true.

    McGwire was the All-American slugger who was presented as a testimony for hard work, dedication and perseverance, but turned out to be a false hero. Canseco was the guy with the outlandish persecution complex; the arrests; the speeding tickets; the divorces; and controversial lifestyle. The difference is that Canseco told the truth and McGwire continues to use a skillful manipulation to downplay what he actually did and why.

    Would McGwire have come out with his surface-scratching version of the truth had he not decided to re-enter baseball as the Cardinals hitting coach? Who knows? Will this end the feeding frenzy that awaited him once spring training started? Probably.

    Barry Bonds is the villain; Roger Clemens is defiant; ARod is disingenuous; and McGwire is contrite and tearful. Are his persona as a good guy and heartfelt reaction enough to protect him from the reactions that come from this admission?

    And I do believe that Mark McGwire is a good guy who means well, but what's the difference between motive, personality, perception and reality? Behavior is what it is regardless of intent if people are hurt by it. That he didn't intend to hurt anyone shouldn't exclude him from the same scrutiny raining down on the aforementioned people.

    McGwire admitted his steroid use. People are paying attention with passing interest and a "no-kidding" shrug. 

    We can handle the truth.

    We just don't care anymore.

• Cubs hire Greg Maddux as assistant GM:

    We'll ignore the fact that in the moment, the Cubs would be better off if Greg Maddux put on a uniform and decided to pitch rather than don a suit to be an executive. Let's instead look at the prospect of someone with Maddux's mind moving into a front office capacity full time.

    With Maddux signing on as special assistant to GM Jim Hendry, this is the first step for the mound craftsman eventually becoming a GM and a good one. Like Orel Hershiser, Maddux is so smart, savvy and baseball-knowledgeable that he could do anything he wanted in the game and do it well. Pitching coach, manager, scout or general manager----the genius that made them successful on the mound extends to other aspects of the game. 

    In an off-season for the Cubs that could be described as----at best----disturbing, they made a good move for the present and future by bringing Maddux back into the fold.

• Joel Pineiro would be another off-season win for the Mets:

    Coming down from his initial demands of 4-years, $40 million, Joel Pineiro is said to be talking to the Mets and Dodgers----MLBTradeRumors.com. If the Mets manage to get Pineiro at the same money----2-years, $15 million----that a lesser pitcher in Jason Marquis got from the Nationals, their winning off-season will continue and they'll still have money to spend on bullpen help and possibly another bat.

    Critics point to Pineiro's pitching so horrifically from 2005-2007 and that if he's away from Dave Duncan in St. Louis, he'll revert to what he was before he got there. It's ignored that Pineiro was a very good pitcher in 2002-2003 with the Mariners before he every got close to Duncan and Tony La Russa with the Cardinals. 

    Given Pineiro's prior success, there's little of a chance of him being a Kent Bottenfield, who only got it done under La Russa/Duncan and fell off the planet directly thereafter. Pineiro rejuvenated his career in St. Louis and the short money that he appears ready to accept make it a total win for the Mets if they get him.

    Pineiro's motion was cleaned up and his ground ball/flyball ratio last year was almost double flyballs/line drives. With the Mets' infield defense and cavernous Citi Field, he'd win 15 games easily and gobble innings.  

    They're facing competition from the Dodgers, but with the Dodgers only moves thus far having been the signings of journeymen Nick Green, Jason Repko, Scott Dohmann, etc, are they really going to get Pineiro? They've done absolutely nothing this winter with the divorce of the McCourts clearly grinding personnel decisions to a halt.

    Who would've thought a few months ago that a free agent with almost identical options would choose to join the Mets because they're more stable and less aggravating? But that's what the Dodgers mess has done.

    I think Pineiro's going to the Mets. Sooner rather than later.

• A surprising destination for Aroldis Chapman:

    Even with the number of surprising teams making aggressive pushes for the 22-year-old Cuban defector Aroldis Chapman, an even more stunning victor in the negotiations emerged as the Cincinnati Reds have nabbed the lefty.

    The Reds have agreed with Chapman on a 5-year, $30 million contract. While teams like the Yankees, Red Sox, Angels and Marlins were after him, that it's the Reds that emerged from the quagmire with the prize says that Chapman's natural abilities are something to behold. 

    Having barely seen Chapman, there's not a great way for me to a full gauge on him one way or the other. In seeing brief snippets however, there is a way to at least get an idea of his motion; his arm action; his attitude; and his athleticism to say something about him.

    He's lanky and athletic and reminds me of Brien Taylor, the star-crossed, would-be star and former top pick in the draft by the Yankees who blew out his valuable left shoulder in a fight before his career even got started full-bore. You can have a look at Chapman in the clip accompanying the ESPN.com story of his signing----ESPN Story/Clip.

    So far, we've gotten conflicting reports of him being very raw, to having the stuff to be dominant in the big leagues as early as this season. 

    Who knows? 

    It's very interesting that it was the Reds who won the bidding. For a team with contracts----Aaron Harang, Bronson Arroyo, Francisco Cordero----that they'd love to be rid of, and a manager, Dusty Baker, who has a reputation (an unfair one in my opinion) of mishandling young arms, this can be seen as a major roll of the dice if Chapman doesn't live up to the hype. 

    This could be seen in several ways as a worthwhile risk of the Reds. Obviously, they have scouts who've seen him and think he's the real deal; and at his age, with his stuff and international experience, he's probably less of a gamble than a hyped, first round pick out of college. Had he been a draftee from a large college program with his dazzling skills, he'd get a bonus of around $10-15 million anyway; then the big league contract to start his arbitration clock ticking. So, it'd come to more than the $30 million the Reds are paying and Chapman may be closer to big league ready than a similar college pitcher.

    Of course, there's the possibility that the Reds just wasted $30 million on a Kei Igawa, but I find that highly unlikely with the small sampling provided by Chapman's clips and the way so many respected scouts and executives have been playing him up. 

    The Reds made a bold move here and in watching the Cuban lefty and the way he moves, I think it's going to pay off. And big.

• Daisuke Matsuzaka's hidden groin injury:

    This guy's turning into a train wreck.

    I suppose this is a dignified, Japanese version of Brett Myers making up stories of how he really hurt his eye last summer because he didn't want to admit he got his ass kicked in a fight.

    In the latest from Daisuke Matsuzaka's 2009 adventure----ESPN Story----it's been revealed that the pitcher injured his groin during the ridiculous World Baseball Classic and it affected his performance once the season started and caused him to strain his shoulder.

    When are these players going to learn that they're doing little more than hurting themselves and their teams with this faux tough-guy routine? If a pitcher is sore, it's one thing; if he's hurt it's another. Matsuzaka is lucky he didn't blow out his shoulder from the extra stress of trying to pitch with little more than his arm----and he got shelled anyway!!

    There's being gutty and there's being stupid and Matsuzaka was being stupid. Just add this to the list of reasons the Red Sox would probably be happier if they'd lost the bidding for the over-hyped righty and never laid eyes on him in a Red Sox uniform or otherwise. Aside from the fact that without Matsuzaka, they never would've signed Hideki Okajima, Matsuzaka's been a thousand times more trouble than he's worth.  

• Giants sign Aubrey Huff:

    I've always liked the way Huff hits. He had a fantastic year for the Orioles in 2008 and was scuffling with mediocrity when he was traded to the Tigers at mid-season. He was heinous for the Tigers batting .189 with 2 homers. 

    While he won't put up the big power numbers for the Giants he did for most of his time with the Orioles, Huff's versatile (he can play first, third and the outfield passably); has power; and his slugging numbers have been mostly consistent throughout his career.

    On a one-year deal, this is another great, low-cost addition to the Giants. With their pitching, they don't need that one basher who can wreck a game by himself. It would help, but they don't need that. The Giants are putting together a team that may not look like much on paper offensively, but the sum of the parts equals a playoff contender. And oh, the pitching...

• Viewer Mail 1.11.2010:

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

The Rangers' signing of Vlad sure does make the AL West interesting, especially with the reconfigured Mariners. I'd be concerned if I were an Angels fan.

    I never discount the Angels. They've been down and out so many times after what was considered "bad" winters and turned around to win the division again. The year I point to with the Angels and their ability to find ways to compete is 2006----the one season out of the past six in which they didn't make the playoffs. 

    Looking at their season, they struggled with a shoddy offense and were 11 games under .500 by late-May. Through sheer force of will by manager Mike Scioscia and his gutty players, the Angels somehow crawled back into contention late in the season and put a huge scare into the eventual division champion Athletics before succumbing. They still won 89 games in a year in which no one would've noticed had they stumbled to 81-81 or worse.

    The just find a way to replace departing players and still win.

Gabriel (Capo) writes RE "garbage" stats:

I agree with you, Boss, in that there are not "garbage" stats, they can all be useful when looked in the right context.

I've got an off-season topic for you: your dream team, and your movie dream team (players from baseball movies, if you like them, that would make a championship franchise, the Princes of NY).

    All stats need to be examined in all their aspects. Dogmatism is how you create a stat zombie or a fool who ignores stats entirely going with his "gut". 

    The dream team isn't a bad idea, but there aren't that many great baseball movies out there. It'd wind up looking something like combination of a Kevin Costner film and Major League. It could morph into a disaster. But looking at sports movies in general is a good thought. The best sports movie ever, to me, is North Dallas Forty. A classic. 

    For the Princes of NY, I'd need a bunch of ruthless, but heartfelt and smart gamers----like my Family----hard to find.

Jeff (Underboss) at Red State Blue State writes RE MLB Network:

Understood on the MLB Network stuff. Makes sense. Though I do have to stand up for them a bit and say that they are always on the ball with the live look ins. I have MLB.tv too and will have about 8 games going on two different computers, watching everything at once, and the MLB Network always cuts to the game/situation with the most interest. I kept tabs on them last year, to see how it would work. If you don't have a Direct TV or MLB.TV pass, then watching "MLB Tonight" for a few hours would make you feel like you've been watching or keeping up with all the games.

Oh yeah, and I wonder if it's possible for the people of Houston to fire McLane. Can a people fire an owner? Haha.

    You're right about the MLB Network. I'll have to give it more of a chance. It's taken under advisement.

    With McLane, I'm sort of torn. He interferes, but his team was remarkably successful for a mid-market club from 1998 through 2005 with six playoff appearances in that time; and they've been surprisingly aggressive when they've been in contention. He is willing to spend money for players. In addition to that, he's ignored entreaties to clean out the house a couple of times----notably in 2005 and in 2008----and it paid off.

    In 2005, the team was out of it for all intents and purposes at 15 games under .500 in May, but he held his fire and their pitching carried them back into contention and all the way to the World Series. And in 2008, instead of clearing out the vets like Roy Oswalt, they were buyers and brought in Randy Wolf and LaTroy Hawkins----both of whom pitched great----and they got back into the race before fading late; and had they not been forced to play a make-up game in Milwaukee against the Cubs (in which they were no-hit) during a blazing hot streak, who's to say they wouldn't have made it all the way back and into the playoffs again?

    In the final analysis, there are worse owners than Drayton McLane.

Joe at Statistician Magician writes RE stats:

Every front office relies on the numbers, to some extent. If a front office uses "wins and losses" to determine who is a good pitcher, in any context, then they are a terrible front office. So why should we rely on a stat that is simply garbage?

    No one's saying to take wins and losses as the final arbiter on a pitcher; but it's not something to be tossed out the window completely because how a pitcher achieved his record does have some importance when judged properly. 

    I don't think the Royals use stats in any context. That's why they're the Royals.

• General Managers beginning 2010 on the hotseat:

    Last week I discussed the managers who were beginning the 2010 season on the hotseat; now in what I think is an even more interesting subject, here are the general managers who are under fire. With the way GMs are high-profile, prominent, romanticized and judged, they're more in the crosshairs than most managers because the buck stops with them and the job itself isn't seen as an "insiders only" club any longer.

    The GMs are more touchable and easily assessed with the availability of tools to determine exactly what it is they're doing. (I was about to write "and why" as a conclusion to the previous sentence, but there are still many GMs who do things without any viable explanation as to "why". We'll edit that word out.)

    Let's take a look:

Dayton Moore, Kansas City Royals:

    Moore came from under Braves boss John Schuerholz and had an excellent reputation for scouting and development. He did some impressive things when he got the Royals job. He cleaned out the scouting staff; made maneuvers that appeared as if he was rebuilding the farm system; and hired a manager with an impressive resume in Trey Hillman.

     But it's been a disaster since then. The Royals are strangely constructed and run as if they're throwing darts at a dartboard hoping that they hit on a strategy that works. The ridiculous signings and acquisitions are adding up. Jose Guillen, Kyle Farnsworth, Willie Bloomquist, Yuniesky Betancourt, and now Scott Podsednik are all Moore imports with no viable use on paper or in practice. Any other organization would've fired Moore after last year's 65-97 debacle, but for some unfathomable reason, Moore was signed to a 5-year contract extension. Continuity is only smart if things are working and things in Kansas City aren't working.

    It's hard to see Moore getting fired as he's starting that contract, but the arrows aimed at him are coming from all sides with increasingly deadly accuracy. If the Royals again have a 90-plus loss season, one would have to think that team owner David Glass would re-think the partnership with Moore. It's unlikely, but possible.

Billy Beane, Oakland Athletics:

    Surprised that the "genius" from Moneyball is suddenly being examined with a jaundiced eye and under heavier fire for his strange and ineffective maneuvers over the past few years? 

    Don't be.

    As much of a farce as Moneyball was----and Beane is bailing from the book's portrayal like he's escaping the Titanic; Billy first, women and children second----Beane is still a smart guy. That said, there won't be too many people saddened by his demise if his free-fall continues unabated. 

    The time of excuses are just about over. The statement of, "well the man must know what he's doing" is no longer cutting it with anyone other than the hardest of the hard core stat zombies (the DePodesta Defenders as it were) or those that have something financially or personally invested in Moneyball being seen as having "worked". 

    This has not been a good off-season for Beane and the A's. The AL West is a nightmare with three teams that are far superior to the A's on paper before the season even starts. They have a lot of young pitching, but their offense is toxic wasteland and one of the main tenets behind Moneyball was plugging numbers in to find players cheaply and score runs----and the A's offense is an embarrassment.

    Beane's biggest acquisition this winter has been Coco Crisp. That alone should say it all.

    If things spiral as badly as I think they will, the A's and Beane could very well move on from one another. Of course, Beane's ego won't tolerate a firing. He'll be allowed to resign and will get another GM job elsewhere.

    The final act of Moneyball is underway and it won't be a storybook ending.

    Well, it won't be a storybook ending for Michael Lewis and Billy Beane, but for me it will be. Find the bright side is what I say.

Frank Wren, Atlanta Braves

    No one knows how much influence/interference club president John Schuerholz is inflicting on the decisions made by Wren; nor can Wren be entirely blamed for the budgetary constraints that caused him to scour the bargain bin for the likes of Troy Glaus and Eric Hinske when the Braves needed a Miguel Cabrera to contend for a championship. They instead acquired Melky Cabrera from the Yankees in exchange for Javier Vazquez, one of the best pitchers in the National League last season.

    Wren is not well-liked by the players or the manager and the Braves high hopes for the season have taken a dramatic hit with the series of absurd moves made over the past month. Schuerholz is not too old (69) to re-take the reins and while he has undoubtedly contributed to the Braves series of gaffes, don't be stunned to see him move back into the GM chair and replace Wren.

Omar Minaya, New York Mets

    Had Minaya not received a contract extension through 2012, he might've been fired after the 2007-2008 collapses and the 2009 disaster. While the spate of injuries can't be blamed on anyone in particular, an angry Mets fan base wanted blood, but Minaya survived.

    The farm system is weak and the repeated controversies with Tony Bernazard and the loony allegations against NY Daily News writer Adam Rubin of conspiring to get Bernazard's job made Minaya look like a clown.

    The team is still spending money and with the returning stars and the acquisition of Jason Bay, they're expected to win. More money is going to be spent on a catcher and at least one starting pitcher, so there won't be any excuses this year, injuries or otherwise. If the team slumps into mid-season, Minaya's going to be gone.

Jim Hendry, Chicago Cubs

    The Cubs are a disaster waiting to happen and with a new ownership in place, they'd better win with their current group this year or a housecleaning will begin.

    The contracts the Cubs have doled out to the likes of Alfonso Soriano, Marlon Byrd, Kosuke Fukudome, Carlos Zambrano and Ryan Dempster will hinder their efforts for years to come. Bad trades, bad contracts and capricious decisions overall will doom Hendry unless the Cubs rebound. And they won't. 

Ed Wade, Houston Astros

    Just because he's Ed Wade and works for Drayton McLane puts Wade's job in jeopardy. The Astros are a bad team with a rotten farm system; they're hard for other clubs to deal with and they overspend on the likes of Brandon Lyon for no reason whatsoever. McLane meddles in the club's affairs, but Wade is the GM and he'll get the boot if the Astros are as bad as they look like they're going to be.

• The latest signings:

    The free agent chips are falling into place. By the end of the month, most of the still available "big" names will start to find homes. A few already have in the past few days.

Astros sign Brett Myers to a 1-year, $5 million contract:

    One would assume that Myers is going to start for the Astros given their desperation for starting pitching. The number or relievers with closing experience still available----Kevin Gregg, Jose Valverde----put Myers in an untenable position if he was looking for closer money to be a reliever. That he didn't pitch very well after returning from labrum surgery on his hip didn't help either. 

    I see Myers as more of a reliever than a starter, but he's better than what the Astros had before and if he's healthy, he can pitch serviceably as a starter. This is a cheap, worthwhile risk for the Astros.

Royals sign OF Scott Podsednik to a 1-year, $1.75 million contract:

    Um. Okay.

    It's not an expensive signing, so that----if nothing else----makes it a non-entity of a deal. If they intend to play Podsednik in center field regularly, the Royals should consider the fact that White Sox manager Ozzie Guillen was never impressed with Podsednik's play in center field. 

    Aside from one year with the Brewers, Podsednik hasn't played very well away from the White Sox. It's a cheap deal, but how this helps the Royals is a mystery.

Rangers sign Vladimir Guerrero to a 1-year, $6 million contract:

    Guerrero can't play the outfield anymore, but his bat will certainly appreciate the friendly confines of Rangers Ballpark. He's a .394 career hitter there with 14 homers in 50 games. This is a great deal for the Rangers because Guerrero can still hit. 

    The Rangers are going to be a very interesting club this year. They've done very little aside from trading Kevin Millwood and replacing him with the injury-prone and gifted Rich Harden; they signed long reliever Darren Oliver; and now Guerrero.

    They're somewhat hamstrung by the financial uncertainty of owner Tom Hicks, but have so much young talent that they're a major threat in the division and possibly the whole American League if things go well. This is a good, cheap signing for the Rangers to bolster their offense.

• Viewer Mail 1.10.2010:

Jeff (Underboss) at Red State Blue State writes RE the MLB Network:

Speaking of the MLB Network, Prince, I remember a long time ago you mentioned you'd never watched it and didn't desire to watch it. I'm curious why you feel that way.

Personally, I love the MLB Network. There has never been anything like it; and every time I turn it on I am entertained. It's become a part of my daily routine.

    I think the main reason I don't watch it is that I forget about it; but without sounding like a pompous jerk, I don't have much use for roundtables and "analysis" that takes place during the Hot Stove shows and I've never been much of an interview-watcher. To me, there's very little reason to tune in. 

    Do I need to be watching Harold Reynolds in any circumstance other than if he's in close proximity to me when I'm on a date?

    I dunno, maybe I'm being a little intransigent, but I get my information from the internet and newspapers and come to my own conclusions. It also doesn't help that when something big happens, the MLB Network is always showing some game from 1975 rather than covering it with immediate break-ins.

    It may also be a bit too close to MLBlogs for my taste. You and I both know up close and personally how that entity is run. I'm still waiting to see the promised "MLBlogger involvement" on the MLB Network that never happened and never will as long as it's still (mis)handled as it currently is.

Joe at Statistician Magician writes RE Bert Blyleven and win totals:

You say you are going to use a "non-stat zombie" approach, and then give us stats to support Blyleven's case. And why use win/loss record at all? Even you know that is a garbage stat.

    Why is win/loss a "garbage" stat when all these other ridiculous numbers that pop up out of some stat zombie's ass justifying the signing of Marlon Byrd over Jason Bay aren't "garbage" stats? 

    The win/loss records are used as a tool to explain why Blyleven should've had more gaudier stats than he did. The easily misinterpreted number of wins and losses work both ways. A pitcher can't be judged if he loses and appears as though he got shelled by giving up five runs in the first inning, but still stayed in the game; settled down; got his six or so innings in and saved the bullpen from being burned out. If his team rallies and comes up short and he gets the loss, his loss isn't as bad as it would've been had he gotten yanked and blown out the pitching staff.

    What if a pitcher guts his way through and hangs around long enough to win? Is that a garbage stat that tells you nothing about the man? Bronson Arroyo finds a way to hang around in games and win his 15 games a year. Is that a garbage stat if he wins? You have to put things into their proper context and that includes looking at his win/loss total. People defend Daisuke Matsuzaka because of his gaudy numbers when he's very protected by his team and isn't any better than a mid-to-back of the rotation starter. 

    Blyleven became a different pitcher as he grew older and his comeback from arm injuries and masterful 1989 season is judged by his gaudy win/loss record of 17-5. His Hall of Fame career has much to do with his numbers; but also much to do with how he reinvented himself and rejuvenated his career in a stunning fashion when he could've been seen as finished in the early 80s. Stats don't reflect what it was that Blyleven accomplished in and of themselves.

    Who would you rather have at your back in a dark alley? Rich Harden or Erik Bedard with their flashy across-the-board stats despite injuries without giant win totals? Or an Arroyo/Mark Buehrle who you know is going to do everything in his power for his team without concern for his arm or out-of-context numbers?

    I'd take Arroyo/Buehrle any day of the week. Their win totals are what they are because they play for the team rather than for their next contract. Like a knockout in boxing, it's an accumulation of punches rather than one lottery shot that happens to connect. Their teammates appreciate them immeasurably; the win totals are a reward for doing what they have to do to win rather than what the numbers indicate would make them valuable. Discounting or counting win totals without examining them deeply is as bad as dismissing them entirely as a "garbage" stat. 

• An objective non-stat zombie, non-blind "I know it when I see it" look at Bert Blyleven's Hall of Fame credentials:

    The debate is essentially moot because with Bert Blyleven having fallen five votes short of induction this year, he's going to get in, more than likely next year. That said, there still appears to be a chasm between those who think Blyleven really belongs and those that have been swayed either by the stat-based argument or by Blyleven's incessant whining.

    It's as if certain people whose thoughts on Blyleven were altered from simply looking at his 287-250 record and saying "no" were affected by the way his numbers have been examined intently to bolster his candidacy. With that, there's a reticence that I can sense as if some who don't think Blyleven belongs are voting for him because they think they're supposed to. 

    I've never really taken a close look at Blyleven's year-by-year performance. On the surface, with the number of strikeouts; wins; shutouts; innings; and complete games, Blyleven is a viable Hall of Famer. But you can understand the way he was pushed to the side when he first became eligible. He never won a Cy Young Award nor finished higher than third in the voting; he was only 27 games over .500; made two All-Star teams; and won 20 games once in an era when starting pitchers went out there 36-40 times. If you look at his year-by-year records without anything else, you'd say he was a .500 pitcher and not worthy of the ultimate honor. 

    Let's take a look at Blyleven's career, year-by-year.

1970--Record: Won-10; Lost-9; ERA-3.18; Innings-164; Hits-143; Strikeouts-135; Shutouts-1

    The 1970 Twins went 98-64; Blyleven could've won five or six more games and lost one or two that he did win as a 19-year-old rookie.

1971--Record: Won-16; Lost-15; ERA-2.81; Innings-278; Hits-267; Strikeouts-224; Shutouts-5

    The 1971 Twins went 74-86. Blyleven could've won seven more games easily. He was 5th in ERA; 4th in strikeouts; and 5th in shutouts. Vida Blue had an all-world year and won the Cy Young Award and the MVP; Mickey Lolich also had a better overall year than Blyleven. 

1972--Record: Won-17; Lost-17; ERA-2.73; Innings-287; Hits-247; Strikeouts-228; Shutouts-3

    The 1972 Twins went  77-77. Blyleven could conceivably have won seven more games than he did; his 17-17 record is tarnished by his mediocre team. Aside from innings and strikeouts, Blyleven wasn't in the top ten of any major pitching category.

1973--Record: Won-20; Lost-17; ERA-2.52; Innings-325; Hits-296; Strikeouts-258; Shutouts-9

    The Twins record was 81-81. Blyleven got shelled more than a few times that year and his record is surprisingly in line with how he pitched. When he was on he was great, when he wasn't, he got pummeled.

    He led the league in shutouts; was second in ERA to Jim Palmer. He came in seventh in the Cy Young voting, but probably deserved to finish third.

1974--Record: Won-17; Lost-17; ERA-2.66; Innings-281; Hits-244; Strikeouts-249; Shutouts-3

    The Twins went 82-80 in 1974. He could've won six more games. He was fourth in ERA and second in strikeouts. He wasn't in the CYA voting, but probably should've been around fifth or sixth.

1975--Record: Won-15; Lost-10; ERA-3.00; Innings-275; Hits-219; Strikeouts-233; Shutouts-3

     The Twins went 76-83 in 1975. Blyleven's numbers were pretty well in line with the way he pitched. He got knocked around quite a bit. Palmer was at the top of his game then as the best pitcher in the American League.

1976--Record: Won-13; Lost-16; ERA-2.87; Innings-297; Hits-283; Strikeouts-219; Shutouts-6

    Blyleven was traded from the Twins to the Rangers on June 1st, 1976. The Twins went 85-77 and the Rangers went 76-86. He should've won four more games with the Twins; five or six more with the Rangers. 

    If you look at the Gamelogs after he joined the Rangers, it's shocking how many games he pitched into extra innings----talk about a workhorse.

1977--Record: Won-14; Lost-12; ERA-2.72; Innings-234; Hits-181; Strikeouts-182; Shutouts-5

    The Rangers went 94-68 in 1977. Blyleven could've won close to 20 games with more luck. He pitched a no-hitter against the Angels in his last start. He was second in ERA and in shutouts. He wasn't listed in the CYA voting, but should've been around fifth.

1978--Record: Won-14; Lost-10; ERA-3.03; Innings-243; Hits-217; Strikeouts-182; Shutouts-4

    Blyleven was traded to the Pirates after the 1977 season. He could've gotten close to 20 wins with a little more luck. His numbers are in line with the way he pitched. He wasn't an award contender that year.

1979--Record: Won-12; Lost-5; ERA-3.60; Innings-237; Hits-238; Strikeouts-172; Shutouts-0

     Blyleven got off to a bad start and had a lot of no-decisions pitching for a Pirates team that won the World Series. He pitched excellently in the post-season.

1980--Record: Won-8; Lost-13; ERA-3.82; Innings-216; Hits-219; Strikeouts-168; Shutouts-2

    Having pitched far better than his record would indicate, Blyleven should've been around .500 pitching for a Pirates team that fell to 83-79 the year after winning the World Series.

1981--Record: Won-11; Lost-7; ERA-2.88; Innings-159; Hits-145; Strikeouts-107; Shutouts-1

    Blyleven was traded to the Indians after the 1980 season in what was a rotten trade for the Pirates. The Indians went 52-51 in the strike-shortened year. He regained his form, could've won four or five more games than he did despite the strike; and without the strike, would've gotten close to 20 wins.

1982--Record: Won-2; Lost-2; ERA-4.87; Innings-20; Hits-16; Strikeouts-19; Shutouts-0

    Blyleven missed almost the entire season with an elbow problem.

1983--Record: Won-7; Lost-10; ERA-3.91; Innings-156; Hits-160; Strikeouts-123; Shutouts-0

    Still struggling after returning from his elbow injury, by all rights, Blyleven coud've gone 12-6 or thereabouts rather than 7-10.

1984--Record: Won-19; Lost-7; ERA-2.87; Innings-245; Hits-204; Strikeouts-170; Shutouts-4

    How is it possible that the Indians, with a starting rotation that included Blyleven at the very top of his game; Neal Heaton; and for half the season, Rick Sutcliffe could end up at 75-87? 

    Blyleven had a renaissance with the Indians in 1984 and could easily have won 23 games. He finished in third place in the Cy Young Award voting behind two relievers, Willie Hernandez and Dan Quisenberry.

1985--Record: Won-17; Lost-16; ERA-3.16; Innings-293; Hits-264; Strikeouts-206; Shutouts-5

    Blyleven was traded back to the Twins at mid-season. He had 24 complete games and led the league in games started; innings pitched; and strikeouts. He should've won a couple more games, but objectively, his record wouldn't have been any better than 19-14. He finished third in the CYA voting only because it was a down year for AL pitchers. Bret Saberhagen finished first and Ron Guidry second.

1986--Record: Won-17; Lost-14; ERA-4.01; Innings-271; Hits-262; Strikeouts-215; Shutouts-3

    The Twins went 71-91 in 1986. Blyleven had become more of an innings-eater and durable horse than the dominant force he was early in his career. His record was what it should've been. 

1987--Record: Won-15; Lost-12; ERA-4.01; Innings-267; Hits-249; Strikeouts-196; Shutouts-1

    The Twins won the 1987 World Series and Blyleven was one of their three starters who helped carry them there. He should've gotten close to 20 wins that year and pitched well in the playoffs and World Series.

1988--Record: Won-10; Lost-17; ERA-5.43; Innings-207; Hits-240; Strikeouts-145; Shutouts-0

    The Twins went 91-71 and had Blyleven pitched just a bit better (and he didn't pitch as badly as his record indicates) the Twins might've posed a greater challenge to the Athletics in the AL West. His record should've been around .500 judging by the way he pitched.

1989--Record: Won-17; Lost-5; ERA-2.73; Innings-241; Hits-225; Strikeouts-131; Shutouts-5

    No one could've seen this coming. The 38-year-old had a masterful year on and off the field as the anchor of the veteran Angels surprising run into contention and inspirational leader and joker off the field. The Angels went 91-71 and were also stuck behind the mighty A's of the late-80s.

    Blyleven should've won 22 games and conceivably might've won 25. He finished fourth in the CYA voting, but should've been second behind Saberhagen.

1990--Record: Won-8; Lost-7; ERA-5.24; Innings-134; Hits-163; Strikeouts-69; Shutouts-0

    Time and wear began catching up to Blyleven as he tore his rotator cuff and pitched poorly for the disappointing Angels. He pitched to his record.

    He missed the entire 1991 season.

1992--Record: Won-8; Lost-12; ERA-4.74; Innings-133; Hits-150; Strikeouts-70; Shutouts-0

    It says something about the man's fortitude that he went through surgery and rehab at age 40 and came back to pitch reasonably well. He probably didn't pitch as well as his 8-12 record might indicate as he ran out of gas in the final season of his career.

    Overall, you're talking about a pitcher who was caught in the early 70s with a bunch of other top starters who were getting the Cy Young Award votes. Vida Blue had a few dominant years; Jim Palmer, Catfish Hunter, Gaylord Perry and Fergie Jenkins are all in the Hall of Fame and Blyleven was right up there with any and all top names back then. In a few years, he was absolutely dominant and that dominance spanned a generation.

    If he'd had a little better luck and pitched for better teams, he would easily have surpassed 300 wins and had a more gaudy record in which he would've been voted into the Hall of Fame on his first or second try.

    There's no question that Bert Blyleven is a Hall of Famer.

• Viewer Mail 1.9.2010:

Franklin Rabon writes RE my quote about my gambling/entertainment preferences yesterday:

Your "spend, not waste" comment reminded me of tug mcgraw's famous quote.  Still one of my all-time favorites:

"Ninety percent I'll spend on good times, women, and Irish whiskey. The other ten percent I'll probably waste."
- Phillies pitcher Tug McGraw, on his plans for his $75,000 salary.

    Tug was a piece of work. His signature moment of "Ya Gotta Believe!!" with the Mets was long thought to be an inspirational phrase to rally his troops. In reality, many of his Mets teammates have quietly said that McGraw was in actuality making fun of a pep talk from team boss M. Donald Grant in which he said the organization still believed in the floundering Mets of 1973. 

    I'm totally on board with spending my money and time in the same way that Tug suggested.

    Whatever works.

John Seal writes RE the Mets acquisition of Jay Marshall:

Congratulations to the Mets for picking up Jay Marshall off waivers from the A's! One of my favorite sights last season was watching Marshall and Brad Ziegler warm-up at the same time. I always wanted them to switch sides so that Marshall would warm up on the left side of the bullpen, whilst Ziegler would warm up on the right. My dream was that at some point their hands would collide and turn them both into side-arming super heroes, or something. Never happened, though. I wonder how many other teams have had both a left-handed and a right-handed submariner in their bullpen at the same time. Can you think of any?

    I must admit that I didn't have the faintest clue as to who Marshall was before looking at his numbers.

    Yeesh!!!

    Well, I guess a lefty sidearmer has use especially in the NL East with the Phillies crew of lefty bats. It was a good idea to pick him up regardless of his heinous numbers----they got the guy for nothing.

    I'm trying to think of any sidearmers who came from the right side with the Yankees during Mike Myers days there and can't come up with any. There are the "kinda/sorta" lefty sidearmers I can remember like Tony Fossas, but aside from that, there haven't been that many lefties coming from down under that I can remember off the top of my head.

    While the sidearmers locking arms or bashing their hands into one another while warming up would be funny, your sense of humor is growing darker and darker. What's Billy Beane and the flickering genius done to you? Look at it this way: you've got Jack Cust back!!!

David writes RE Peter Gammons:

I'm really curious if there is more behind the scenes to this departure of Peter Gammons from ESPN. Unlike most people I talk to, I like the MLB Network and I think he will do pretty well there with his personality and experience. But knowing how ESPN has given people the shaft before and is very hush-hush when doing so makes me think twice. Sorry, but when your only justification for leaving as an award-winning baseball sportswriter, who works for the 800lb gorilla of sports networks is wanting a "less demanding schedule", I do the math and think otherwise...

    Gammons's departure from ESPN could really have little to do with ESPN itself and a desire to have a more relaxed work schedule.

    He has lost his fastball in recent years in part due to his illness a few years ago. I think he'd like to take it a little easy rather than chasing Theo Epstein around seeing what three-and-four team deadline deals the Red Sox are trying to pull off. Gammons was never a "burn the place down" type of writer who unloaded on even those who deserved it. It's gotten to the point where he only doles out criticism in an apologetic fashion, if at all. Whether that's due to him not wanting to alienate his friends or he's trying to be nice is unclear.

    This is the problem with being so well-liked and congenial while dealing with the players, manager, owners, agents, etc. I'd like to think that if I was in that position where I had to associate with the people I write about, I'd be able to say the same things I say now; it's easier said than done. I've said before and I'll say it again as I quote Bob Gibson about being friendly to opposing players: "I might like them; then I might not want to throw at them." 

    It works both ways. If a good player is a colossal jerk off the field, I might be reluctant to say positive things about him.

    As for ESPN, they may simply be catering to their clientele. The number of actual reporters they have is dwindling rapidly. Aside from Jayson Stark and Jerry Crasnick, you have hacks or mean-spirited, lazy and obnoxious armchair experts dispensing advice for fantasy sports players rather than useful in-depth analysis from a broad-based view. Gammons will be better off at MLB Network since ESPN is such a farce from top-to-bottom----and is getting worse by the day.

• Inter-team gambling can explode into tragedy:

    I pay almost no attention whatsoever to the NBA, but the Gilbert Arenas gun incident has shined a light on something that goes on with every team in every sport----gambling among teammates.

    The episode between the Washington Wizards' Arenas and his teammate Javaris Crittendon stemmed from thousands of dollars being at stake; harsh words exchanged; guns displayed; and the macho world of the professional athletes coming to the forefront and becoming public. The participants, the NBA and sports in general were lucky things were defused before they got out of hand and someone wound up dead. 

    After reading the NY Times article recounting what happened----link----I thought of Keith Hernandez's underrated book, If At First, and how he discussed card playing in the clubhouse and how money can affect team chemistry and morale. The quote from pages 121-122 follows:

Funny about this card-playing. Other years I've hated it. For ten major league seasons I haven't played cards. This year I play all the time, hearts mostly, my deck in hand as I walk through the clubhouse door. I don't know why. 

I will not play for money, and that's one reason I've abstained in the past. Plenty of clubhouse fights, not with fists necessarily, but with bad words and bad feelings, have broken out over card games. If I were a manager, no gambling among my players would be allowed. Tony Carullo, the clubhouse man for the visiting team at Shea, reports that $500 is sometimes on the table when San Diego comes to town. Dick Williams must know about it, and must therefore condone it. How can I question him? He's only won championships in both leagues. But I wouldn't allow it, and wouldn't play with teammates in a gambling game when "with" becomes "against".

    There are a few problems with trying to prevent players from playing cards for money. Even as the New Jersey Nets have banned gambling on team flights, there's very little that can be done when star players like the Wizards' Arenas decided to play cards for money without (or even with) the team knowing about it.

    The only major sport in which something can actually be done is the dictatorial NFL where contracts are not guaranteed; the NBA, MLB and NHL have little power with their players to do much of anything about such activities. It's like recreational drug use, drinking and driving and other self-destructive/team-destructive behaviors----you can't babysit the players 24-hours a day. All a team can do is discourage the players from partaking in such activities and that's it. If a player decides that he needs the action of high-stakes card games to try and maintain the high he gets from the crowd adoration of a ballgame, it can't be stopped. 

    There's not much for the players to do during their downtime of sitting around the lockerroom, on planes, buses and in hotel rooms; playing cards just to play is understandably boring. It's surprising the pulling of pistols between teammates over money hasn't happened before. In Hernandez's day, players weren't making as much money as they are now and most weren't carrying guns.

    It's a dirty little secret that big time athletes are packing loaded weapons nowadays. Given the way their salaries are such public issues and accessible at the click of a button (along with team itineraries and player addresses), if I were in their position, I'd carry a gun too. Players have a right to protect themselves and their families. The negative side of such "protections" is that it's natural that harsh words and threats escalated as they did with Arenas and Crittendon and guns were displayed.

    Everyone's lucky that it didn't go down a different road. The macho world of the professional athlete in which no one wants to be seen as a punk contributed to this as well. Words and loaded weapons could've degenerated this situation into places where it would've gotten way, way worse with someone dead.

    I've never been particularly interested in card-gambling. I prefer to spend my money----not waste, spend----on beautiful women, slow horses and uncooperative roulette wheels; these circumstances don't lend themselves to gunplay.

    If I were a coach or manager, I wouldn't allow gambling under team auspices either, but what can a nondescript and replaceable coach/manager really do if a highly-paid star like Arenas wants to play cards? Tell him to stop? And what if he says no? Then what? It can be disallowed by the league, in the lockerrooms and anywhere else during team activities, but in hotel rooms or private gambling parlors? What can be done aside from frowning on it? Nothing. No field boss or even GM or owner is going to cut off his nose to spite his face by taking on a star to the point where he has to get rid of him unless he has no other choice. It's not happening. 

    The NBA is the venue where Latrell Sprewell physically choked his coach P.J. Carlesimo. Sprewell got his money from his contract with the Warriors after the assault and wound up rejuvenating his career with the Knicks. The coach's/manager's power is almost irrelevant in today's NBA, MLB and NHL; and it's only the dark tormentor that is the NFL that keeps their players in some semblance of line. 

    They're grown men----in theory anyway----and there's almost nothing anyone can do to stop this type of behavior aside from legislating and dissuading the players from engaging in it.

    And we've seen how well that works in the past.

• Viewer Mail 1.8.2010:

David writes RE Matt Holliday:

Holliday for 7 years $120 million?? Are the Cards crazy, desperate, or crazy desperate? Then again my criticism ends there because the Dodgers haven't lifted a noticeable finger this entire off-season and it's almost mid January...

    I'm not as entrenched in the "overpaying/bad deal" camp regarding Holliday as many others are. He hit very well for the Cardinals after he joined them at mid-season and while he's not the mega-star he was with the Rockies, he's still a very productive hitter who'll protect Albert Pujols sufficiently while the two are in the same lineup.

    That they've also got their nucleus----Chris Carpenter, Adam Wainwright, Holliday----locked up and will not allow Pujols to leave under any circumstances barring injury or unforeseen collapse makes this a smart decision. The brilliance of Tony La Russa and Dave Duncan and a weak division gives the Cardinals a guarantee at contention and more; it wouldn't have been worth it to have a staredown with Holliday and Scott Boras. The Orioles were lurking around Holliday and had enough money to compete with the Cardinals offer. In the grand scheme, they did the right thing.

    With the Dodgers, you have reason to be concerned. The Giants have improved; the Rockies are loaded with young talent; and, much like the Mets, everything that went wrong for the Diamondbacks in 2008-2009 can't happen again. The Dodgers can only go so far with their young talent and Joe Torre's penchant for somehow, some way getting his teams to the playoffs. As of right now, they're a third place team at best.

    The McCourts' divorce is wrecking the place almost as badly as Paul DePodesta----well, maybe not that bad, but it's in the ballpark.

Jeff (Underboss) at Red State Blue State writes RE the Hall of Fame voting:

You think Pat Hentgen is bad... some joker voted for David Segui. DAVUD SEGUI!!!!!!!!

    Not much to say here.

CharlieRay writes RE my suggestion that Rays manager Joe Maddon is on the hotseat:

Maybe you did not do you homework on Joe Maddon and the Rays. I will make it simple. Why would a manager be on the "HOT SEAT" when he and his team had the second best year in the history of the team???

    I'm eternally grateful for you making it simple for me.

    Thank you.

    But the second best year in the history of the club included a team that looked like they'd packed up and gone home after the trade of Scott Kazmir and faded from contention due in large part to Maddon's mistake-prone managing style; the team's inattention to fundamentals; and that he's a strategic lightweight. For a club that many expected to win the World Series to fall to 84-78 suggests that there was a problem somewhere.

    With all the talent on that roster, the "second best year in the history" of a club that prior to 2008 had won a maximum of 70 games isn't exactly a grand accomplishment. That team would've won 84 games----or more----without a manager at all.

    There are cases in which a manager leads his team to extraordinary heights due to reputation, strategic acumen or will----Joe Torre, Tony La Russa for example. Then there are managers who are along for the ride without much aptitude or credit applicable----Bob Brenly....and Joe Maddon.

    If you're a Rays fan, you should want one of the best managers in the world to take over in Bobby Valentine; but if you're so enamored of Maddon, I wish you luck as the team falls under .500 this year in part because of their failure to act and bring in a manager who knows what he's doing on the field and can handle the clubhouse off the field. 

• Dawson and only Dawson:

    I went into my Hall of Fame selections and why they should or shouldn't be inducted on December 7th. My list of inductees included Dawson, Bert Blyleven, Roberto Alomar, Jack Morris, Alan Trammell, Fred McGriff and Edgar Martinez. The only one to get in was Dawson.

    I've long been a supporter of Andre Dawson for the Hall of Fame, so it's about time he got in. (For the record, he should wear an Expos hat into the Hall.) Amid all the numbers that are presented as reasons for Dawson to be kept out, it's conveniently forgotten that Dawson wasn't asked to get on base at a .400 clip to validate him as a star. He was required to drive in runs and that's what he did. He was also an excellent outfielder.

    Because so many people fancy themselves as baseball experts since they read Moneyball or have access to out-of-context stats, they automatically anoint themselves as the arbiter of the cutoff that "make" a Hall of Famer. That's about as bad as the stupid argument made by some of, "I know a Hall of Famer when I see one". 

    Blyleven and Alomar just missed induction. Blyleven by 5 votes; Alomar by 8. Both will get in, probably next year. 

    I was against Blyleven for years before even I was convinced by his numbers outside of wins/losses and that so many people I respect support him. That said, I do believe I've been unduly influenced without examining his candidacy in depth----something I intend to do in the coming days. It's also possible that Blyleven's incessant whining over not being elected has influenced me to support him so he'll be elected and finally shut up.

    With Alomar, obviously, the spitting incident with umpire John Hirschbeck in 1996 was held against him. It would be understandable if Alomar and Hirschbeck were still mortal enemies, but the men have become friends and Hirschbeck supports and respects Alomar for both his playing career and as a man. The writers keeping Alomar out because of that are just doing so out of spite.

    With the other candidates, Fred McGriff is getting screwed. 21.5%? Please.

    Edgar Martinez (36.2%) is a Hall of Famer because of what he did with the bat and the writers leaving him out since he was primarily a DH aren't looking at the entirety of what Martinez accomplished. Not only was he quite possibly the most dangerous hitter in the American League during his heyday, but what he did in taking the role as a permanent DH was actually completely unselfish.

    How hard would it have been for Martinez to go to the Mariners and----in pure self-interest----insisted that he play at least 100 games a year at first base to bolster his candidacy? He could've been a diva; he could've been a hard case and been a stone glove at first base who happened to play the field and look better to the voters as his name popped up for induction. He didn't do that. He stayed at DH, was the best at what he did; did if for the team and is now being punished for it.

    Barry Larkin received a surprisingly low total (51.6%) considering the fervent support he got beforehand as a no-doubt Hall of Famer. I'm on the record as saying that Larkin should wait a couple of years as long as Alan Trammell is still sitting out and fading (22.4%). At this rate, Larkin's going to eventually get in, but he might be an 8-10 year guy on the waiting list rather than a first ballot glide that some thought he should be.

    And I'd like to know what dunderhead voted for Pat Hentgen for the Hall of Fame.

• Cardinals sign Matt Holliday to a 7-year, $120 million contract:

    One can assume that Matt Holliday and Scott Boras were simply happy to surpass the Rockies offer of $72 million over four years. After Holliday rejected the offer and the Rockies saw where this was going, they turned around and traded him to the Athletics.

    Holliday had a bad half-season in Oakland and was traded to the Cardinals, where he reverted to something similar to the player he'd been in Colorado. The idea that Holliday was going to get paid in the vicinity of the $180 million that Mark Teixeira got from the Yankees last year was quickly scuttled as one team after another fell out of the bidding. 

    It does seem like a lot of money for a player like Holliday when Jason Bay settled for nearly half of Holliday's guarantee. I'm a bigger fan of Bay over Holliday, so it's looking more and more like the Mets got a bargain in their 4-year, $66 million deal with Bay.

    Did the Cardinals overpay for Holliday? It depends on whether you think they were bidding against themselves or not. I do not think they were bidding against themselves. The Orioles have been very aggressive this off-season and despite Andy MacPhail's denial that the Orioles had made a massive $140 million offer for Holliday, that doesn't mean they didn't jump in with something close to what the Cardinals offered.

    Could the Cardinals afford to take that chance in a weak division with Albert Pujols and Chris Carpenter not getting any younger? Tony La Russa has proven that he can get his teams into the playoffs and outmanage the competition while there with sub-par personnel (the 2009 NLDS washout notwithstanding); they couldn't risk the Orioles or even the Red Sox jumping in on Holliday.

    Johnny Damon in left field wasn't going to cut it and they needed a bat to protect Pujols. Holliday is that bat.

• Viewer Mail 1.7.2009:

Matt AKA Anonymous from yesterday writes:

Easy there internet tough guy. My name is Matt, I like your blog, but happen to disagree. I didn't feel a need to sign up to comment with a name.

    If you read my blog regularly, then you had to know the reaction you'd get by commenting anonymously. You don't even have to put your real name; just any name or initials is sufficient to prevent such a response. To me, if you have something to say, identify yourself. 

    It also doesn't help if you're disagreeing with something I say and not leaving your name; that says to me that you're not interested in standing behind your argument. I'll debate with anyone about anything at anytime and print their comments regardless of what they're saying even if they try to rip me apart or call me names. The anonymous thing gets me fired up because there's no need for it. If you don't want to be identified, comment on PAULLEBOWITZ.COM at the bottom of the screen in the form and let me know you don't to be identified by anything more than "M" or whatever and it's fine.

    As for the "internet tough guy" comment? I don't consider myself an internet tough guy; or a tough guy in general. I'm more of a natural occurrence like a hurricane, a rainbow, a sunrise----or all of the above. If someone wants know firsthand about the tough guy stuff either way, they're more than welcome to step into the ring in any context and find out on their own.

Jeff (Underboss) at Red State Blue State and Jane Heller at Confessions of a She-Fan write RE Randy Johnson as the best pitcher ever:

Jeff: Not sure I'd put Randy Johnson as the best ever -- but he's certainly in the conversation.

Jane: Randy Johnson the best ever? He was certainly intimidating but being 7 feet tall didn't hurt.

    These arguments of the "best ever" can go on forever, but Randy Johnson's obviously in the top five. Dominance and lineup devastation puts him ahead of the Madduxes, Spahns and Marichals of the world. While the numbers can be similar for certain pitchers, there's a difference between a Johnson----against whom hitters didn't have a chance; and a Maddux----who used control and guile (and some say a spitball). It's not fair, but it's the law of the jungle.

Joe at Statistician Magician writes RE Pedro Martinez:

I believe that Pedro has a case, a serious case, for being the most dominant pitcher over a short period of time. But maybe that is just me...

    Pedro's run was similar to that of Sandy Koufax, but Koufax didn't have to deal with the juiced up players, the DH and bandbox ballparks. Pedro's problem is his longevity. In that seven year span of 1997-2003, Pedro is right up there with any of the greats.

• Randy Johnson retires:

    Is Randy Johnson the greatest pitcher ever?

    People often wonder what it was like watching some of the greats like Sandy Koufax, Bob Gibson, Bob Feller, Warren Spahn, Steve Carlton and Tom Seaver to name some off the top of my head, but no one----no one----had the full complement of tools that the now-retired Randy Johnson had. Combining the era with the way he blew people away year-after-year very possibly makes Johnson the best pitcher ever. Let's take a look at the reasons why:

Dominance despite the era: 

    Dealing with juiced up players for the majority of his career and still blowing them away puts Johnson ahead of the pitcher of yesteryear. One can only imagine what he would've done had he been pitching in the 1960s with the higher mounds, generous strike zones and cavernous ballparks. 

    The game transformed into something similar to slow-pitch softball while Johnson was in his prime with the Mariners and Diamondbacks and he was still unhittable when he was on his game. Very few pitchers have been able to have that appellation applied to them----big league hitters are big league hitters for a reason; they pounce on mistakes, but Johnson's stuff was so vicious that he got away with not being on his game and still leaving a path of destruction in his wake like Godzilla. 

Durability and longevity:

    Sandy Koufax is the only comparable pitcher over a short period of time that had any kind of argument to say that he was as devastating as Johnson; Nolan Ryan, Tom Seaver and Steve Carlton had similar records of putting up the innings and starts every year; but none had the combination of durability, longevity and dominance as Randy Johnson.

    Koufax, for a five-year period was the best pitcher ever. Ryan racked up the strikeouts and it was a waste of time even going up to the plate with a bat when he was dealing. Seaver lasted because of flawless mechanics; dedication to his craft; and ability to adapt. Carlton pitched the same way for his entire career with little change in his strategy----power breaking stuff----the hitters knew the slider was coming and still couldn't hit it. 

     The differences between these pitchers and Johnson are clear.

    Koufax endured great pain in his elbow because of his over-the-top motion----Johnson was more durable.

    Ryan's control was spotty and despite all the broken records, he just missed being legitimately placed in a class with his contemporaries Seaver and Carlton; that can't be blamed on the quality of his teams because when Carlton started to establish himself as one of the greats with the Phillies, the Phillies were a horrible team; and Seaver was with the offensively-challenged Mets for much of the 70s. 

    Carlton was a Cy Young Award contender into his late-30s, but as his stuff declined, he held on, bounced from team-to-team in what became a somewhat embarrassing display of not knowing when to quit and was unable to maintain his greatness despite a dedication to physical conditioning that was second-to-none. 

    Seaver was able to get hitters out into his 40s not because of his great stuff, but because of his brains. As he aged, he became a different type of pitcher; one who relied on his defense, knowledge and precision. 

    Johnson never became anything different; he didn't hang on when he should've retired; and he still blew people away. His body broke down last year, but that had more to do with the fact that he's 45-years-old and his knees and back were going rather than his arm. If you look at his numbers from 2009, he still struck out close to a batter an inning and was hard to hit. He maintained his intimidation.

    There's no doubt that if he decided to keep pitching in 2010, he could help someone as a back-of-the-rotation starter who could re-discover his greatness at any time.

He got his big league start late; he learned to pitch late; he was mean and scary:

    Johnson didn't establish himself in the big leagues until he was 26. 

    He didn't start to evolve as a pitcher until he was 29. 

    One can only wonder what his production would've been like had he been able to bridle his talent; hone his mechanics; and learn to stop walking everyone when he was 22 rather than 29. 

    Part of Johnson's fear-factor was his lack of control, but even when he learned to throw strikes, he was still wild enough and mean enough that no hitter----righty or lefty----could feel entirely comfortable facing him. Lefties had almost no chance against him at all.

    With a release point slightly above sidearm, a body like a lever and his 6'10" height making it appear as if he was standing in front of the plate by the time he released the ball, even the sturdiest batters had reason to be afraid. 

    And he was mean.

    As great as Greg Maddux was; as willing as he was to throw at people; there was an unsaid, "Yeah? So?" at the threat of a Maddux brushback pitch. It's a bit different when a Greg Maddux fastball is coming at a batter's head and he has to get out of the way or sustain a nasty bruise and potential headache for a day or two and if a pitch got away from Randy Johnson. Johnson's fastball literally could have killed someone. He knew it and used it to his advantage.

He came up big and was gutty in the post-season:

    There were times when he didn't pitch well in the playoffs, but moments that are unforgettable in the post-season career of Randy Johnson came when he entered penultimate games in relief. Anyone who saw the 1995 ALDS series between the Mariners and Yankees; or the 2001 World Series in which Johnson emerged from the bullpen with Guns-N-Roses's "Welcome to the Jungle" blasting across the stadium should get chills from the mere memory regardless of team allegiance.

    Johnson won five Cy Young Awards; had three second place finishes in the voting; one third place finish; a World Series MVP; two no-hitters (including a perfect game); a wide swath of wreckage left in his wake; and he did it without the help of PEDs during a time that a massive chunk of players couldn't function or keep a job without them. 

    Forever known as a mercurial personality, Johnson was difficult with teammates; umpires; media and fans; but looking at his entire career, comparing it with other greats from his and the bygone eras and realizing his pure brilliance makes Randy Johnson perhaps the greatest pitcher in the history of the game. 

    There'll likely never be another like him.

    Ever.

• Hilarity, thy name is Twitter:

    Here are a few examples of the trending topic on Twitter entitled #FakeJasonBayQuotes and other snideness goofing on yesterday's introductory press conference as Bay joins the New York Mets.

"A big factor in my decision to become a Met was the Mariners not offering enough money"

"As a kid in Canada nothing drew me to baseball more than the Mets of the early 80s lead by the great George Bamberger"

"Well, it's not ALL about the money. Omar said I can shack up at his house. He has a hot tub."

"I was sick of Papelbon following me into the shower"

"I'm looking forward to learning the ins and outs of LF in Citi Field from Dan Murphy"

"Breaking News: Jason Bay tripped over a wire at his press conference and tore his ACL. He's out for the season."

    Har, har, har, de, har har.

    Unfortunately, I wasn't around the offer my laser-precise retorts to the above comments. And they mysteriously ceased when I arrived. At the very least, the originators of such comments were bright enough not to test my control of the Dark Side.

    All (half) kidding aside, did Bay truly prefer to be a Met? I don't think anyone can argue that he did, but so what? C.C. Sabathia wanted to remain on the West Coast last year and joined the Yankees for the exact same reason that Bay is joining the Mets----they offered the most money. 

    This is not new.

    Neither Bay nor Sabathia nor any other player has anything to apologize for for going to take the best financial deal out there. In the end, the Mets got the player they wanted and needed and Bay got his money. The jokes are tolerable because of that fact and the Mets are now better than they were a week ago because they have Jason Bay in the middle of their lineup.

• Viewer Mail 1.6.2009:

Joe at Statistician Magician writes RE the Red Sox:

See this argument is entirely to your advantage. If the Red Sox don't win it all, then you will say you were right, but the odds are that they don't win it all. I would take "the field" over any team in baseball to win it all this year. Who wouldn't? The Red Sox improved drastically their very poor defense from a year ago, where they finished close to last in total D. Sure, it would be nice to have a Miguel Cabrera, but do you know what one of those bats would have cost? Not just a few decent prospects, multiple *good* prospects. They signed two stopgaps, Beltre and Cameron, until they can make a play in a better free agent market and/or until players such as Josh Reddick, Lars Anderson, and a few others are ready.

    You've read me for how long, Joe? 

    Do you actually think I'm hedging my bets in the hopes that I'm right? I calls 'em as I sees 'em. And we'll see how long they hold onto those blue chip prospects as they're eight games behind the Yankees and are in a dogfight for a playoff spot in July/August and they need that bat so desperately that the fans and media are in such an uproar that the club panics.

    No one's going to want to hear the spin doctoring if Bay is raking and playing decent enough defense for the resurgent Mets. You'll see how fast those top prospects (and Anderson had a rotten year in 2009) are included in a deal for a basher.

Jeff (Acting Boss) at Red State Blue State writes RE Adrian Beltre:

Adrian Beltre remains as the greatest thief of all time, snagging that mega-deal from the Mariners after his one and only epic season (2004, as noted here). Like you, Prince, I'm wondering what was going on behind the scenes for Beltre that year. At the time, I lived in L.A. and saw a lot of that season... he was an animal. An absolute animal. Then *POOF*... back to his quietly modest self. If I were the Mariners I'd be outraged.

    The Beltre free agency period when he left the Dodgers was one of the few documented smart moves from the wasteland known as Paul DePodesta's tenure as their GM. He was right about not paying Beltre. 

    The guy can field; he's a leader in the clubhouse; and by all accounts, a good guy, but does he answer the Red Sox problem for a bat? No.

    And this idea that they're clinging to that it's a 1-year deal and it's cheap has no meaning to me. Why is everyone so obsessed with the money the Red Sox spend? They're big market, big money and they've screwed up this winter---accept it.

Jane Heller at Confessions of a She-Fan writes RE the Yankees and Red Sox:

The Yankees are better than the Red Sox? That's all I need to hear.

    They're not just better. They're a lot better.

Anonymous writes RE the Red Sox:

The Red Sox were scrambling to make excuses after a guy they already replaced signed elsewhere? I must be missing something.

    Ah muck beasts, will you never learn? 

    Coming onto my site and leaving anonymous comments is a sure way to get a nice backhand. Take a lesson from those that attack me elsewhere----do it elsewhere unless you'd like to leave your name!!! 

    As for the "scrambling for excuses", the fans and media are just as frightened at this new tack on pitching and defense with an aging and declining offense and some remaining contracts that can only be described as "prohibitive". And if you consider Mike Cameron, Adrian Beltre and Marco Scutaro as suitable replacements for Bay's offense then I admittedly can't help you----anonymous. 

    And yes, you are missing something----a pair of balls to leave your name. You choose to comment here? You leave your name.

John Seal writes:

Apologies Prince, but the mantra bears repeating: A's...basement...NL West...NL West...NL (NATIONAL LEAGUE)West...you call me pedant, I call me maize!

By the way, I can't tell you how relieved I am that the A's did not dump a bunch of money on Beltre. The fan-base is currently wailing and gnashing their teeth (spurned again! oh woe is us!), but I'm not a Beltre believer and would much prefer to see Dallas McPherson get one last shot.

I think they should cast Woody Harrelson as the grizzled scout/zombie killer in Moneyball.

    You're a tough grader John!!! I didn't even notice I'd written NL West. Then again, a couple years ago, I suggested a dissolution of the American and National Leagues into separate conferences to have the natural rivals all in the same divisions; so my error could be manifesting that desire subconsciously. (Uh, yah.)

    The A's would be better off in the NL West anyway; at least there they'd have a chance of finishing ahead of the Padres. A chance...

    I thought my response regarding the utter absurdity of Billy Beane keeping Geren when he dispatched both Art Howe and Ken Macha for no reason other than just feeling like it was worthy of props anyway. Seriously, what happened to "objective analysis"? And I don't think Geren is a bad manager; but the same standard that led Beane to get rid of Howe and Macha should apply to Geren, best friend or not. 

    Woody Harrelson does the borderline psychotic quite well; he'd fit into my zombie-hunting crew very neatly.

• Red Sox sign Adrian Beltre:
  

    It's strangely convenient that on the day Jason Bay passes his Mets physical, the Red Sox let leak the exhilarating signing of...Adrian Beltre to play third base.

    Amid the anger coming out of Boston for the club refusing to budge on their initial offer to Bay of $60 million over four years and losing him to the Mets when he desperately wanted to return, the club spin-doctoring suggested that Bay's condition made his Mets physical far from fait accompli.

    The jokes regarding the Mets medical staff can be inserted (HERE or on Twitter), but for all intents and purposes, the Mets will know what to expect from Bay over the next four and probably five years----a solid citizen; a player who hustles, plays every day and leads by example; hits the ball out of the park (even Citi Field); and has handled the heavy spotlight of Boston without fear.

    The Bay press conference is scheduled for Tuesday at 11:00 AM----story. One would assume David Wright (who should be named captain of the team sooner rather than later) and a couple other players will be there to welcome Bay to the Mets.

    That left the Red Sox to make their "counter-move" to the bad press that awaited them for Bay passing his physical seemingly without difficulty. That "counter-move" turned out to be Adrian Beltre.

    Beltre is a great fielder and the Red Sox pitchers are predominately of the ground ball variety, so his defense will be a great help after Mike Lowell's injuries and lost range contributed to the club's desperate desire to be rid of him; but does Beltre provide the bat that the Red Sox desperately need?

    Adrian Beltre got his giant contract from the Mariners in one magical (some would say *suspicious*) season of 2004 in which he hit 48 homers and drove in 121 for the Dodgers while batting .334 and finishing second in the MVP voting to Barry Bonds. Beltre has never hit more than 26 in any season before or since; he hit 8 in 111 games in 2009.

    He's never hit well at Fenway (.179 career with no homers in 16 games); nor has he hit well against the rest of the AL East, not even in Camden Yards----Beltre Splits. For those that think Beltre's going to take advantage of the Green Monster in Fenway, well, he's a back-up-the-middle hitter. He'll get his hits off and over the wall, but not enough to expect more than maybe 20 or so homers on the season in total; and he doesn't get on base.

    The Red Sox are up-to-date on all the metrics, so I'm sure they'll come out with a series of numbers as to why Beltre's and Mike Cameron's presence and the number of runs they save over the course of a season will equate to what they'd get if they acquired a pure basher along the lines of Miguel Cabrera and kept Bay. We'll see the calculations on FanGraphs, explained by Rob Neyer and the other stat zombies looking for ways to justify the deal based on it being inexpensive among the other things Beltre brings to the table. We'll hear it over and over again...

    And it's not going to change the simple fact that there's something awry about the Red Sox going back to the three-game ALDS sweep at the hands of the Angels.

    And the decisions they've made to "improve" the club after they were bounced and watched the Yankees regain their glory have done nothing to alter that palpable perception.

    For all the appellations of Theo Epstein as a "genius", it's been conveniently glossed over that he's made some ghastly mistakes in talent recognition and team-building. They're a stat zombie team backed up by money to cover for mistakes. There's nothing wrong with that, but they've been remarkably adamant in repeatedly trying various stat zombie tenets such as the bullpen-by-committee and watched as it failed only to try it again.

    Had they gone forward with their intention of moving Jonathan Papelbon into the starting rotation in 2007, not only would they not have won the World Series that year, the clubhouse would've exploded in insubordination and in-fighting as Josh Beckett and Curt Schilling went ballistic by the end of April over the number of blown games because of the absence of a viable closer. 

    There's always some floating explanation for a front office decision that's criticized. In 2003, the bullpen by committee blew 23 games they should've won. 

    23.

    While Grady Little was a convenient scapegoat for that team's fall in that year's ALCS, how is the front office absolved of responsibility? That they turned around and addressed the issue by signing Keith Foulke that winter should've been a clear indication that they realized they couldn't move forward with the idea of not having one guy who could handle the duties not just physically (plenty of guys can handle the job physically), but mentally. If the 2003 Red Sox had someone, anyone who could close a game with any consistency in 2003, there's every possibility that they could've avoided the Yankees entirely that post-season. 

    Could it be that Epstein and his crew in the Red Sox front office aren't as savvy about everything as they're portrayed?

    There's something missing on this Red Sox roster and they don't see it.

    Those that are so immersed in numbers that they forget what a human being is will scoff at this "feeling" I often refer to, and that's fine. Whether it's some mental calculation in my brain that I'm unaware of that sends me the signal of something being askew like it's one of those antiquated Univac Computers from the 1950s that took up entire building floors is irrelevant; what's relevant is that I'm rarely wrong about these things.

    Epstein may be willing to move forward into the season with what he currently has and see what comes available at mid-season, but the American League is no longer the cakewalk into the playoffs for both the Red Sox and Yankees as it once was. The Yankees aren't just better than the Red Sox now, they're a lot better; in the AL East, the Rays are dangerous; the Orioles are going to be okay; the Blue Jays have a load of young pitching; as for the rest of the league, the White Sox are going to be very, very good; and the Angels, Mariners and Rangers all have arguments to be pre-season playoff picks. 

    The "feeling" of something being wrong with the Red Sox is real. 

    I can recognize it.

    And I should.

    I'm a Mets fan.

    This current Red Sox roster is not making the playoffs.

    Whether or not Epstein realizes this is the question. Maybe he doesn't. If that's the case, the Red Sox are in more trouble than they and their fans realize.

• Viewer Mail 1.5.2010:

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

Never diss Doug Mientkiewicz! He can catch any ball hit to him at first and doesn't mind getting his uniform dirty - and he doesn't come with a big price tag.

    Mientkiewicz has certainly proven the value of schmoozing and being accommodating with people; sometimes that enough to keep a job when there are probably better options available.

Jeff at Red State Blue State writes RE the growing enthusiasm of a Moneyball zombie movie sequel:

Bring on the crazy lunatic with no fear! And by "crazy lunatic with no fear" I refer to the Capo's role -- not Michael Lewis.

    Ah, Michael Lewis. I can almost picture some insignificant reader of Moneyball/would-be baseball expert tied to a chair similarly to the scene in the Dark Knight with the Joker. Here's a rough draft of a script idea:

Insignificant Stat Zombie: Moneyball's a...a...symbol... that we don't have to be afraid of scum like you.

Your Anti-Hero, the anarchic Prince of New York (Boss of the Zombie Hunters): Uh, yeah; you do my clueless friend. You really, really do....

John Seal writes RE Athletics manager Bob Geren:

I dunno, Prince...I have a feeling if Bob Geren leads the A's to the basement of the 'tough NL West', he'll have pulled off the kind of baseball miracle that warrants a multi-year contract extension!

    Aw, come on John. Don't be sarcastic. So what if Beane fired Ken Macha and dumped Art Howe after each led the A's to the playoffs multiple times? Keeping Geren is easily explained despite the Steinbrenner-esque way in which Beane used to dispatch successful managers----the man needs friends now!

• Keep some moving boxes next to your desk:

    There's been little action over the last couple of days, so let's have a look at the managers who will begin the season on the hotseat and some possible replacements for said managers. (They're in no particular order.)

Joe Maddon, Tampa Bay Rays

    I don't like the way he manages strategically; I don't like the way he handles the clubhouse; and frankly I don't know why they've kept him this long. He zones out during games----see his absurd decisions during the 2008 post-season and the gaffe of accidentally submitting different lineup cards in a game last season forcing pitcher Andy Sonnanstine to bat third. Plus the inmates are running the asylum. It's dangerous to have a young team so seemingly out of control and things could spiral fast right out of the gate. Maddon's not helped by a disappointing 2009 in which the club at times looked as if they'd quit. 

    His contract is good through 2012, but if things get off badly, they can't mess around in the AL East. If there was ever a perfect job for Bobby Valentine to re-emerge, it's in Tampa. Larry Bowa would be a good idea as well.

Cito Gaston, Toronto Blue Jays

    The Blue Jays gave up in August, something I find reprehensible; Gaston spoke of retirement. I'd have fired him if I were the Blue Jays. There's a lot of young talent on the club especially on the mound, I don't like Brad Arnsberg as pitching coach, and if they're going to bring in someone else to manage the club and handle the pitchers when they turn the corner, they might as well do it now. Joey Cora would be perfect for that job. Per-fect.

Dave Trembley, Baltimore Orioles: 

    I was stunned when the Orioles exercised Trembley's contract option and kept him on. This was the second straight year that the Orioles played respectably into the summer and collapsed. In an ideal world, Trembley's lack of professional playing experience wouldn't be held against him, but I'd never hire a manager who had no professional playing experience; it's too easy for the players to tune him out.

    The expectations for the Orioles will be higher with their acquisitions of Kevin Millwood, Mike Gonzalez and Garrett Atkins, joining the young nucleus Andy MacPhail's built. I'd bring Davey Johnson back. Larry Bowa would be a great idea too.

Trey Hillman, Kansas City Royals

    Hillman might be one of the worst managers I've ever seen in my life. I had a man-crush on the guy when he got the job, for which I am endlessly ashamed, but his resume----managing and winning a championship in Japan; scouting; running the Rangers minor league system----was impeccable.

    Who knew? 

    Hillman doesn't know what he's doing, but then neither does GM Dayton Moore, so Hillman's not getting fired even though they have a built-in replacement for whom I have great respect as a manager----coach John Gibbons.

Bob Geren, Oakland Athletics

    The only reason Geren's lasted this long is because he's one of GM Billy Beane's best friends; but Beane's under fire and he's not going to go down without doing something to try and save his own ass.

    Michael Corleone clipped Fredo in The Godfather Part II; and Billy Beane will clip Bob Geren if (when) the A's get off to a bad start and fall to the basement of the tough NL West. Beane might go the veteran manager route----Clint Hurdle for example----to save himself. Phillies coach Pete Mackanin is a good man too. 

Fredi Gonzalez, Florida Marlins

    I did not understand the vacillation over Fredi Gonzalez's job with the Marlins after the job he's done as manager since 2007. From watching him, he handles the players well and does a fine job strategically. The Marlins made a very public show of thinking about replacing Gonzalez with Bobby Valentine and I don't understand it.

    Getting fired wouldn't be the worst thing in the world for Gonzalez because he'd be the replacement for Bobby Cox in Atlanta after 2010.

Jerry Manuel, New York Mets

    Manuel and his returning coaches (specifically pitching coach Dan Warthen) survived by their fingertips only because of the ridiculous number of injuries that befell the Mets. Manuel's strategies were strange to say the least and with the Mets trying to overcome the disaster that 2009 was and spending money to improve drastically, they'd better get off to a good start. Bobby Valentine would love to return; and Jim Fregosi is the calm, veteran-type who'd settle things down. 

Ken Macha, Milwaukee Brewers

    Macha almost got fired after the 2009 season, he's in the last year of his contract and the players don't like him all that much. Macha has no chance unless the Brewers get off to a hot start; if not, he's getting fired and fast. Willie Randolph will be managing the Brewers by May.

John Russell, Pittsburgh Pirates

    Another man who had a solid minor league managing resume and was a well-respected mind as a player who hung around the big leagues with limited skills; but he's not a good manager. The Pirates as an organization don't have the faintest clue what they're doing, so I doubt they'll fire Russell. Pete Mackanin or Gary Varsho would be good replacements.

Bud Black, San Diego Padres

    Black's a rotten manager on a rotten team. I have no idea why his contract was extended when owner Jeff Moorad intended to fire GM Kevin Towers. On some level, I understand it. Black's contract is only guaranteed through 2010 and the Padres are going to be horrific one way or the other, so why pay someone else to manage the team? But one would think Jed Hoyer would want to bring in his own person (Red Sox pitching coach John Farrell?) to run things. 

    The problem with the Padres is that they have some young talent now and need a manager to steer the club and teach the youngsters. Everyone has nothing but nice things to say about Black personally, but that doesn't matter to me. It's business.

    I'd hesitate to hire a former pitcher as manager which would make me reluctant to hire Farrell regardless of how respected he is. Black was respected as well when he got the job.

    Glenn Hoffman's on the Padres staff and has managing experience with the Dodgers. Tim Flannery is a lifelong Padre now coaching with the Giants and would be a popular choice. Bob Melvin worked for Moorad with the Diamondbacks and is a solid manager all around.

• Viewer Mail 1.4.2010:

Gabriel (Capo) writes RE a potential Moneyball zombie movie and sequel:

I want to be a John McClane-type of character in the Zombie Hunter movie. My favourite xmas movie are Die Hard and Die Harder.

    You can be the crazy lunatic with no fear. I, the calm, ruthless leader; and Jeff the brains with the lethal skills in martial arts and weaponry. Other roles are pending...

The Brooklyn Trolley Blogger writes:

The collective bargaining agreement is almost up. PED testing, Salary Caps, Player Contract Terms, Arbitration are just some of the things we're going to see a knock-out, drag-down brawl over. Selig will be gone. Fehr is out. And guys like Boras, there's more dents in his armor today than just 3 years ago. I digress. I think this has everything to do with so many players still unsigned, and the number of 1 and 2 year deals being offered. I think times-are-a-changin' in a big way pretty soon; as dramatic an upheaval as when Marvin Miller won the right to put this whole system into effect in the first place.

be well...happy new year

    There's not going to be a salary cap, but with the economy in the state it's in and ownerships suddenly refusing to spend ridiculous amounts of money, there's a salary cap without there being a salary cap and the players and agents are beginning to panic. Things are changing----drastically.

Jeff (Acting Boss) at Red State Blue State writes RE the remaining free agents:

Wow. LOTS of names on the list. You think come February we're just gonna have a fire storm of short one year, low money signings for these guys? It'll be confusing for the fan to figure out who's with who now... but I'm preparing for just that.

    It's a nuisance for me personally because I can't start writing my book until all the chips have fallen.

    Well, technically I could start writing it, but I find it more entertaining when I write the whole thing over a 2-3 week period; am more wired Robbie Williams in the midst of his über-healthy diet of Red Bull, coffee and cigarettes; and look back at what I've written after the fact with almost no recollection of having written 75% of it.

    My Tweets will be something to see during that time. I'm not saying that's good or bad. It just "is". Like a hurricane.

Ric Nunez writes RE the still available free agents:

a lot the names available, most of this guys are only good for bad teams...

LMAO the funny review about Mike Jacobs.

    I can't wait to see the money some of the still available and very useful players get.

    With Jacobs, he's another of the Rick Ankiel, Eric Bruntlett, Brian Anderson and Doug Mientkiewicz-types who I have to ask what it is they do exactly to keep big a big league job. It's one of the unanswerable questions of life.

• The still-available free agent pitchers:

    Yesterday I speculated on possible destinations for the "name" hordes of still-floating free agent position players; now I'll move onto the pitchers.

    There's a lot of them.

    Note: I used MLBTradeRumors.com for the list. It's funny how they place Scott Boras clients in boldface. That, my friends, is when you know you've made it. Boldface!!!!

Starting pitchers

Miguel Batista: I find it hard to believe that there's no team that could have use for Batista. He can start or relieve; he's fearless and will throw inside to anyone; and he's had more comebacks than Aerosmith----the main difference being that Batista's comebacks have been of the welcome variety. He'll get a big league contract to be a reliever/spot starter with a contender around the start of spring training. The Rays could use him.

Erik Bedard: Bedard is the ultimate short-term/low-risk/massive reward free agent. He's injury-prone; he's not well-liked by his teammates or the media; but when he's healthy, he's brilliant. Don't be surprised to see him end up with the Marlins.

Aroldis Chapman: Now this guy's an interesting case. A Cuban defector who's listed at 22-years-old (you can guess at his real age; I'm not even bothering), he's has been auditioning for teams in individual workouts. The 6'4" lefty has been dazzling and teams that normally wouldn't enter into the bidding with the Yankees and Red Sox are going after him, the Blue Jays and Marlins among them. It's going to be interesting to see where he ends up; he's asking for $25 million, so obviously the first teams you look at are the Yankees and Red Sox, but if he's that good, a team that is generally reticent to fling around that kind of cash might ante up. Again, maybe the Marlins.

Daniel Cabrera: Cabrera was hideous with the Nationals and Diamondbacks last year, but he's always had wicked stuff and he's mean. Joe Torre expressed admiration for Cabrera when he was managing the Yankees and Cabrera pitched for the Orioles; and I've always seen Cabrera as a perfect reclamation project for Dave Duncan with the Cardinals.

Doug Davis: Davis's left-handed junk isn't impressive; his control isn't very good; he doesn't strike many hitters out; but no matter what he finds a way to win as many games as he loses and gobbles innings every year; and he's got guts. He must go to a team with a relatively large ballpark and a good defense, but any team signing him would know exactly what they're getting. If the Dodgers ever do anything this winter, Davis would be a good fit.

Jon Garland: Garland's the same kind of pitcher as Davis. The Rangers were after Garland for some reason and Garland in that ballpark would be an utter disaster. He wants a 3-year deal, which he's not going to get. Garland could return to the Diamondbacks or Angels.

Jarrod Washburn: Washburn, represented by Boras, had pitched excellently with the Mariners in the first half of 2009 before he was traded to the Tigers, where he was horrific. I've never been a big fan of his stuff----he's a back-end starter----and he's going to be 36 in August. If Boras thinks he's getting Washburn a 3-year deal, he really is insane. Perhaps Washburn will go back to the Mariners for a 2-year deal, maybe. 

Randy Johnson: Johnson hasn't retired and seems to be intent on pitching. On a short-term deal, he's be a big win cheaply. There was talk of him returning to the Mariners, but the Dodgers or Marlins are also possibilities. Johnson would be a good mentor for Andrew Miller in Florida.

Braden Looper: Looper gives up a lot of home runs and didn't pitch very well last year, but he did pitch well at times when he was first converted into a starter by the Cardinals. He's a cheap, back-of-the-rotation option who can also relieve. As a last resort, teams could do worse than Looper.

Pedro Martinez: Pedro will be best-served to do as he did last year and sit out the first half of the season to save his bullets and sign with a contender. He can still pitch and appears willing to go anywhere. The Twins have popped into my head repeatedly with Pedro; possibly the White Sox.

Mark Mulder: Is he healthy? It's stunning what happened to Mulder. With the Athletics, his free and easy motion had him pegged as a long-term winner, but his body broke down completely. Someone will roll the dice on him, but would be unwise to count on him at all.

Brett Myers: Myers can start or relieve and pitched poorly for the Phillies last year as he recovered from hip surgery. Myers seems to want to relieve, and I see him as more of a reliever. He'd be a good option for the Mets as a feisty reliever/spot starter and he'd love to shove it to the Phillies.

Vicente Padilla: Padilla was brilliant with the Dodgers after being released by the Rangers (at least until he blew up in his last start in the NLCS). If he's looking to cash in on that hot month-and-a-half, he can forget it given his bad reputation off the field and flighty career on the field. Returning to the Dodgers is the smart move for Padilla.

Joel Pineiro: Pineiro was asking for 4-years, $40 million. It'd be stunning if some team gave him that amount of money. The question with Pineiro is whether he's a product of Dave Duncan/Tony La Russa or he's really figured it out and will continue pitching as well as he did for the Cardinals. I'm of the belief that it's the latter and if he's in a big ballpark on a team with a good defensive infield, he'd continue his good work. I think Pineiro's going to the Mets.

Mark Prior: Did he retire? Anyone up for ridiculing the Twins for taking Joe Mauer ahead of Prior now? Coming out of college, he was poised and polished; now he's battered and finished----and don't blame Dusty Baker because it would've happened whether the Cubs had employed the Joba Rules or if they'd done what they did and let him pitch trying to win a title.

Horacio Ramirez: I'm halfway expecting Dayton Moore to re-sign Ramirez to a 5-year contract to remain with the Royals. Hell, I might contemplate a comeback from my sandlot days and give the Royals a call; how much worse could I be than Ramirez and Kyle Farnsworth? 

Ben Sheets: Sheets is supposedly asking for $12 million for one year and if he was guaranteed to be healthy, he'd absolutely be worth it. The thing that concerns me about Sheets isn't just his injury history, but that he seemed willing to sign last winter with someone as he insisted he was healthy and then, after no one wanted to take a chance on him, he decided to have surgery as if he was saying, "Oh, alright, I'll have surgery if you really want me to." Sheets will have to take an incentive-laden deal, but he'll end up with a contender and could be a massive win if he's healthy. I'm picturing him with the Cardinals, Dodgers or Angels.

John Smoltz: Smoltz can still pitch and the Nationals are pursuing him. Why he'd want to subject himself to that is beyond me. That he can start or relieve should get him a decent NL job with a contender like the Dodgers or Giants.

Chien-Ming Wang: Wang's evidently not going to be ready to go until June, but if he's healthy then he'd be a big-time mid-season acquisition for a team with a good infield defense and big ballpark like the Mets or Giants. The Mariners and Angels are also possibilities.

Relief pitchers

Kevin Gregg: Gregg isn't any good. He's wild and gives up too many homers and the only place he could get a closing job and not make the team worse than they currently are is the Pirates. It's a match made in heaven.

Mike MacDougal: MacDougal will always have a job because of that 100-mph fastball. He's wild, but always shows flashes of being thisclose to putting it all together. As a low-cost flier, I'd take a chance on MacDougal and that fastball. The Marlins are a good spot for him.

Jose Valverde: He throws very, very hard and has had some excellent years as a closer. A team that needs set-up help like the Yankees might want to seriously look at Valverde.

Doug Brocail: Brocail's not young (he'll be 43 in May), but he's always been a leader in the clubhouse and can still pitch out of the bullpen. The Mets should think about him.

Kiko Calero: Calero's a workhorse and was a key to the Marlins staying in contention. Any number of teams can use Calero. I see him going  to the Giants.

Octavio Dotel: Dotel gives up too many homers, but he still racks up the strikeouts. Possibly the Cardinals are a good place for him on a short-term deal.

Russ Springer: The veteran Springer can still pitch and would bolster any bullpen. He should return to the Rays. 

Chan Ho Park: The Phillies have moved on from Park with their signing of Danys Baez and Park still harbors thoughts of being a starter when he should focus on staying in the bullpen. The Giants were looking at Park, but the Mariners are an option also. 

Joe Beimel: Beimel will always have a job because he's lefty and he's breathing (and the breathing part isn't all that necessary for someone to sign him). He'll have his pick of teams on a low-cost, short-term deal once the dust settles.

Scott Eyre: Eyre was a key component to the Phillies pennant in 2009 and has shown that he can get out lefties and righties. He spoke of retirement, but I think he'll come back with the Phillies.

Ron Mahay: Mahay can still pitch and I'd expect him to eventually return to the Twins; if not, the Angels or White Sox are options.

• Phillies sign Danys Baez...to a 2-year contract (?):

    The Phillies are aware that there's such a thing as 1-year contracts, right?

    Signing Baez is a good idea to bolster the bullpen, no doubt, but for 2-years?

    Why?

    This is a continuing strange trend from the Phillies. For a club that has all these rules (no contracts longer than 3-years for pitchers, for example), they take that to the extreme by signing the likes of Adam Eaton for three years or extending Jamie Moyer for two years (punch-drunk from the exhilaration of the 2008 World Series win maybe) for no reason whatsoever.

    Was Moyer going to reject a one-year deal? Was Baez? 

    Baez has been up-and-down in his career; as a set-up man he could be very good for the Phillies; but if Brad Lidge's head and body aren't straight and they're expecting to contend if he Baez to replace Lidge as closer, they're deluding themselves.

    From the Placido Polanco signing; to the trade of Cliff Lee for Roy Halladay; to the exercising of Jimmy Rollins's contract option for 2011 despite his decline, the 2-year deal for Baez is another bizarre decision in a what's going to be seen as a gaffe-filled winter of 2009-10 for the Phillies.

• Ah, Edwin Encarnacion...

    I'm glad Blue Jays third baseman Edwin Encarnacion wasn't seriously injured when his face was burned by fireworks during a New Year's celebration in the Dominican Republic----ESPN Story----but given Encarnacion's history as a supremely talented space cadet, why do I have a different image as to what happened that what's been reported?

    According to the story, one of Encarnacion's brothers lit a rocket firecracker and it moved laterally instead of upwards and it hit the infielder in the face. The thing with Encarnacion is that I can picture him having had too many beers and leaning over the rocket to see why it didn't go off and having it hit him in the face. It just seems like something he'd do. 

• Players options are becoming limited by the day:

    With the Yankees not flinging more and more money after players they don't need; the Mets not panicking; the Red Sox insisting they have budgetary concerns; the Angels laying low; the Phillies done with their big shopping; and the Dodgers having disappeared into the morass of the McCourt's divorce, there aren't any big money teams ready to spend to fill their holes.

    In case anyone hadn't noticed, it's January, 2010 and there are still dozens of "name" free agents who should be worried that they're not going to get the big money deals they anticipated a few months ago. Of all the "names", the one player who's definitely going to get paid (although not as lucratively as he thought) is Matt Holliday and I discussed him the other day.

    Aside from that, it's a frenzy. Teams can upgrade drastically for comparative pennies if they're smart. (That eliminates the Pirates from any discussion.)

    Pitchers and catchers reporting dates will be here before we can blink, so let's take a look at the remaining free agents bats worth mentioning and speculate where they'll end up. (Pitchers will be discussed tomorrow.):

Catchers

Rod Barajas: The Mets are considering Barajas if Bengie Molina continues his hard-line negotiating. He doesn't hit for average, but he does hit the ball out of the park; handle pitchers well; and most importantly, can throw. Surprisingly, he doesn't strike out much either. My guess is he ends up with the Giants.

Michael (The Right Hook) Barrett: Who knows? I just like saying Michael (The Right Hook) Barrett.

Bengie Molina: The Mets aren't giving Molina a third year; in fact, he'll be lucky to get the second year guaranteed. He's in no position to be taking such a stand. There are other options out there like Barajas and Ryan Doumit via trade. I'm getting the feeling the Mets are about to move on after they finish up the Jason Bay deal and press conference, so if this doesn't get done by the middle of the week, Molina's going to regret these demands if he has to settle for a one year deal elsewhere as he did in 2006. He might have to go back to the Giants on a one year deal or possibly the Mariners.

Yorvit Torrealba: It looks like the Rockies are about to sign Miguel Olivo after the Torrealba negotiations broke down. Olivo's a better hitter and thrower than Torrealba, whose main attributes are that he's a good guy, handles the pitchers and gets big hits in the playoffs. The Giants or Astros are a possible landing spots.

First Basemen

Russell Branyan: Branyan is a stat zombie's dream coming off his career year, so he has every right to try and cash in. He's also been a journeyman with injury problems and a history of streakiness and slumps that have gotten him shipped to the minors or outright released. I'd bet he ends up back with the Mariners or with the Athletics to replace Jack Cust.

Carlos Delgado: Delgado has yet to play a game in winter ball because of lingering injury issues. He'd better come out blistering if he wants a guaranteed contract and playing time wherever he signs. The Athletics or Mariners are a possibilities with Delgado to DH; maybe the Diamondbacks if they think he can play the field. I'm not sure the Mets are going to go down the Delgado road again.

Ryan Garko: Garko didn't hit after being traded to the Giants, so he might have to settle for a bad situation like the Pirates. Garko's fiery and has pop, so he might be a part-time option for the Mets if they don't completely trust Daniel Murphy, but want to give him a legit chance to play every day.

Mike Jacobs: Jacobs has "Pirates" written all over him. He fits in there perfectly because he doesn't do much of anything useful but hit the occasional homer, strut around looking like a big leaguer with the huge chaw in his cheek, and act like a hard guy when a bench clearing shoving match breaks out.

Adam LaRoche: LaRoche is a perfect guy for the Mets, Giants and Mariners, but he supposedly wants a three-year deal which, for him, isn't an outlandish request. I think he ultimately falls to the Giants and would be a great pickup for a bat the Giants need.

Second basemen

Orlando Hudson: For a good, well-liked player, Hudson sits out waiting for a deal every year. I'm not all that enamored of him for the Mets, but if they want him, they should sign him and worry about what to do with Luis Castillo later. He might fall to a team like the Twins, Cardinals, Tigers or Marlins on a short-term deal. 

Ronnie Belliard: Belliard is an underrated player with pop. Joe Torre benched Hudson in the 2009 playoffs in favor of Belliard. Even going back to his days with the Nationals, Belliard was in the middle of all their spoiler rallies. The Tigers are a good idea for Belliard, short-term.

Felipe Lopez: Lopez might be a guy who's learned how to hit mid-career. The Cardinals are kicking the tires and Lopez is a good choice for them.

Third basemen

Adrian Beltre: He's represented by Scott Boras; the stat zombies love him for some reason; and he wants a lot of money. Beltre's a good guy and a great fielder and his power would return to a certain extent in a more reasonable ballpark. The Red Sox are talking to him, but they need a better bat than Beltre. Beltre may end up with the Cardinals.

Hank Blalock: Blalock's been injury-prone in recent years, but he can still hit a bit. He's another guy who may have to settle for the Pirates or some other dregs of society. 

Melvin Mora: Mora can still play and would be a solid utility player who could fill in at third base, first base and the outfield----he's a very good outfielder. Mora would be a solid citizen option for the Mets to replace Fernando Tatis. 

Shortstops

Orlando Cabrera: The Twins wanted him to shift to second base and he might not have a choice. The Tigers could use him in that capacity too. 

Miguel Tejada: Tejada has expressed a willingness to shift to third base, but the 3-year contract signed by Placido Polanco has him requesting similar dollars (with good reason). Tejada would slide in neatly with the Cardinals or Brewers. 

Left fielders

Johnny Damon: Damon goes too far with the "I'll let my agent handle the negotiations" in his dealings with Scott Boras. He priced himself out of Boston (where he didn't want to leave) and the Yankees (where he doesn't want to leave). As much as Yankee fans hold out hope that Damon comes to his senses and accepts a short-term deal to stay, it's not happening. If the Cardinals re-up with Holliday, Damon may have to go to San Francisco or Atlanta and he's not getting the money he expected or was promised by Boras. It's his own fault for not dictating to his agent rather than having his agent dictate to him.

Center fielders

Rick Ankiel: I don't know who'd want Ankiel after the rotten year he had with the Cardinals. He doesn't get on base and isn't all that great a center fielder. The pitchers appeared to have figured him out at the plate too. He can't do much of anything worthwhile, so he's a fit for the Pirates or Royals.

Right field

Ryan Church: As a part-timer on a short-term deal, Church is useful to have around. He's got a great arm and some pop. The Yankees might want to consider him for left field, but he supposedly wasn't all that thrilled with New York when he was with the Mets. Whether that was the Mets themselves that made him feel that way or the city is unknown. In fairness, the Mets weren't particularly happy with Church in his last days with the club. The Indians would be a good place for Church.

Jermaine Dye: Dye is a great guy and can still hit, but he's not getting a big money deal. If he wants to return to the Braves, he'll have to take short money; he's also expressed a willingness to play first base. The Giants have been linked with Dye. 

Xavier Nady: Nady will get an incentive-laden deal and would be a good player for the Mets as a platoon first baseman/backup outfielder. The Braves have been considering him too. The Giants need a more guaranteed bat than Nady.

Designated Hitters:

Vladimir Guerrero: Guerrero can't play the field aside from maybe----maybe----25 games with a ground ball pitcher on the mound. He can still hit and hitters like Guerrero could have a resurgence late in their careers, invigorated by a new uniform. The White Sox and Guerrero look like a match.

Jason Giambi: It's hard to picture a contender in the American League signing Giambi to be a semi-regular DH, but as a power bat who can walk coming off the bench, he'd be a Matt Stairs-type for a National League contender. The Dodgers have done absolutely nothing up to now, but a reunion with Joe Torre is something to consider for Giambi.

Aubrey Huff: Huff can hit and play first, third and the outfield. He's flown under the radar, but a team like the Mariners might want to consider him for first base on a cheap deal.

Jack Cust: The Mariners need a first baseman, but Cust is a rotten fielder and the Mariners have Ken Griffey Jr clogging up the DH spot. Cust might head back to Oakland on a cheaper deal than he would've gotten in arbitration. The "genius" Billy Beane should've traded Cust two years ago.

Jim Thome: Thome can still hit. The Angels would've been a good place before they signed Hideki Matsui; Matsui's talking about playing the outfield again, so maybe the Angels will look at Thome. He could end up back with the White Sox. Maybe the Twins are a good idea for a power DH.

• Viewer Mail 1.2.2010:

Joe at Statistican Magician writes RE Dave Cameron's comment about Jason Bay, Marlon Byrd and the Mets:

I felt the same way about Cameron's comment (found in the comment section of his post at Fangraphs). If the Mets *only* had $16 million to spend, they could have better used that money to address multiple issues. But they can sign Jason Bay AND a pitcher, and maybe a few other small pieces as well. Plus, Byrd would be playing left, not center, meaning that his value would decrease (more easily replaceable, doesn't have the opportunity to field as many balls, impacts the game a little less, etc)

    This one comment has placed you back into my good graces, Joe. Why don't you sign onto Twitter?

    It's as if the hard core stat zombies are trying to find ways to rip on anything and everything the Mets do. This wouldn't be that bad if Cameron and his brethren did that with everyone and without bias. Instead, they formulate ways to move the Moneyball goalposts and defend Billy Beane, Paul DePodesta, Theo Epstein and anyone and everyone who advances their agenda in some fashion.

    To equate Marlon Byrd as anywhere close to an impact player on a level with Jason Bay is a farce.

Brandon Knight writes RE the Red Sox, the Mets and Jason Bay:

The Red Sox will spend that money on pitching or a comparable player in free agency. I think Bay's stats will decline for the Mets because of their ballpark doesnt yield as many home runs.

    The Red Sox shopping for pitching is just about done. They're desperate for a bat. Whether they'll be willing to move forward with what they have now or wait until mid-season to make a trade is the question.

    Bay won't hit 36 homers for the Mets, but the implication that Citi Field is such a disaster for the power hitter is based on David Wright's struggles with the place; and that has more to do with the way he hits. His power was to right and right center much of the time----splits. Wright will either have to accept that he's not going to hit as many homers as he did earlier in his career, or change his hitting style to try and pull the ball more; the ballpark was in his head in 2009 no matter how much he denies it; also the absence of the entire starting lineup affected him in that regard as well.

    Objectively, Citi Field was around the bottom for homers hit in total, but was ahead of Turner Field, AT&T Park, Busch Stadium, Dodger Stadium and Petco Park----scroll to the very bottom of the linked page for the ballpark stats. 

    Before he got hurt, Carlos Delgado had no problem getting the ball out; nor did Jeff Francoeur; Chase Utley and Mark Reynolds. Bay will hit his homers there, no problem.

John Seal writes RE Coco Crisp and the Moneyball movie:

Prince, I'm as puzzled by the Covelli Crisp signing as you are. Hopefully the A's will flip him to a contender in June once they decide to start Michael Taylor's arbitration clock. And I'm stoked about  Moneyball--I love zombie movies!

    John, I burst out laughing when I read this comment, thereby making it the funniest comment I've ever received. 

    It's pretty lame if that's their intention with Crisp, and truthfully I'd have no problem with the signing if there weren't so many people exhibiting such zeal to find ways to justify it as if it's the last piece in Beane's long awaited A's championship puzzle. Crisp is useful if he's healthy, but not as the one maneuver made by a team with the issues of the A's. 

    The zombie movie line is classic!!!

    I love zombie films too, but even I might not be able to handle the horrible carnage of such an event as the Moneyball movie. The calculators? Laptops? Spock-ears and pocket protectors would be too much for my admittedly calloused sensibilities. It'd make 28 Days Later look like the Muppets.

    Then again, maybe I and my troops could get a role in the sequel as the Zombie Hunters. I'm more of a masculine sex symbol than that pretty boy dingus Robert Pattinson could ever be, anyway.

• Cubs sign Marlon Byrd:

    One can only speculate as to what the Cubs are going to look like in three years time as 2/3 of their outfield will consist of a 37-year-old Alfonso Soriano (who'll still have a guaranteed $36 million coming to him) and a 35-year-old Marlon Byrd. Byrd agreed to a 3-year, $15 million deal with the Cubs on Thursday that is said to be heavily backloaded, so you can figure that he'll be a nice financial albatross in the third year of the deal and, just like Soriano, unmovable.

    Nice work.

    Marlon Byrd is a good player; he had a solid couple of years with the Rangers and his hitting splits weren't bolstered to a massive degree by the hitter's haven of Rangers Ballpark at Arlington; but they were improved by the bandbox especially in the power department. He's never hit particularly well at Wrigley Field, but he hasn't been a National Leaguer since 2006. He's useful. He'd help any team he joined, but as the landmark move for a club with the holes that permeate the fading Cubs? Is Marlon Byrd the answer to their problems?

    Can Byrd play center field every day as he enters his mid-30s?

    Does he have the range to cover for the disinterested and declining Alfonso Soriano as he grows slower in left?

    You can bank on Byrd's high-power year of 20 homers dropping back to around 10 or so as he leaves Texas and while he can man center field and hold a place at the bottom of the Cubs lineup, does he fix the problems----the in-fighting, injuries, bullpen failures, and age----that led to the Cubs flameout and fade in 2009? No.

    The 2010 Cubs are a disaster in the making. They're trying desperately to brighten a crumbling foundation by spackling the cracks with Mighty Putty, but it's not going to work. They're old; their bullpen is horrific; their starting rotation is short; their lineup is one-dimensional; their guaranteed contract-situations are disgusting and will haunt them for the next four years at least; and they continue to make the same mistakes that got them into this mess in the first place.

    2010 is the final year that they can even entertain the fantasy of making a playoff run with the current group; all the pieces are in place for a crash that will result in the new ownership embarking on a necessary bloodletting that will spell the end for both GM Jim Hendry and manager Lou Piniella. (Hendry's going to get fired; Piniella will simply resign.)

    The housecleaning will begin at mid-season for this group. Their time has passed. If they were going to finally contend for a championship, the time was in 2008 and they blew it. It's over. And the signing of Byrd is the last desperate and wild swing to cling to whatever remains from that lost year and take one final stab at glory.

    And it won't work.

    Cover your eyes, because this approaching horror show is not for the squeamish----not for the squeamish at all.

• A lesson the Mets should take from the Red Sox:

    We'll ignore all the garbage coming out of Boston about Jason Bay and how his shoulders make the chances of him passing the Mets physical iffy; after three days, it's clear there's no coherent response to my query as to why the Red Sox----so disturbed by Bay's condition---offered him $60 million to stay. Maybe they wanted his final few seasons to be comfortable despite his debilitating injuries; the organization is so benevolent. 

    Never mind that.

    One thing the Red Sox are doing to which a team like the Mets should take heed is the way they cut their losses when they need an upgrade at a certain position. The Red Sox apparently have no intention whatsoever to go into the 2010 season with Mike Lowell as part of their lineup in any capacity despite the $12 million he's still owed. 

    First, they negotiated a trade that sent Lowell to the Rangers (along with $9 million to cover three-quarters of his contract) for journeyman backup catcher Max Ramirez, but Lowell's injured thumb nixed the deal for now. (He's gotten it repaired and is expected to be ready for spring training.) Even with that, the Red Sox have explored a deal for Adrian Gonzalez, which would necessitate the shifting of Kevin Youkilis to third; and are talking to Adrian Beltre.

    That $12 million owed to Lowell is already a sunk cost, so the Red Sox aren't messing around. They want a better hitting third baseman with more range, or a power hitting first baseman. The money for Lowell is secondary to that end. 

    The Mets have been desperately trying to unload second baseman Luis Castillo and the $12 million he's owed over the next two years so they can sign Orlando Hudson, who seems to be waiting around for the Mets. If they're so enamored of Hudson and vice versa, the Mets need to make the move, sign Hudson, and worry about dealing Castillo later----even at mid-season if need be.

    No one knows what kind of injuries or holes are going to open up around the majors to make Castillo a viable option for a desperate team willing to take the contract; the Mets would give him away at this point, so the smart move would be to get the player they really want to man the position and worry about later, later. Just like the Red Sox are doing with Lowell.

• Viewer Mail 1.1.2010:

Jane Heller at Confessions of a She-Fan writes RE Jason Bay and the Red Sox:

Excellent point. Why would the Red Sox offer Bay that much money if they thought so poorly of his skills and his health?

    It's typical whining coming out of Boston, but they have no answer for it; and they're conveniently glossing over the fact that it was they----the Red Sox----who walked away from Bay!!

    If they'd waited, there's every chance he would've taken the shorter money to stay; and it's not as if they were under a deadline to get Albert Pujols to replace Bay----they signed Mike Cameron!! Where was he going?

    If they'd told Cameron that they were waiting to see whether Bay took the deal and were still interested in Cameron either way, I think he would've waited a reasonable amount of time. And if Cameron went to the Cubs, so what? These are the Red Sox; one would assume they'd figure something else out. It's insanity.

Issac at A Baseball Thing writes RE Jason Bay:

I agree with the Bay signing, and I'm not all that worried about his defense, but I wouldn't trust the Mets to have solid fundamentals. I do think beltran can help, though.
---And thanks for the support.

    The Mets had to make a bold statement and signing Bay is it. I don't know what the critics want; under the same logic they're currently throwing out there against Bay, the Red Sox (a darling organization of the stat zombies) would've made almost an identical mistake had he chosen to stay with them. This one move opens the floodgates for the Mets and was a no-brainer.

Joe at Statistician Magician writes RE Jason Bay:

"Also, just throwing this out there – this deal should make Mets fans want to throw something. Realistically, Jason Bay is about +1 win better than Marlon Byrd, maybe +1.5 if you think UZR is just way off on his defense. Byrd signed for $5 million per year, while Bay gets $16.5 million per year.

Given the relative costs, the Mets would have been far better off with Byrd and $10 million to spend on a pitcher than with Bay."

- Dave Cameron

Here is something for you to hate. :)

    Joe, there's no hate here. It's not personal with me. It's strictly business.

    As for the Cameron comment, yeah, I'm a Mets fan; and yeah, I'd like to throw something----something heavy at Dave Cameron's head. 

    Cameron's solution to the Mets problem of needing a basher was Marlon Byrd?

    Marlon Byrd, whose numbers----as mentioned earlier----were helped by playing in a bandbox ballpark that has turned slightly above-average hitters and worse (remember Kevin Elster?) into 20-homer men? The litany of players who got paid based on playing in Texas is massive.

    Byrd for the Mets?

    In Citi Field?

    Byrd might---might----reach ten homers based on the games in Philadelphia and a couple of other bandboxes in the National League; he'd be a disaster in Citi Field and nowhere close to what the Mets needed on and off the field. Would the club be able to hold a press conference and sell a dubious fan base that Marlon Byrd would cure the ills of the Mets from 2009? Even without the ludicrous litany of injuries that demolished the season, Marlon Byrd wouldn't inspire one fan to buy a ticket to see the Mets. Not one. Jason Bay does.

    Marlon Byrd?

    If the Bay signing had caused the Mets to exhaust their resources for subsequent moves, then maybe there's a basis for the stat zombie concern over money; but the Bay signing is the first move of the winter with others to come. They're going to spend $10 million on a pitcher.

    What possible difference could the money make to the Dave Camerons of the world other than the stat zombie goal of implying they're smarter because they did it cheaper. Is he paying the Mets' bills?

    It's that kind of thinking that led to the Red Sox missing the playoffs in 2006 and flinging money at every one of their problems to come back and win the World Series in 2007; and the Yankees missing the playoffs in 2008 and flinging money at every one of their problems to come back and win the World Series in 2009.

    You can choose to listen to the Dave Camerons of the world with this brand of monolithic, dogmatic, self-righteous nonsense based on nothing other than advancing his shattered agenda, or you can listen to common sense.

    If you want to buy into Cameron's absurd justifications, then you're beyond my help.

    As much as I like to believe the opposite, my powers have limits. Unfortunately.   

    Even I can't save you.

    I admit it.

    I leave you to your fate.