If anyone accuses me of bias, we're gonna have a
problem:
Before anything,
everyone knows I'm a Mets fan. It has to be understood however that I'm able to maintain objectivity. (For some unfathomable
reason, half of Twitter thinks I'm a Yankee fan.) If nothing else, this should be proven by the fact that I had the Mets missing
the playoffs last season when they were the consensus pick for National League champions in the pre-season. I had a bad feeling
that turned out, in reality, to be nowhere close to the mark in predicting what happened.
Then again, the most negative prophet of doom couldn't have predicted
what happened to the Mets last season. The Devil himself (and no that's not me) would've said enough's enough by July. Yet
the hits kept right on coming.
Let's
have a look.
National League East
Wins Losses GB
New York Mets
91 71 ---
Atlanta Braves
87 75
4
Philadelphia Phillies
84 78
7
Florida Marlins
81 81
10
Washington Nationals
69 93 22
New York Mets:
The Mets were the butt
of jokes from the time the injuries began piling up last season all through this entire winter and part of spring training.
Their minor league system was shot; their doctors
were the equivalent of faith healers; the front office was in disarray; the players mistrusted the club from top to bottom;
the fans were abused to the point of self-mutilation.
Then, once spring training started, the young players the Mets system----Ike Davis; Fernando Martinez;
Ruben Tejada; Jenrry Mejia-----looked great. The team on the whole had an attitude of "Oh, enough of this already".
While the pitching hasn't looked
great in the spring, the potential is there and the lineup will be able to score. Jeff Francoeur has made a concerted effort
to be more selective; Jason Bay looks like his usual quiet and productive self; and the club has gotten cautiously good news
on Jose Reyes after his hamstring surgery and thyroid condition.
The key to the entire season isn't the bullpen nor the lineup, but how John Maine pitches as the number
2 behind Johan Santana. If Maine pitches well, the Mets will contend. If not, they won't.
The season is going to go one of two ways. Either the ridicule is going
to galvanize the team into an us against the world mentality to come out swinging with both fists at the naysayers; or things
are going to spiral out of control and both GM Omar Minaya and manager Jerry Manuel are going to get fired.
I think it'll be the former.
Atlanta
Braves:
Had the Braves brought in a big basher----that one big bat guaranteed
to drive in runs; hit homers; and get on base----I'd have picked them to win the pennant in the National League. Instead,
they're rolling the dice on the oft-injured Troy Glaus and made a ridiculous trade of Javier Vazquez for Melky Cabrera.
They're again putting an undue amount of pressure
of a young player in Jason Heyward to be that bat.
We saw how well that worked out with the aforementioned Francoeur.
The Braves pitching is good enough and deep enough that they're going to be in the mix for the playoffs;
but they don't have enough hitting. Add in that Billy Wagner is completely untrustworthy in a big game----I can promise you
he'll blow a couple of ultra-important games in September----and unless they make a drastic trade for an available bat at
mid-season, they're going to be on the outside looking in by the end of the season.
Philadelphia
Phillies:
I've gone on ad nauseam of what a terrible mistake the Phillies made in
the lateral trade of Cliff Lee for Roy Halladay. There are two ways for a club to address their issues. One, they bolster
their strengths. For the Phillies, that would've been to keep Lee and trade for Halladay. Two, they address their weaknesses.
That would've been to upgrade the bullpen and back of the starting rotation.
They did neither.
Even with Halladay, they're still relying on Jamie Moyer as their fifth starter; they're counting on
Brad Lidge returning to form; and getting usefulness from the likes of Jose Contreras and Danys Baez.
The lineup is formidable, but Jimmy Rollins is shot; Ryan Howard absolutely
clueless against lefties; and expecting a repeat performance of 2009 from Jayson Werth is insanity.
The one thing I'd be concerned about more than anything is the arrogance
that has come with a World Series win and a trip to the classic a year later. It's permeating everything the Phillies do;
the mistakes they've made; and is an invitation to disaster and downfall.
And that's exactly what's going to happen.
Florida Marlins:
As much as I admire the way the Marlins do business (and they made a great move to get Nate Robertson
from the Tigers for nothing), there's something different this year that could be the catalyst for a step back.
The Marlins have always been cold and ruthless when
it came to saving money and mining other clubs for their best prospects in exchange for Marlins veterans who were about to
get paid. This off-season was different.
They were taking offers for Dan Uggla; trying to come to agreement with Josh Johnson on a long-term contract; and willing
to listen on Jorge Cantu and Cody Ross. Then MLB stepped in and forced the Marlins to put more money into payroll, and the
club agreed as if they'd done something wrong.
I don't see how the best run team in baseball had been doing something wrong by saving money and winning, doing it
their way----a way that no one else in baseball, stat-based theories or not, has been able to accomplish.
The Marlins kept Uggla, Ross and Cantu; and signed Johnson to a long-term
contract. They have the talent to contend and more, but I think there was an energy created by the edge-of-the-seat turnover
the club always maintained. It was understood by all that anyone and everyone could be dealt away at a moment's notice.
The energy was important. The basic standing pat will
cost them as they fall back out of contention and finish at .500.
Washington Nationals:
The Nationals did a lot of "stuff" this off-season, but none of that stuff was enough to
vault them into respectability. Jason Marquis? Chien-Ming Wang? Adam Kennedy? Ivan Rodriguez? Are these moves for a team on
the rise?
No.
Their expansion team style moves were to bring in recognizable names to
hold down a fan base who's waiting anxiously forüber prospect Stephen Strasburg. They have some players who
can hit like Adam Dunn and Ryan Zimmerman; they have a few decent arms, but they're not good. They're not respectable and
their saving grace is going to be that they can't be much worse than the 59-win monstrosity (solid second half play aside)
they were last season.
2010 National League Award Winners:
NL MVP----Jose Reyes, New York Mets:
I know, I know.
This was
written before the thyroid condition and while manager Jerry Manuel had Reyes scheduled to begin the season batting third.
Batting third and having the opportunity to drive
in runs was going to send Reyes into MVP contention. Now, who knows? I'll stick with the pick.
On another note, maybe it's a positive omen. Last year, in the American
League, I picked Alex Rodriguez to win the MVP before his hip injury and while he didn't win the award, the Yankees won the
World Series.
A guy can dream,
can't he?
NL Cy Young Award----Clayton Kershaw, Los Angeles Dodgers:
I had initially picked Jair Jurrjens of the Braves, but his shoulder problems made me back off that choice.
Kershaw's handcuffs are off; he's got devastating
stuff; and he's ready to explode. I'm talking about close to 300 strikeouts and dominance. The word potential will be removed
from Kershaw early in the season, replaced by brilliance.
NL Rookie of the Year----Madison Bumgarner, San Francisco
Giants:
Bumgarner is ruining my aesthetic by getting rocked in
the spring and sent to the minors, but considering how he decimated the minor leagues on the way up, it's not a negative for
him to face some adversity. If he pitches well in the minors, he'll be back in the big leagues soon enough.
NL
Manager of the Year----Jerry Manuel, New York Mets:
Much
like everything involved with the Mets this year, it's feast of famine for their manager.
If they play well, he'll get a contract extension and
receive post-season recognition; if not, he'll get fired. At least he knows his position. Since I think the Mets are going
to play well, I have to believe Manuel will get the Manager of the Year award for running the ship.
My book containing
all predictions and in-depth analysis is available on Amazon and I-Universe. It's either going to launch me into the stratosphere or cause me
to shatter into a million pieces. Or both. Watch the explosion.
It's hard to cram 364 pages into a concise summary,
but it's not harder than writing the 364 pages to being with----in 3 weeks! You do it and see whether it's any good and if
you're not a raving lunatic by the time you're on page 45.
It's Day 2 of a concise, Sparknotes style overview from my book brings us to the National League Central.
National League Central
Wins Losses GB
St. Louis Cardinals
93 69 ---
Chicago Cubs
84
78 9
Milwaukee Brewers
81 81
12
Houston Astros
73 89
20
Cincinnati Reds
72 90
21
Pittsburgh Pirates67
95 26
St. Louis Cardinals:
While teams like the Mets are criticized for being
top-heavy, the Cardinals are one of the most top-heavy teams in baseball.
Relying on the best manager of his the generation----maybe the best in history,
Tony La Russa----his superlative pitching coach Dave Duncan; two of the best starters in baseball (Chris Carpenter, Adam Wainwright);
the best hitter in baseball (Albert Pujols); and one of the best sluggers (Matt Holliday), the Cardinals plug in filler around
their stars and roll.
As long as
the core group is healthy, the Cardinals will be in contention.
But that's the trick.
The main issue for the Cardinals health wise is Carpenter.
One of the best pitchers in baseball when he's right, Carpenter has had numerous injuries (many catastrophic)
to just about every part of his body. He missed the first month of last season with an oblique problem after missing most
of 2007 and 2008 with arm issues and stunningly returned to form to pitch masterfully and almost win the Cy Young Award last
season. Carpenter is the key and no one can know whether he's going to stay healthy.
With Pujols and Holliday, the Cardinals lineup is going to score; they've
got usable cogs in players like Brendan Ryan; Felipe Lopez; and Yadier Molina who's also ready to blossom into superstar status.
But they need Carpenter.
The biggest salvation for the Cardinals, aside from La Russa, is that
the NL Central is notoriously weak. They should roll through easily for another division title.
Chicago
Cubs:
The Cubs excised a malignant growth from their clubhouse when they got
rid of Milton Bradley, but the window for this group is likely closed.
It's going to go one of three ways for the Cubs:
1) They're going to have great comeback
years from all their hitters; Carlos Zambrano will finally fulfill his Cy Young Award potential; Alfonso Soriano and Aramis
Ramirez will stay healthy; the bullpen will perform; and they'll return to what they were when they looked unstoppable in
2008.
2) They'll be better than last year; get some
return to normalcy from their veterans; be competitive, but not genuine contenders (unless the Wild Card drops to 85
wins); and be respectable, but not legit.
3) The whole
foundation will come apart, GM Jim Hendry will be fired; they'll clean house of veterans; Lou Piniella will leave after the
season; and the Cubs will have to start all over again lamenting the mistakes that sabotaged them in 2008.
I'm not hedging when I say I'd bet on the second option.
I think the Cubs have enough gas left in the tank to be okay, but no more than that. The contracts
they lavished on the likes of Soriano will haunt them for years. The best possible thing for them might be to have everything
come apart because this current group is never going to be able to make it back to the precipice of a championship. They have
movable pieces like Ryan Dempster and Derrek Lee.
Having not improved much at all (their big moves were dumping Bradley and signing Marlon Byrd), the Cubs are hanging
onto the hope that a return to normal performance by their mid-30s vets will turn things around.
They won't be terrible, but that doesn't mean they'll contend either.
Milwaukee Brewers:
Trapped in the middle from being a contender and not,
the Brewers spent a lot of money on Randy Wolf and LaTroy Hawkins. Regarding Hawkins, you'd think they'd have learned their
lesson after the disaster that has been David Riske. The Brewers have a lot of power, but questions at shortstop and center
field (Alcides Escobar and Carlos Gomez); declining mediocrity behind the plate (Gregg Zaun); and pitching issues.
Facing the free agency of Prince Fielder after
2011 and that the beefy first baseman is represented by Scott Boras, they're going to have to make a similar decision as they
did with acquiring C.C. Sabathia in 2008----go for it now, or look toward the future.
It's going to depend where they are in the standings, but don't be surprised
to see Fielder dangled at mid-season and be even less surprised if he ends up in Boston.
Another problem is manager Ken Macha. He's operating on the final guaranteed
year of his deal; the players don't like him; and he was almost fired after last year. There's a manager-in-waiting in bench
coach Willie Randolph, who I think is a better long term option anyway.
The Brewers are going to have a mediocre year; Macha's getting fired fast if they get off to a bad
start and a re-tooling is going to begin.
Houston Astros:
Initially when I started looking at the Astros, I had them in last place even behind the hapless Pirates; but after
a deeper examination, they're not good, but they're not that bad. Roy Oswalt is having injury problems again, but
if he's back and combines with Wandy Rodriguez, the Astros have two very good pitchers in their rotation.
The bullpen is okay enough with Matt Lindstrom and the shaky Brandon
Lyon; along with usable pieces Wesley Wright; Jeff Fulchino; and Tim Byrdak. Their lineup can be productive with a player
I've always liked, Carlos Lee, plus Lance Berkman and Hunter Pence.
They have a new manager with a sterling resume in Brad Mills. Mills is a longtime minor league manager
and has been a part of a winning club with the Red Sox for years. That doesn't always translate into success, but he looks
good so far.
The Astros won't be as bad
as everyone seems to think.
Cincinnati Reds:
The Reds are a trendy
pick to jump into possible contention.
I don't see it.
They do have a
lot of pitching, especially in the starting rotation; but that's contingent on Aaron Harang rebounding after two atrocious
years; Jonny Cueto taking the next step; and Homer Bailey maturing. Bronson Arroyo is someone you never have to worry about;
the gutty and unflappable righty will win his 15 games and provide his 220 innings.
I'm enamored of Aroldis Chapman. I think he's going to be a superstar,
but he's still raw.
The bullpen
is serviceable; but their lineup is pockmarked with holes. The outfield is quite possibly the worst in baseball unless Jay
Bruce rebounds----a question mark. Expecting Scott Rolen to stay healthy is a iffy at best.
I don't think they're going to score enough.
The guillotine is hanging over the head of manager Dusty Baker. His contract
is up at the end of the year and if the club gets off to a bad start, he's getting fired.
The Reds would have to have everything go right to contend and I doubt
it's going to happen.
Pittsburgh Pirates:
I published the excerpt
of my book dedicated to the Pirates----link.
While they have some talent----I love
Andrew McCutchen----they're essentially rudderless. The front office is more interested in payroll slots and floating the
idea that there's a plan in place where none is in evidence. They signed relievers they didn't need----Octavio Dotel and Brendan
Donnelly----and a second baseman, Akinori Iwamura, who would have use for a good team, but not for the Pirates.
This organization is a total and complete train wreck.
They'll ensconce themselves in their familiar position of last place before long and clear out some veterans at mid-season,
building for a future that's never going to come until they get someone competent in there to run the place.
Yeah. I'd do it.
And it would get ugly when I start swinging the axe.
Mike
and The Horn Dog:
A couple
of interesting notes from the world of sports broadcasting occurred in recent days. First, "Joe Buck Live" on HBO
has been shelved permanently; and Mike Francesa will have former Mets GM and dispatched ESPN analyst Steve Phillips as a weekly
guest on his show.
It's easy and cheap to turn the failure that was "Joe Buck Live"
into some version of coarseness.
I'll leave that to others.
I saw the
the now classic debut with Artie Lange saving it rather than destroying it; and portions of another show with Brett Fav-ruh
and Jerry Jones.
It was a hideous idea;
Buck is a horrible, smarmy, obnoxious and unfunny character who isn't even welcome in the broadcast booth for baseball and
football; so whoever thought he was a solid choice for some semblance of a variety show should be fired. Pulling the plug
was an obvious and smart decision.
As for Phillips joining Francesa for a weekly spot,
I'm pretty sure I was the first one to come up with the "Mike and The Horn Dog" suggestion for a title to the show.
I'm sure I'll be robbed incessantly, but you can check on Twitter for when I said it.
Quite clever it was.
Phillips's sex farm issues aside, I
like him as a broadcaster; I thought he added a lot to ESPN and delivered it in a thoughtful and coherent manner, so his addition
to Francesa's show will be a positive if Francesa lets him speak and doesn't preach to him with pomposity to show how much
he "knows".
With the season a week away and my book available and the people
that I know have ordered it getting it soon----as early as today----(and I also know who hasn't ordered it----don't let me
run into you), let's start with the public previews/predictions. Ordinarily, I'd start from left to right with the American
League East, but:
A) It's Passover, so I'll get in touch with my
Jewishness (even though I'm now more Sith than Jew) and start go from right to left and start with the National League West.
B) I'm extending the drama. So, while I'm sure many are looking forward to predictions
for the American League East, they'll have to wait a few days.
There's no translation required; although some stat zombies might require a blow to the head to get it. I'm here for you guys
too.
National League West
Wins Losses GB
1. Los Angeles Dodgers 90
72 --- 2. San Francisco Giants *
88 74
2 3. Colorado Rockies
84 78
6 4. Arizona Diamondbacks 70
92 20
5. San Diego Padres
65 97
25
*Denotes predicted Wild Card Winner
Los Angeles Dodgers:
Much has been made of the divorce between owner Frank McCourt and his wife Jamie
sending the Dodgers into disarray; and it's true to a certain extent. They did almost absolutely nothing this winter aside
from signing Jamey Carroll, Reed Johnson and a few veterans to minor league contracts. Obviously the divorce affected the
club decisions.
That said, the Dodgers are still
a very good team and with their young core of talent and manager Joe Torre's magical ability to steer his club into the playoffs;
they're going to be in contention. I doubt the divorce is going to prevent GM Ned Colletti from being able to make a move
at mid-season for the playoff run.
They can really
hit; Clayton Kershaw's restraints are being removed and he's ready to explode into superstardom. I'm talking a possible 300
strikeouts. Matt Kemp is just about ready to blossom into an MVP candidate; they have excellent, under-the-radar bats like
Casey Blake and Andre Ethier ; and I've long ceased to underestimate Torre's skill at somehow, some way getting his teams
to the playoffs despite any roadblocks in his path. The divorce of the owners is a small obstacle in comparison to what he
had to deal with for the Yankees all those years.
Bet against Torre and the Dodgers talent at your own risk.
San
Francisco Giants:
The Giants
are still considered offensively challenged and mediocre non-contenders despite a devastating top two in their starting rotation
of Tim Lincecum and Matt Cain. While they don't have the flashy names in their lineup, they have enough hitting to support
that pitching staff.
Mark DeRosa is a winning
player whose attitude fits right in with Aaron Rowand in the Giants clubhouse. If anything sabotaged the Cubs last season,
it was the trade of DeRosa; even though they did get some young talent back in the deal from the Indians, they missed DeRosa
terribly as the clubhouse tenor was diminished further by the mercurial (I'm being nice) Milton Bradley.
Pablo Sandoval is emerging into a star; the Giants have a good bullpen;
and a manager in Bruce Bochy who, like Torre, gets his teams into the playoffs once they get a smell of the race.
I picked Madison Bumgarner for Rookie of the Year in the National
League and he ruined my aesthetic by getting rocked in the spring, but considering how he decimated the minor leagues on the way up, a little adversity is a good thing and he'll be heard from this year.
More than the sum of their parts, the Giants are going to battle for a playoff spot with the Dodgers
in the division and a couple of other clubs for the Wild Card and their pitching will get them in.
Colorado Rockies:
The Rockies are a trendy pick to continue their good play from last season (and they were borderline
ridiculous after Jim Tracy took over for Clint Hurdle as manager) and win the division. They have an excellent lineup; a workable,
though short, starting rotation; and GM Dan O'Dowd has always been good at piecing a bullpen together with random parts. They're
going to be missing closer Huston Street for the first few weeks of the season (at least), but I'm not a fan of Street anyway
and his absence will be negligible.
Even with
Ubaldo Jimenez about to explode as a star, their rotation looks short. Who knows what to expect from erstwhile ace Jeff Francis.
It would be foolish to think that Jorge De La Rosa will be as hot as he was in the second half of last season. Truth be told,
if you look at his Gamelogs, he didn't pitch much better in the second half during his 14-2 run than he did when he was 2-7. He was okay----that's it----and
hung around in games long enough to win. I don't believe that luck is to be discounted as stat zombies do, but De La Rosa
is a journeyman lefty.
You can make a case for
Jim Tracy as the best manager in baseball. Another brilliant move from Paul DePodesta as Dodgers GM was firing Tracy because
he wanted someone "on the same page".
Same page of what?
The Rockies have question marks that won't be nullified by Tracy's excellence this year.
Arizona Diamondbacks:
Oh boy.
When a team is built on two Cy Young caliber starting pitchers (Brandon
Webb and Dan Haren) and one gets hurt----and is apparently still not right (Webb)----they're in trouble.
And the Diamondbacks are in trouble.
They have some bats----Justin Upton, Mark Reynolds----but strikeout too much.
They have some arms, but are short at the back end of the rotation
(Ian Kennedy?)
They have key players returning
from injury/illness (Webb; Conor Jackson; Chris Snyder).
They have a young, neophyte manager (brilliantly intelligent) who's still fighting for respect in the clubhouse and living
down GM Josh Byrnes's idiotic statement that manager A.J. Hinch would provide "organizational advocacy".
This was a two-fold gaffe on the part of the GM. First, he denigrated
popular manager Bob Melvin with the players, implying that the way things fell apart in the past two years were Melvin's fault
when they weren't; second, he put Hinch in the position where he appears to be a puppet of the front office.
The Diamondbacks defense is awful; they're oddly constructed. Even
with Webb they've got problems; big ones. Without Webb they're going to have a terrible year.
San Diego Padres:
The Padres have many positives including a load of young arms. I really like Clayton Richard.
Kevin Correia began to fulfill his potential last season; and Jon Garland is a useful cog. The bullpen is okay too with the
impressive Luke Gregerson and closer Heath Bell.
Bud Black is a terrible manager. Period.
Unlike
most other teams, the Padres off-field machinations are going to determine the future. New GM Jed Hoyer comes with a great
resume having been a major part of the Red Sox front office, but we've seen what can happen when a resume doesn't live up
to the hype with Dayton Moore and DePodesta (still a part of the Padres front office).
Hoyer did very little this past winter aside from dump Kevin Kouzmanoff's salary;
sign Garland; and collect Hairstons (Scott and Jerry).
Accumulating Hairstons does not a championship club make.
Hoyer will be judged on what he does with megastar first baseman Adrian Gonzalez and closer Bell. On some level it's a positive
that he'll be judged almost immediately in the first year of his tenure, but such a circumstance is rife with land-mines.
If he gacks up such important moves, he'll be screwed. Completely.
More
trouble for the Indians:
It's going to get bad in Cleveland.
Really bad.
The positives of Russell Branyan (power and walks) are overridden
by his streakiness and that he's injury prone. He's going on the disabled list with a herniated disc in his back and who knows
when he's going to be back or what the Indians will get from he when and if he returns?
I don't want to hear how the Indians can contend if things go right. They can't.
Because they're not any good. In fact, they're atrocious.
Call
me naive, but regardless of what any of these GMs say, I don't think they sit around thinking about their legacies.
The concern for me about Ruben Amaro Jr. is that the implication
of him being concerned about a "legacy" is coming from voices other than his. The return on the trade of Cliff Lee
for prospects is notoriously questionable. While it may not be first and foremost in their running of clubs, I do think that
Billy Beane and Brian Cashman (to name two) are concerned about public perception and how they're viewed. It can't be disregarded.
Amaro
Jr's legacy, almost as absurd as the Howard and Pujols deal also sourced from mysterious insiders. I guess we'll know come
October if the Lee move was better for the team, I think it was...
I'm on record as to what I think of that trade. Time will tell. But the idea
of a concern over his legacy makes much more sense than the nonsense of a proposed trade of Ryan Howard for Albert Pujols.
You can't beat me, so you might as well join
me. My book is available on Amazon and I-Universe. I inspire love and hate (sometimes simultaneously in the same people for understandable reasons----don't ask). You can't
deny my exceptional skills either way.
These names have nothing to do----in my addled
mind anyway----with fantasy baseball. 99.99999% (a friend told me that's not really a number, but whatever) of my fantasies
have nothing to do with baseball (don't ask); and I have no idea how fantasy baseball even works with the value of this stat
over another, but I do suppose my mentioning of the following players might make them worthwhile to pick up in a fantasy league.
The following players are under-the-radar in some
cases; ridiculed in others, but if I'm right about them----and I usually am----you'll understand what I was saying in hindsight.
Personally, I don't deal in hindsight; I deal in foresight...and ruthlessness.
Robertston is probably most known for being the pitcher
that Yankees manager Joe Girardi pulled for a "favorable matchup" of Alfredo Aceves vs Howie Kendrick against the
Angels in game 3 of the ALCS. This was after Robertson looked dominant in retiring the first two batters he'd faced in the
bottom of the 11th inning. The matchup was favorable alright----for the Angels as Aceves blew the game almost immediately.
Be that as it may, Robertson has devastating strikeout
stuff (he had 63 in 43 innings last season) and could be an option as a set-up man for the Yankees. Bear in mind that Robertson
also has quite possibly the worst mechanics I've ever seen in my life, landing on a painful looking stiff front leg and a
bullwhipping arm after every pitch.
His big league numbers aren't very good; he could
be an odd man out in the Blue Jays overstuffed pitching staff as they reload; and he makes me feel old (his dad's Gary Roenicke,
whom I remember as part of the early 80s Orioles as he combined with John Lowenstein for an MVP-quality platoon); but there's
something about him I like.
He throws
hard; strikes out a lot of hitters; and has closed in the minors. He's a little wild, but worth a look to see if he puts it
together.
Tigers manager Jim Leyland seems to really like Perry;
he used him a lot last season as a rookie and the pitcher performed well with 60 strikeouts in 61 innings. He can get wild
and gives up a few homers, but Perry's still young and has set-up man potential.
Hochevar was a first round pick in two straight years
(the Dodgers didn't sign him and he went first overall to the Royals the year after in 2006). He's big and throws hard, but
he needs to be bridled. When I first saw him, he reminded me of Roy Halladay in body-type. If I were advising Hochevar, I'd
suggest he do what Scott Feldman of the Rangers did and copy Halladay's motion and approach.
As poor as Hochevar's results have been, he's still only 26 and has time
to develop.
Pineiro is going to have a better year than the pitcher
whose spot he's taking in the Angels rotation, John Lackey.
Much is made of the implication that Pineiro is another in the long line of reclamation projects of
Cardinals pitching coach Dave Duncan; but it's easily missed that those pitchers----Jeff Suppan, Garrett Stephenson; Kent
Bottenfield----weren't very good before they got to Duncan; and weren't very good after they left Duncan.
Pineiro was a good pitcher for the Mariners in the early part of
his career and was sabotaged by a declining team and injuries. The way Pineiro has learned to rely on a sinker and by pounding
the strike zone is going to translate seamlessly back to the American League and the Angels. He's going to have a big year.
For some unfathomable reason, the Mariners and the
stat zombies have an unnatural interest in Jarrod Washburn. It'd be fine if Washburn was any good, but he's not. They're considering
him as a rotation cog if Cliff Lee is out, but Washburn presumably won't be ready until the end of April, when Lee should
be back (they'd better hope he's back).
Smith looked comfortable and impressive as a starter last season; he throws strikes and has the feeling of a winner.
His stuff isn't just a little better than Wasburn's, it's a lot better.
Ryota Igarashi--RHP, New York
Mets:
Or, as noted baseball expert Mike Francesa calls him, "The Japanese
Guy".
If someone goes to the
lengths that Francesa does to portray himself as an "expert", is it that hard to learn a man's name? What if it
was a black player; or a Puerto Rican player? What would be said then if Francesa referred to them as "the black guy"
or "the Puerto Rican guy"?
Be that as it may, I've seen Igarashi a couple of times and while he's struggling with a new slider, he throws hard, popping
it into the mid-90s; and he's shown an impressive, strikeout split finger (at least I think it's a split finger).
You never know how Japanese players are going
to adjust. Looking at the Red Sox continuing failure with Daisuke Matsuzaka and success with Hideki Okajima exemplifies this.
While the media has taken a shine to another import for the Mets, Hisanori Takahashi, I like what I've seen from Igarashi.
A lot.
He came thisclose to really busting out into
the public consciousness last year going 14-12 with excellent across the board numbers. With a better team, he would've won
20 games. There still seems to be a surprised reaction when Rodriguez's performance is examined.
"Oh, I didn't know he was that good."
Well, I've been saying it for a few years, Rodriguez
is that good.
Gregerson has closed in the minors and has gobbled
up strikeouts everywhere he's been. I was very impressed when I saw him last year; if and when the Padres trade Heath Bell,
Gregerson is the best bet to take over as closer and he'll be very, very good.
Ruben
Amaro Jr's "legacy":
Here's a clip from Bill Madden's column in today's NY Daily News regarding Phillies GM Ruben Amaro Jr. and Cliff Lee:
"I'm
not talking any more about Cliff Lee," Amaro said when I dared to broach the subject with him the other day. "I
said all I'm going to say about why we traded him. Now if you want to talk about the prospects we got in the deal or the prospects
in our system, I'll be happy to."
What
has obviously frosted Amaro has been the fan and media criticism he's taken for not keeping Lee so he could team up with Halladay
as co-aces and make the Phillies overwhelming favorites to return the World Series for the third straight time. In particular,
the criticism has been that they traded Lee for payroll reasons. According to Phillies insiders, however, Amaro is concerned
about his legacy and the long term, and is intent on keeping the pipeline of talent coming well beyond next year when the
contracts of Ryan Howard, Jimmy Rollins, Cole Hamels, Raul Ibanez and Brad Lidge all expire. Scouts agree
the Phillies pretty much depleted their system of top prospects with the Halladay deal, in which they surrendered major league-ready
righthander Kyle Drabek and outfielder Michael Taylor, and they are only lukewarm on righthander
Phillippe Aumont, the key prospect Amaro got from the Mariners for Lee. But they are unanimous in their opinion that outfielder
Domonic Brown, the one prospect Amaro refused to even consider trading, is a budding star.
Whether Lee's injured or not----and I do not want to hear Lee's injury used as a justification for that trade
from Phillies defenders/fans as if it was predicted----it was a stupid trade and the criticism (first delivered forcefully
and cogently by me----link) was all valid.
I'm not here to talk
about the past.
No.
The thing that jumped out at me in Madden's piece were the following words:
Amaro is concerned about his legacy...
Concerned about his "legacy"?
What "legacy"?
Ruben
Amaro Jr. is in his second year as the Phillies GM; he's 45-years-old and he's concerned about his legacy in what should be
a long career as an executive?
This type
of garbage is what concerns me about today's GMs. We're seeing it with the Yankees' Brian Cashman; the Athletics' Billy Beane;
and now with Amaro. Their rampant egomania is interfering with doing what's best for the club.
If this assertion from Madden is accurate, I'd have very deep reservations
as to what Amaro's doing if I were the Phillies ownership. Which is more important? Amaro's self-aggrandizing concerns to
preserve a non-existent "legacy" or doing what's best for his club immediately and for the future? If he's confident
in his abilities as a GM, he could've kept Lee and worried about later later and rebuilt if he had to.
Rebuilding is the true test of greatness and excellence
as a GM/executive. If you look at the true greats from yesteryear----and greatness is timeless----see what Connie Mack did
with the old Philadelphia Athletics.
In 1914, the Federal League was competing the Major League Baseball and buying up big league stars. Mack tried to keep the
stars from his championship dynasty, but couldn't afford to do so and sold off Eddie Collins; released Chief Bender, Eddie
Plank, and Jack Coombs; and sold Herb Pennock and Bob Shawkey.
For seven straight years, the Athletics finished in last place.
Then Connie Mack resuscitated his club and crafted it into one of the best teams
ever.
Finding players like Al Simmons;
Mickey Cochrane; Jimmie Foxx; and Lefty Grove, the Athletics were a wrecking machine by the late 20s; after being edged out
by quite possibly the greatest of the great teams ever----the 1927-28 Yankees---the Athletics went to three straight World
Series from 1929-31 and won the championship in 1929-30.
This was due to recognition of talent and brilliance. It's hard to believe that Mack's ego was so involved
in what he was doing that he was thinking about history; but his history grew----as most great things do----organically. There
was no plot to keep his name in the books as anything; he was doing what was right for his club.
Is that what the likes of Ruben Amaro Jr. are concerned with?
Is the Phillies front office on board with Amaro's
selfish interests apparently trumping what was best for the team?
Egos get in the way and that may be what happened in Philadelphia. It was a mistake.
I
don't have a problem with Cashman saying Joba is a reliever who can start....or he's a starter who can also relieve. The decision
has been made to put Joba in the pen and I agree with it, but it's a luxury to know there's a guy who's had experience in
the rotation - as inconsistent as he's been.
The problem I have is the refusal to admit that Chamberlain
may be better suited as a reliever in all aspects; and as I discussed in the bit about Ruben Amaro, Jr. it seems to be more
of a concession to Cashman's ego than what's good for the club. Dave Eiland has evidently said that Chamberlain's in the bullpen
all year and won't be used as a starter; and that's a good thing.
Gabriel (Capo) writes RE Chamberlain and Cashman:
I think Cashman said that to tell everyone that he's the one steering the
ship, and that though Hughes won the competition, Cashman is right and you'll see it during the season, Chamberlain WILL start
some games.
I would've thought the same thing before Eiland came out with that statement.
That doesn't mean Cashman wouldn't try to force his manager and coaches to use Chamberlain as a starter if someone gets hurt,
but since this is now part of the public record, it could get messy if they backtrack on it as it's clear the decision will
come from above.
Jeff
(Acting Boss) at Red State Blue State writes RE stat zombies and Vicente Padilla:
We share a brain on the Joba/Hughes debate. The Yankees
have proven again they are better at paying the premium for other team's pitching than they are developing their own. In The
Boss Era they have developed 4 starting pitchers who've done anything worth speaking of in a Yankee uniform; Guidry, Righetti,
Pettitte and I'll be generous and say Wang. There is no other in over 35 years. Cashman is the one who looks bad in Joba's
development. I've never seen such a thing. The Yankees were like little spoiled kids who opened their X-Mas gifts too early
and broke them all (Joba, Hughes and Kennedy all DL'd). That's what you have minor leagues for. Joba called-up after only
88 minor league innings? C'mon! Yankees are still better buyers of pitchers than producers. And even then, only they can afford
to make all the mistakes they've made.
I wouldn't go so far as to say they haven't developed
any pitchers. Doug Drabek comes to mind immediately even if he fulfilled his potential for the Pirates. There are probably
a few others that they traded away.
I've said I understand Cashman's point of view, but I don't agree with it. He seems to become hypnotized if he's presented
with a bunch of charts and graphs that "prove" the optimal use of players; but it's an evaluative process that has
to be taken into account when working with human beings and that has grown increasingly lost on the Yankees GM.
Plus, I don't see why it's all of a
sudden a dirty thing to buy other teams' pitchers and players; they've got the money, why not spend it? It's not going into
Cashman's pocket!
In case you didn't
get the memo, my book is available on Amazon and I-Universe. It's just about the best thing ever and if you all buy it at once on Amazon, the sales rankings will explode into the stratosphere,
thereby bringing more recognition to yours truly and increasing the velocity with which my plot for world domination will
come to fruition.
It's getting to the point where I'm almost embarrassed for Yankees
GM Brian Cashman.
So invested in
Joba Chamberlain being a starter, Cashman's no longer straddling the line of faith and delusion, but he's leapt over so irrevocably
that I have to question his perception of reality.
It's hard to know Cashman's true motivation of having Chamberlain as a starter; of still holding onto this charade
that the young righty has the ability mentally and physically to do the job well enough that his presence in the rotation
would justify not having him in the bullpen. Even after the decision was announced that Phil Hughes had "won" the
competition for fifth starter, Cashman maintained the belief that Chamberlain can start----NJ.com article.
The main quote:
A day after handing the final spot in the rotation to Phil Hughes, Yankees general manager Brian
Cashman said he still believes that Joba Chamberlain is capable of being a starter.
"I think he can be that right now, actually," Cashman said.
At first the debate of what Chamberlain is----of where he'd best be suited----was viable. There were
reasons on both sides for Chamberlain to get a chance to be a starter and for him to be placed in the bullpen. Initially,
even with the clear dominance and swaggering demeanor that Chamberlain exhibited when emerging from the bullpen, I felt that
he deserved a chance to start. If there was a small possibility that Chamberlain could develop into a Roger Clemens-style
starter, it made sense to give him that opportunity. At his age, it would've been wrong to pigeonhole him as a reliever when
he had (and still has----Cashman's right about this) the ability to be a starter.
Ability doesn't always imply what's best for the individual and the team;
it doesn't always result in the proper implementation of talent.
Now, two-plus years into Chamberlain's big league career, the club has jerked him around and messed
with his head to such a degree that he doesn't know whether he's coming or going; whether he's a reliever or starter. The
player himself must want a definitive decision once and for all of what he is; to be allowed to pitch and not worry about
being yanked after a certain number of pitches; of being watched by a paranoid, frightened and overprotective parent hindering
his evolution into an adult.
And it's
enough.
Cashman may truly believe that
Chamberlain is a starter; he might be clinging to this fantasy due to stat zombie tenets of a good starter being more valuable
than a great reliever----Cashman has avidly embraced those tenets in his remaking of the Yankees positively and negatively.
Or he might simply want to be "right".
As much of an understated, close-to-the-vest character
as Cashman portrays himself, he's got an enormous ego; he wants credit for running the Yankees his way. Always chafing
at the implication that it was Yankee-money that crafted the dynasty of the late 90s; jealous of the appellation of "genius"
bestowed on Athletics GM Billy Beane and Red Sox GM Theo Epstein, Cashman wants his respect. Why else would there be this
desperation to lower the payroll; to build from within; to steer the club as he saw fit? He may believe it's the correct strategy,
but he also wants to be known as more than the guy who throws money at his team's problems.
Nothing is exemplifying the Cashman-way than this endless argument of
what Chamberlain is; what he could be; what he should be.
It won't stop.
Cashman won't stop.
It appears
as if everyone, everywhere can see what Chamberlain is; that his body language is different when he's relieving than when
he's starting. That he loves being a reliever; that he's uncomfortable as a starter; with the constraints put on his personality
by needing to pace himself as a starter; that his deployment as a weapon is far more devastating out of the bullpen.
Everyone can see it but the GM.
Would Cashman be so intractable with a young righty
named Mariano Rivera if he were to arrive now in the era of the stat zombie; in the day of the idea that every pitcher with
great talent has to be a starter? It sounds absurd now that Rivera is the best reliever ever-----EVER!!!! But now?
I really wonder. Think about it----would he force Rivera to start even it's clear that he's not a starter?
Cashman's skill at judging pitchers has always been wanting. From thinking
Kyle Farnsworth could be a set-up man; to Damaso Marte; to Carl Pavano and Steve Karsay, you can't deny the evidence that
he's mediocre at best in evaluating pitchers. It takes more than numbers; more than a foundational belief in what's most appropriate
in the name of team to nurture and acquire pitchers.
The case of Ian Kennedy was a misreading of talent, plain and simple. He was appraised wrong not just physically, but
mentally as well. That mistake was rectified when Kennedy was traded. Now, he's...still...harboring...this...hallucination
with Chamberlain.
I can understand
the arguments that are being presented to keep Chamberlain as a starter. That he has four pitches; that his 200 innings could
possibly be great; that the two years of babying will be wasted if he's sent to the bullpen permanently; but they're all easily
batted down.
It's not wasting him if
he has four pitches as a reliever; because he can blow people away with his fastball alone is irrelevant; outs are the key;
shortening the game and using him in the best possible fashion for the team trumps anything else whether he does it with 1,2,3
or 4 pitches.
Could he be a 15-game
winner if he's allowed to start 32 games and left in games to pitch rather than pulled at an arbitrary number of pitches and
a chaotic strategy? Maybe. Is he more valuable to this Yankee team as a reliever? Absolutely.
The belief that the "wasted" years of babying justify him still
being a starter is specious. Simply fulfilling a "plan" is no reason to compound a mistake; and that's what continuing
to shove Chamberlain into the starting rotation does. It's not a matter what's best for the pitcher and team anymore; it's
being obstinate for reasons that only Cashman knows. Why make things worse when they're clearly not working?
Cashman's not listening.
He doesn't get it.
And I'm starting to believe that they're going to cling to this ideal for a superior talent even if
it destroys him. Someone has to get through to the Yankees GM, but at this point, it may be impossible, because he's got too
much personally and professionally invested in Chamberlain being a starter that he's blinded; and when there are ancillary
issues in developing a player, the best interests of said player are placed in the background and that's an invitation to
disaster that is still being created by the day.
K-Rod
the mentor:
There was
an interesting article in yesterday's NY Times about Mets closer Francisco Rodriguez mentoring the 16-year-old Mets prospect
Juan Urbina----Link.
Urbina's father, Ugueth Urbina was a closer for several teams in his career including the 2003 champion Marlins. The father is now in jail in Venezuela
for a kidnapping and assault incident and asked K-Rod to mentor and keep an eye on his son as he makes his way in pro ball.
I don't know if I'd suggest that the
young lefty mimic everything K-Rod does (the Mets closer does go over-the-top with his celebrations), but as a veteran big
leaguer, it's a positive that K-Rod is watching over the youngster. It'll be interesting to see if Juan Urbina makes it.
People are telling me their
orders have already shipped, which is an odd twist of fate and mail as they'll probably have their copies of the thing before
I have mine.
The Yankees have promoted their young starting
pitchers (to the extreme); overprotected them (to the point of paranoia); and played this silliness to the nth degree with
a "competition" that was said to include everyone from Joba Chamberlain to Phil Hughes to Alfredo Aceves to Chad
Gaudin to Sergio Mitre and possibly even Don Gullett, Ed Whitson, Sam Militello and Britt Burns.
Now they've announced that Phil Hughes will be the fifth starter to start
the season. How long that lasts; whether there's going to be a series of constraining "rules" for his use; or if
he's always going to be game-to-game; pitch-to-pitch; and wobbling on the precipice of a demotion if he has two bad games
in a row, remains to be seen.
Clearly
Hughes is the right choice. He's got the motion, stuff and temperament to be a starter; while Chamberlain----despite massive
ability and a more dominating array of power pitches than Hughes----belongs in the bullpen.
The Yankees will never admit this, but Chamberlain's chance to be
a top starter was sabotaged not by their decision to use him as a secret weapon out of the bullpen in 2007, but the absurd
rules they placed over his head as they transformed him from a swaggering and frightening force of nature into a brow beaten
child, petrified of getting hurt.
This debate was much ado about nothing.
This Yankees team could win 90 games with me as their 5th starter. Of course they're better with Chamberlain in the bullpen
as a set-up man; but his true value won't be seen until the playoffs if he's back to his 2007 form. The question that has
to be asked is if they've truly committed to putting him in the bullpen and leaving him there; if they're going to let Hughes
be the fifth starter even if he struggles.
In most circumstances, I'd say the decision has been made and Chamberlain is finally being placed in the situation
best suited for his mental and physical talents; that they've ended the charade and determined that the "Joba As Starter"
won't work and has been scrapped once and for all.
I'm still unsure.
The Yankees
are maintaining the veneer of challenging their young pitchers; trying to put forth this message that no one's spot is guaranteed
and there was a true battle between the group of pitchers considered for the last spot in the rotation. But after everything,
is it out of line to think that the Yankees are again going to revisit Chamberlain as a starting pitcher?
Let's say hypothetically that Hughes gets blasted in his first five starts
(something not unheard of for a young pitcher); or if A.J. Burnett gets hurt; are they going to turn around and again stick
Chamberlain in the starting rotation? Will they jerk him around even more than they already have?
Unless Hughes got tattooed throughout the spring as
Madison Bumgarner did for the Giants; and had Chamberlain pitched masterfully from start to finish, Hughes was going to win
the job. The question now revolves around the length of rope Hughes is going to get and if they're still trying to force the
round peg that is Chamberlain into the square hole of the starting rotation.
The Yankees are still floating the spin that has been a hallmark of the organization as GM Brian Cashman
transforms the organization into the brutally cold, corporate entity that he envisioned as he took over as club architect
and stepped to the forefront as the boss.
Cashman in command has its benefits and drawbacks.
No longer are there the fits of pique from an impatient owner, George Steinbrenner; everything is plotted and thought out
for now and later; but it's also created this mess with their young pitchers not knowing whether they're coming or going.
It's added to the perception that manager Joe Girardi is a puppet who has to be watched carefully to make sure he doesn't
bring down the whole empire with one stupid strategic maneuver.
If you listen to Girardi's statements regarding the decision to go with Hughes, there's a certain O.J.
Simpson "searching for the 'real' killers" quality to the sludge:
"We evaluated the
whole spring and we were very excited with the improvement in his changeup."
Um. Okay.
Well, that sounds
like a load of junk to me; it's crud that Girardi doesn't even believe is the real reason for the call unless he's been so
indoctrinated by organizational hypnotism that he's unable to use his substantial intelligence and experience as a player
to admit the reality that Chamberlain is a reliever. Period.
Why the Yankees are so desperate to save face is beyond me. Why they can't come out and admit the evaluative
miscalculation in force-feeding Chamberlain into the starting rotation is a flaw in the club's thought process that's on a
level of arrogance with Mike Francesa; with seeing the admission of being wrong as a character flaw that can't be faced and
would diminish a non-existent credibility.
In fact, it's the opposite. Admitting and correcting a misjudgment or gaffe is a show of strength; not weakness. We'll see
if they get it or if they're still screwing up after Chamberlain's role is established, if
it's established.
Ordinarily, I'd say that the Yankees will have learned their lessons from mistakes past; but the statements suggest otherwise.
I wouldn't be surprised by anything at this point. After the litany of errors they've made in handling their young pitchers,
what's another few in the perpetration of the JOBA RUINATION that never, ever seems to end?
The Dodgers opening day surprise:
Dodgers manager Joe Torre's selection of Vicente Padilla as his opening
day starter has been greeted with everything from bewilderment to rage. It's an understandable and understatedly bright choice.
If you think about it, you'll realize the following:
A) Who cares?
B) Padilla pitched brilliantly for the Dodgers last
September.
C) It's the smart move considering
the rest of the starting rotation.
The opening day start is more of an honor than something
with a redeeming value. Over the first few weeks of the season, when there are so many off-days, that a 5th starter won't
be needed until the second or third week, the top four starters are all going to get the same number of starts (33 or so)
over the course of a season; so who starts the first, second or third game is relatively meaningless, so starting Padilla
or Chad Billingsley or Clayton Kershaw makes do difference in the long run.
For all his issues, Padilla pitched great for the Dodgers from the time they signed him at the end
of August last season and was in a groove through two playoff starts until the Phillies finally got to him in game 5 of the
NLCS. He's always had great stuff with inconsistency being his big sticking point. He's mean too, which got him in trouble
with his Rangers teammates because he'd throw at people and place a target on his hitters' backs. That won't be an issue in
the NL because if someone wants to throw at Padilla, they'll be able to throw at Padilla when he bats.
The Dodgers are trying to avoid putting
too much pressure on young lefty Clayton Kershaw. It appears as if Torre has recognized the mistake he made in starting the
youth in game one of the NLCS last year and wants to avoid making him the focal point of the rotation. Although Kershaw is
expected to become one of the best pitchers in baseball this year, he's still only 22. Shining an even greater spotlight on
him is not needed, especially when the opening day start is a negligible honor.
Someone less talented would have to stop after Part
XIII:
There's a mystical
spring (or cesspool; or bog of quicksand) from where this stuff emanates. Some of it is due to me; some of it due to circumstances.
Occasionally sequels are better
than the original. Examples are Rocky II; The Empire Strikes Back; The Dark Knight; and you can argue endlessly about The
Godfather Part I and II; but my sequels are improving exponentially, much like my rising power.
Soon I will learn to trust my feelings; then I will be unstoppable.
I'm not going to shut up about this from now until....I dunno when.
If you want a story to watch, here's
a story to watch. 2010 is the year in which I either blast off into space like Major Tom; or explode and come completely undone,
like...Major Tom. And this is in every aspect of my life.
Everyone loves a triumph; or a train wreck; or both.
At least I'm interesting.
Pitchers on the comeback:
There's been talk in the mainstream media about Dontrelle Willis and Fausto Carmona returning from ineffectiveness and mental issues to pitch well. Both are important to their clubs, but unless Willis can
revert to his Cy Young Award contending, gregarious 2005 form; and Carmona can pitch as well as he did when he won 19 games
in 2007, they're not going to help their clubs----the Tigers and Indians----much, if at all.
I haven't seen Willis this spring, so I can't judge on anything aside
from what's been said; but the talk----in this Jon Heyman article----won't be proven one way or the other until the season starts.
Talk of Carmona's comeback comes from the delusional Buster Olney, who appears to have an Indians fetish.
And I'm dubious about both.
The idea that Willis, after being so
atrocious and mentally fried last season, is going to be able to revert to the excellence from his Marlins days is a little
tough to swallow. Like creative types, players who are so emotional have trouble controlling themselves and regaining their
bearings when things go badly; and it can't be forgotten that even before Willis fell apart mentally, he hasn't pitched well
since 2006. That was four years ago and he's rapidly gotten worse.
I wouldn't expect much from Willis regardless of how well he's pitched this spring. It may be a "false
comeback" and the big lefty might lose it all over again when the games count. In fact, that's what I expect.
With Carmona, his issues were mechanical; and if he straightened them out, he does have a
chance to be good again. I admire Carmona's mental toughness. After the way he detonated in 2006 when the Indians tried him
as their closer and he was about as bad as bad gets, he returned as a starter and became a Cy Young Award contender just one
year later. If he pitches well, he'll help the Indians; but the following statement from Olney is borderline deranged:
There are not many players capable of single-handedly transforming a team's pennant hopes. Carmona has
shown he can be one of those guys, if he throws strikes. The Indians will look like a very different team if they get the
2007 version.
Let's just say the Indians get the 2007 version of Carmona. How does that
help their woeful bullpen; their pockmarked lineup; and the rest of the rotation that is either questionable or hideous?
So with a good Carmona, they'd win 72 games instead
of 65; only in the parity-laden world of PECOTA (where 81-81 is the rule rather than the exception) would that equate with a club being within sniffing distance of a playoff
spot.
The best thing for the Indians
to do would be to hope Carmona's good so they can trade him and his contract ($11 million guaranteed through 2011) and bring
back multiple players before he disintegrates again.
Transforming relievers into starters:
The Royals trying
Kyle Farnsworth as a starter is the smartest thing they could do. Farsnworth had success as a starter earlier in his career
and was so rotten as a reliever that it makes absolute sense to give him a shot to start simply because his penchant for giving
up homers wouldn't be so detrimental as it is coming out of the pen; and he couldn't be much worse as a starter than he was
as a reliever.
The Rangers taking
a valuable lefty arm in C.J. Wilson and shifting him from the bullpen to the rotation makes no sense.
Wilson was a starter in the minors and wasn't very good once he got past Single A. He gave up too many hits; and his strikeout numbers were unimpressive. As
a reliever, he found his groove; racked up the strikeouts; and has the ability to get out both lefties and righties. Add in
the fact that the Rangers, playing in a hitter's haven, need Wilson more out of the bullpen than they do as a starter and
this is the wrong thing to do.
With the Rangers, they need usefulness from their starting pitchers to keep them close in games; and outs from the bullpen
when they get a lead. Strikeouts are the best way to prevent homers and with Neftali Feliz, Frank Francisco and Wilson, they
get strikeouts. Unless they intend to use Feliz as a big arm out of the bullpen and to back-up shaky closer Francisco, how
are they filling that gaping hole with Wilson in the starting rotation?
He wasn't good at it in the minors; why would they think he's suddenly going to be able to pitch deeply
into games now, especially in that ballpark?
Wilson's value is as a reliever. He's a crossover lefty; he strikes people out; he doesn't allow many homers; and he's
a free spirited independent thinker with a really big mouth.
Sounds like a reliever to me.
After the way the Rangers and GM Jon Daniels recovered from what was quite possibly the worst trade of all time----Adrian
Gonzalez and Chris Young to the Padres for Adam Eaton and Akinori Otsuka----and built an organization packed with prospects
ready to contend, the moves he's made this past winter have been highly suspect.
Trading Kevin Millwood to the Orioles for a returning-from-injury Chris Ray
and expecting Rich Harden to stay healthy and step up to the front of the rotation (forget it); and now this maneuver with
Wilson all have the potential to be disastrous mistakes and will only add to the misery the Rangers are currently enduring
with the Ron Washington cocaine scandal and the possibility that the club was blackmailed to keep it quiet.
This latest move with Wilson only adds to the
questions; and it's a big mistake.
The
tragedy of Dwight Gooden:
My capacity for empathy/sympathy is limited to begin with and even then, it's only allocated to those who are worthy.
Dwight Gooden is not one of those people who fall
into the category of worthiness.
In case
you missed it, Gooden's latest self-destructive foray occurred yesterday when he was arrested for driving under the influence
of drugs; got into an accident; left the scene; and had a child in the car with him----ESPN Story.
I'm not an addictive personality.
I had a bit of a gambling thing a few years ago, but it was never to the point where I got myself into trouble and I stopped
because it got boring. I do understand what Gooden is dealing with though; but at what point is enough going to be
enough?
When he was a kid, it was
easily explainable to say that he was 19-year-old thrust into big league superstardom before he was emotionally prepared.
Add in that he was on a Mets team that was the hardest partying group of the past 30 years in any sport and it was natural
for him to partake in everything that his status had to offer. But now?
He's 45-years-old.
He's still revered in New York for what he added to both the Mets and Yankees. There are plenty of people from both
franchises who would be willing to help him and give him a job; yet he continues to behave in a way that's not just dangerous
to himself, but to everyone around him.
Until he decides on his own to straighten out, it's never going to change; but those that are expressing sadness for
Dwight Gooden should look elsewhere and find someone who deserves it, because in his current state, he doesn't.
The best and funniest event to come out of the Mauer signing was Joe Maddon
publicly thanking the Twins for signing him, so the BoSox or Yankees didn't get him.
I think Joe Maddon needs to worry about his own team and lose the absent-minded professor act to keep his job. If I
were the Rays front office, I'd tell him to keep his mouth shut; then again, if I were in the Rays front office, I'd have
fired Maddon after last year.
Your knowledge is breathtaking, Prince. To have that much detail about the Pittsburgh Pirates is a thing
of beauty. I can't wait to read your book to see what you have to say about the Royals. :)
Breathtaking?
Jeez.
Teams like the Pirates and Royals aren't much of a
problem because they're such catastrophes and have so much upon which to unleash that they're easy. The teams that are the
problem are the Astros, who aren't contenders; aren't so terrible that they're easy marks; and have more than a few players
who are hard to recognize immediately.
As vicious as it seems, attacking the Pirates is kinda fun; plus I don't take cheap shots; it's all right there to bash if
anyone wants to bother to look.
My book is available immediately
via the I-Universe website and should be up on Amazon and Barnes and Noble within days. The link is here if you absolutely,
positively cannot wait----Link----and I can totally understand either way.
Excerpt
from the book:
For anyone
teetering on whether or not to make the investment, I'm printing an excerpt. The most innocuous team for whom to do this is
a team whose future could be predicted by a learning disabled monkey.
Of course, I'm referring to....the Pittsburgh Pirates.
The following is how the book is formatted for every team. It's the template. It's what it is. It's
how I write.
Take it or leave it.
But hopefully take it.
Those that read me regularly pretty much know what's coming.
Everyone else had better duck.
Pittsburgh Pirates
2009
Record: 62-99; Sixth Place, National League Central
2009 Recap:
There are some teams for whom the statement: “Oh, they had their normal year” would
be a good thing like the Angels, Yankees and Marlins. For others? Not so much.
The Pirates did what the Pirates always do. Before the season, they signed
several lower echelon free agents they didn’t need; waited until mid-season, made incomprehensible trades; and lost
99 games, finishing in their familiar surrounding----last place. Being a part of the Pirates organization is like a repeat
offender who bounces in and out of jail and has grown so accustomed to the regimented life of being an inmate that he prefers
it to the outside world. At least the club and their remaining fans know what to expect.
2010
ADDITIONS:
2B/3B Akinori Iwamura was acquired from the Tampa Bay Rays. RHP Octavio Dotel signed
a 1-year contract with club option. OF Ryan Church signed a 1-year contract. RHP Brendan Donnelly signed a 1-year
contract. INF Bobby Crosby signed a 1-year contract. LHP Javier Lopez signed a 1-year contract. LHP Justin
Thomas was claimed off waivers from the Seattle Mariners. RHP Chris Jakubauskas was claimed off waivers from the Seattle
Mariners. LHP Wil Ledezma signed a minor league contract. RHP Vinnie Chulk signed a minor league contract. OF
John Raynor was claimed off waivers from the Florida Marlins. LHP Jack Taschner signed a minor league contract. LHP
Neal Cotts signed a minor league contract. RHP D.J. Carrasco signed a minor league contract. OF Brandon Jones was
claimed off waivers from the Atlanta Braves.
2010 SUBTRACTIONS:
RHP Matt
Capps was non-tendered. RHP Jesse Chavez was traded to the Tampa Bay Rays. INF Brian Bixler was traded to the Cleveland
Indians. SS Luis Cruz was claimed off waivers by the Milwaukee Brewers.
2010 EXTRA
PITCHERS/PROSPECTS: Jose Ascanio; Ramon Aguerro; Brad Lincoln; Daniel McCutchen; Bryan Morris; Ronald Uviedo; Donald
Veal; Michael Dubee; Rudy Owens
2010
EVERYDAY PROSPECTS: Pedro Alvarez; Argenis Diaz; Jose Tabata
ASSESSMENTS: MANAGEMENT:
Ugh.
The Pirates complaints of being unable to compete because of financial constraints are falling
on deaf ears more and more frequently. The way teams like the Marlins find a way to win under a budget is bad enough; but
what makes the Pirates such calamity is that there seems to be no viable plan in place aside from signing journeymen;
trading stars; constantly being on the rebuild; and repeating the process on an annual basis with no improvement.
No one knows who’s running things in Pittsburgh.
Is it team president Frank Coonelly?
Coonelly came out of the commissioner’s
office----where he was a Vice President and General Counsel for labor relations----to take over the Pirates. With the Pirates,
he seems more intent on making sure his innovations while working in baseball’s “braintrust” are implemented
whether they’re going to make the Pirates any better or not. The slotting system for the draft; the whining about revenue
sharing; the idea that teams without money can’t compete----all are feeding into the Coonelly plan; but it’s not
helping the Pirates.
I found it
hilarious that baseball stepped in with the Marlins and forced an agreement that they’d spend more money on payroll
when they’ve proven that they can win without spending a load of money on payroll; yet the Pirates are allowed to be
an entity of self-sabotaging stupidity and destruction with no end in sight to the carnage.
What about the Pirates?
Why are they allowed to occupy a place in Major League Baseball with this history
of embarrassment and ineptitude whose list of baseball-related sins are growing longer and longer?
GM Neal Huntington has an impressive pedigree after having worked for the Cleveland Indians under Mark Shapiro, but it’s
hard to know how much power he has with the Pirates or whether he knows what he’s doing.
Was it his idea to trade for Akinori Iwamura? To sign Brendan Donnelly
and Octavio Dotel to beef up a bullpen that, quite frankly, wasn’t all that bad last year? When they needed starting
pitching and bats?
The trades made
at mid-season last year defy explanation. Their lightning strike trade of Nate McLouth looked to me like the Braves called
with an offer and said take it or leave it and the Pirates panicked and grabbed it before even letting the rest of baseball
know that McLouth was available. They did what the Pirates always do: they traded any and all marketable veterans----Freddy
Sanchez; Jack Wilson; Ian Snell----for the “future”.
When that future is going to become the present is anyone’s guess.
Things got worse this off-season as they non-tendered the useful
and tradeable closer Matt Capps.
Why?
I’m not even going to
speculate a reason because I might get caught in whatever bizarro world in which the Pirates function and not be able to get
back. Suffice it to say the following----it’s the Pirates----and leave it there.
Some questions are better left unanswered.
For the greater good.
John Russell is in a no-win situation as manager. But looking on the bright side, he’s also in a no-lose situation.
Much like the disastrous years endured by the
Orioles from 1997 until Andy MacPhail took over, there was always owner Peter Angelos and the rampant dysfunction that defined
the Orioles in the intervening years to explain away anyone who got fired. The organization was such a mess that blaming the
manager alone was impossible. Such is the case now with the Pirates.
No one could win with that team and their rampant and neverending cluelessness.
Is Russell a good manager?
Who knows?
He was a respected catcher when he played; he had success as a minor league manager; but he’s
done some things with the Pirates that have made no sense at all such as yanking Zach Duke from the game in September 28th
in which he was dominating against the Dodgers. Duke allowed one run (in the bottom of the ninth) and with two outs, Russell
pulled him...with an 11-1 lead...after he’d thrown 103 pitches...and allowed 4 hits.
The proffered reason was that Russell wanted Duke to receive the
cheers from the crowd on the way off the field....from the reported attendance of 16,696.
Yah.
Even if the attendance figure was accurate, how many people do you think were still in the stands
for an 11-1 game between the Pirates and Dodgers?
You can feel free to shake your head, because that’s all I can do as well.
Again, explaining anything anyone involved with the Pirates does is tempting
sanity.
STARTING PITCHING:
Zach Duke had a
comeback 2009 after being terrible for the better part of three years after a big splash in 2005 when overenthusiasm anointed
him as the next big time lefty.
From 2006 to 2008, Duke was awful and borderline non-competitive; and it had nothing to do with pitching for the Pirates.
He was just plain bad. But in 2009, he pitched well despite a 11-16 record. In looking at his individual game performances,
he should’ve won 20 games last season.
Believe it.
Duke’s a contract
pitcher with a stiff motion, but if he was on a better team, his results would be that of a good, mid-rotation starter. Duke
is earning $4.2 million this year; is arbitration eligible after this season; and will be a free agent after 2011. Given the
Pirates history, he might be available at mid-season and a trade would be the best possible thing to happen for Zach Duke.
Lefty Paul Maholm went 8-9 in 31 starts in 2009. He gives up a lot of hits (221 in 194 innings),
but not many homers (14). He throws strikes and could also be a solid mid-rotation starter for a good team. He’s owed
over $10 million through 2011; he could be moved.
Ross Ohlendorf had a good year in his first as
a full-time starter. In 176 innings, Ohlendorf allowed 165 hits; and only 53 walks. He’s a contact pitcher with a good
sinking fastball and slider. Moving him into the rotation was a great idea and he could be an innings-eating winner.
Charlie Morton is a former Braves prospect who came over in the trade of Nate McLouth. Morton
reminds me of Carl Pavano (when he was with the Marlins) in bodytype and stuff. Morton pitched serviceably for the Pirates
in 18 starts despite a 5-9 record and 4.55 ERA. He allowed 102 hits in 97 innings and control is a problem for him with 40
walks; but he only allowed 7 homers. The 26-year-old has been a winner in the minors.
Kevin Hart was acquired from the Cubs at mid-season. Hart was bad after joining the Pirates with a 1-8 record in 10 starts.
His ancillary numbers were worse. A 6.92 ERA: 74 hits allowed in 53 innings; and 26 walks are his legacy from 2009. He has
to pitch better in 2009 because he can’t pitch much worse.
BULLPEN:
Octavio Dotel chose the Pirates because they were one of the few teams that was going to give
him the chance to close. Like the proverbial tree falling in the woods, does a team need a closer if there are barely any
games to close? We’re going to find out with the Pirates. Dotel is coming off two useful years with the White
Sox. He allows a lot of homers, but still racks up more than a strikeout an inning. He’s prone to the home run ball
and has never been able to handle closing without letting the pressure of the job get to him. He signed a 1-year, $3.5 million
contract and could be trade bait as the season moves along.
Brendan Donnelly
made it back to the big leagues with the Marlins and, after a few years in which he looked like he was shot; he got some big
outs late in the season. Donnelly struck out 25 in 25 innings for the Marlins, and had a 1.78 ERA. He parlayed that brief
spurt into a 1-year, $1.25 million contract with the Pirates. Why the Pirates need to be spending all that money on a veteran,
journeyman reliever is beyond me.
Joel Hanrahan would’ve been a better option
at closer than Dotel: A) because he’s better; and B) because he’s younger and could grow into the job with the
young Pirates as they ostensibly try to “rebuild”. That point was made moot when Hanrahan began having elbow pain.
He’s going to miss the start of the regular season and as of this writing there’s not timetable for his return.
Evan Meek is a 26-year-old righty who pitched well in 41 games
last season. Meek only allowed 34 hits in 47 innings; struck out 42 and allowed 2 homers.
Lefty Javier Lopez has a quirky motion and was terrible last season for the Red Sox. He’s been successful against lefties
in his career because of his slingshot motion and lefty specialists tend to have fluctuating performances. The 32-year-old
could regain his effectiveness with the Pirates.
D.J. Carrasco was a surprise non-tender for the
White Sox after having a good year in 2009. The 33-year-old righty had a 3.76 ERA in 49 games; and allowed 103 hits in 93
innings. He was effective last season and is a positive, low-cost pickup for the Pirates.
Chris Jakubauskas is a longtime minor league journeyman who made it to the big leagues with the Mariners last season at age
30. He allowed 15 homers in 93 innings, but he’s been a successful starter in the minors and should be a decent middle
reliever/spot starter for the Pirates.
LINEUP:
Ryan Doumit missed a chunk of the 2009 season with a wrist injury, but when he’s healthy, he’s an underrated catcher.
The switch-hitter has some pop in his bat (15 homers in 2008); hits for average and gets on base. He doesn’t strike
out much and has good extra base power. Doumit’s about average defensively behind the plate. He’s guaranteed slightly
over $8.6 million through 2011 and might be traded at mid-season in another Pirates purge.
Jeff Clement is a lefty swinging former top Mariners catching prospect who was acquired in the trade of Jack Wilson and Ian
Snell last season. Clement is now 26; he showed some power/on base ability in the minors, but didn’t hit at all in 2008
with the Mariners (.227 average in 224 plate appearances) and it remains to be seen if he can hit big league pitching.
The Pirates avidly pursued Akinori Iwamura to play second base for them.
No. I don’t know why.
Iwamura is a good player; he can run; hits some doubles; plays good defense----but
why do the Pirates need him?
He’s
making $4.25 million this year and, while he’s a cog in a machine for a good team, the Pirates have no use for him.
That they chased him so aggressively makes me wonder what it is the expect him to do for them? Unless they wanted another
veteran piece to trade at mid-season (and this possibility is eliminated because it would imply an actual strategy), then
they didn’t need him and they certainly didn’t have to give up a good arm like Jesse Chavez to get him.
Andy LaRoche showed flashes of the potential that made him a top Dodgers prospect. LaRoche got
off to a horrid start, but in 590 plate appearances, LaRoche had 29 doubles; 5 triples; and 12 homers. He batted .258 and
had a .330 on base percentage and only struck out 84 times. His fielding at third base was quite good as well. LaRoche put
up big power numbers in the minors and now, at age 26, he’s beginning to fulfill his promise.
Ronny Cedeno was acquired from the Mariners at mid-season in 2009. Cedeno can’t really hit; isn’t a good fielder;
doesn’t steal bases and I don’t know why anyone would want him on their roster at all, let alone as their starting
shortstop.
Lastings Milledge was acquired from the Nationals last season. Milledge
is with his third organization. He showed some flashes of his All Star ability after joining the Pirates as he batted .291
in 58 games. He’s still only 25 and if he’s given a chance to play every day, I still believe he can be a 15-20
homer man with 20+ stolen bases.
Now we get to Andrew McCutchen.
If there’s a light in the collapsed mine
shaft that is the Pittsburgh Pirates organization from top-to-bottom, it’s Andrew McCutchen.
I.....love.....this.....kid.
He’s isn’t going to be a star; he isn’t going to be a
superstar; he’s going to be a potential MVP, mega-star.
I know this not by seeing him hit; not by seeing him play defense; not by seeing him throw. I
know this by seeing him run. Andrew McCutchen might be the fastest baseball player I’ve even seen in my entire life
and he cut the bases perfectly as he didn’t even look like he was touching the ground. It was a thing of beauty the
first time I saw him run out a triple. Right there and then, I said, “that’s it; mega-star”.
McCutchen is still raw; he still needs to learn
how to use his speed defensively; and to steal bases. But the ball explodes off his bat; he has a good eye now and it’s
only going to get better. He’s going to be a 25 homer man; with 20 doubles and 20 triples along with 50 stolen bases.
If anyone wants to cling to some
small shred of the Pirates shipwreck, it’s Andrew McCutchen----future mega-star.
Garrett Jones came out of nowhere to hit 21 homers and post a .372 on base percentage in 358 plate appearances. Jones, 28,
had been minor league filler with only 84 plate appearances in the big leagues (in 2007 with the Twins) to his credit before
coming to the Pirates organization before last season. He’d always put up 20+ homers in the minors, but never got a
chance to play in the big leagues. Jones spent five years in Triple A!
The lefty swinging Jones got his chance and took advantage of it. We’ll see if it was a
lightning flash that will strike and quickly disappear or if he’s the real deal. With the power numbers he’s put
up in the minors, I suspect it’s real.
BENCH:
Jason Jaramillo played regularly with Doumit injured and the 27-year-old switch-hitter batted .259 in 224 plate appearances
with 14 doubles and 3 homers. He’s average defensively and has never hit much in the minors. He’s a backup.
Bobby Crosby was signed to a 1-year contract and will probably find himself playing shortstop
regularly shortly after the season starts not because he deserves it, but because Cedeno is so heinous. Crosby never hit for
average in his years with the Athletics; nor did he get on base; but he had some power. In the years since winning the Rookie
of the Year award in 2004, Crosby’s been horrible. He can’t hit.
Ramon Vazquez was
one of 2008’s inexplicable veteran acquisitions. Vazquez is a journeyman who somehow parlayed his career year with the
Rangers in 2008 into a 2-year contract with the Pirates. He reverted to normal in 2009 as he batted .230 in 239 plate appearances.
They’re paying him $2 million this year, and he could be traded to a contender at mid-season.
Ryan Church was released by the Braves after he proved exactly what I said about him when the Mets traded him for Jeff Francoeur----as
a player, he doesn’t live up to his statistical parts. It took Bobby Cox a month to realize this and to bench him. Church
always looks like a better player than he actually is. He vapes out on the field; strikes out too much and simply isn’t
that good. He can hit an occasional homer; has a great arm in the outfield and might have use for a contender late in the
season. He signed a 1-year, $1.5 million contract with the Pirates and will be trade bait at mid-season.
Brandon Moss is a journeyman outfielder who got a chance to play regularly in 2009 and didn’t take advantage of it.
He batted .236 with a .304 on base; 7 homers and 41 RBI. He’s a fifth outfielder.
Delwyn Young is a 27-year-old outfielder, second baseman who put up big offensive numbers in the minors with a high average,
on base and 18 home run power. He’s never gotten a chance to play every day in the big leagues and the Pirates would
be better suited to have a long look at Young than to play Iwamura at second base.
Steven Pearce is a 27-year old outfielder who batted .206 in 186 at bats in 2009. He’s put up power/on base numbers
in the minors and might have use as a bat off the bench.
PREDICTION:
What are the Pirates doing?
Is
there a plan in place aside from trading veterans at mid-season and putting forth the idea that they’re building for
some future that’s never going to come? Why is it that the league steps in with a club that has no need for it like
the Marlins, but the Pirates are allowed to go on their merry way as the rudderless leech on the rest of baseball that the
once-proud franchise has become?
This club isn’t run with the intent of making it competitive; it’s run as an agenda for the club president Frank
Coonelly to push the ideas he formulated while working in the commissioner’s office. There’s no reason for anything
they do other than to reach an end that is floating and elusive. Even when they have some talent that has use, they still
find a way to botch it as they did with the insane decision to not tender a contract to their erstwhile closer, Capps.
There are some good players on this roster such
as McCutchen, LaRoche and Doumit, but does anyone believe that these players are going to be part of any Pirates revival?
Is such a thing possible while they’re under the auspices of the circus that populates their front office?
Expect another bad start; another series of veterans
traded away for “prospects” and the argument that they couldn’t be much worse with youngsters than with
the departing veterans, so why not make the moves?
This organization is a disaster. The fans of Pittsburgh are apathetic and disgusted with the 17 consecutive losing years.
Why should they invest their time, their money and most importantly, their emotions into a club that neither cares about them
nor wants to make an honest effort toward winning? The club will make their perfunctory deals, sign the likes of Dotel, Donnelly
and Church and try to make it appear as if they’re doing something when in reality, they’re doing absolutely nothing.
Until they bring in competent management that has an interest in winning and improving, that won’t change.
If baseball wants to step in with an organization,
they should leave the Marlins alone and focus their attention on the Pirates. Maybe after this year and another season of
over 90 losses, they’ll say enough’s enough.
The ultimate in low-budget, blood-spattered action
flicks continues:
These scripts almost write themselves. No fiction I could come up with will ever match reality.
Well, maybe the fiction I could come up with would be more wild
and engaging than reality; nobody else though.
The aftershock and fallout of the Joe Mauer contract:
Already it's started.
After Joe Mauer and the Twins made their long-term marriage official, the speculation of the affect
on the industry and other players began.
MLB Trade Rumors considers the comparison between Prince Fielder and Mauer in this posting. Some of the assertions therein look oddly familiar, specifically the mentioning of Mauer's hometown status and that he's
not represented by Scott Boras. Wonder where I read that before; or possibly wrote that before.
But that's neither here nor there.
The only player whose upcoming free agency could possibly
be compared to Mauer's is Albert Pujols. As much as Minnesota is Mauer's home, St. Louis has become Pujols-country. Pujols
is not represented by Boras (Dan Lozano represents Pujols); he doesn't want to leave; and he's not a money-whore.
Much like the floated nonsense that Mauer would leave;
that Mauer might be traded; that the negotiations were likely to drag out; that they could fall apart at any moment, Pujols
is in the same boat. Pujols could request a blank check from a big market team and get it; these stories regarding Pujols
will go in the same direction. They'll be written; they'll be discussed; and they'll be absurd.
Albert Pujols is not leaving St. Louis. Ever. Period.
As for the comparison of the day, Prince Fielder, he's not going
to be a Brewer in 2012; in fact, there's every chance that if the Brewers fall from contention at mid-season this year, they'll
put him up for auction and he's out of Milwaukee by July.
Represented by Scott Boras, Fielder is an intense competitor who wants his money. Even though the Yankees
won't have the need nor the desire to pay him, if the Red Sox miss out on Adrian Gonzalez, they could make a play for Fielder.
It would be a move reminiscent to the Phillies backing away from Roy Halladay at mid-season 2009, instead turning to Cliff
Lee; and it would yield the same result----a power hitter for the middle of the lineup who's a free agent at the end of 2011.
The Angels, White Sox and Mets
would be able to pay Fielder to keep him; and the Braves have the prospects, are going to need a bat and have a history of
being aggressive (sometimes too aggressive) in making mid-season trades.
That the trading team will definitely have Fielder for 2010 and 2011
should bring some good prospects to the Brewers in a trade even if the trading club doesn't choose to keep him after 2011.
Fielder would be better-served going
to an American League team where he'd be able to DH. While his beefy (to be generous) body is ridiculed for being "fat",
he's just naturally big and if he lost weight, some of his massive power would go along with it; he's also quicker defensively
and on the bases than he's given credit for.
The Brewers are in flux. They're not going to be bad so that they start a teardown; but they're not contenders either
unless the Wild Card number of wins falls to the mid-80s. I expect an early season managerial change from Ken Macha to Willie
Randolph and if they're going to move forward looking toward a retooling from the Fielder-led group that went to the playoffs
in 2008, what better way to do it than to deal Fielder himself?
All due respect to Prince Fielder, you can find a first baseman who'll hit and drive in runs;
you can't find a catcher like Joe Mauer, so equating the two in any way is ludicrous.
The Mauer deal will affect no one because of the unique situation between
player and team; but the silliness will pop up again and again out of convenience.
Ignore it is my advice.
Tension with the White Sox:
The latest "controversy"with the White Sox centers around manager Ozzie and Oney Guillen's
Twitter accounts; the son resigned from the club as "scouting video technician" because they wanted him to tone
down his tweets.
With any other team
this would be seen as a problem; with the White Sox, Guillen and GM Kenny Williams, it's nothing.
When has there not been some wild and wacky thing going on around
Guillen and his ingrained inability to censor himself or keep his emotions in check? And when has it negatively affected the
club? It's meaningless. Guillen's not getting fired; Williams isn't going to let this back-and-forth----as personal as it
seems----bother the relationship.
More
than any other club, the off-field distractions that Guillen sometimes appears to intentionally engender creates an energy
rather than a distraction and if the players are used to it and don't care, why should anyone else? The list of Guillen explosions
is legendary. From ripping players, coaches, media members and opponents in public; to the Twitter account; to his son, it's
like a built up callous. Eventually, it's unnoticeable and doesn't alter any behaviors or results.
Is it a big issue that the "video scouting technician" resigned?
Who cares?
It's an entry-level baseball job that's usually given to a nondescript
former intern or young man trying to break into baseball's front office. Because Oney's last name is Guillen, suddenly it's
seen as a position of importance and given relevance. So Oney resigned? Would anyone even pay attention to the arrogance of
a 24-year-old quitting a job in baseball through youthful self-importance based on nothing other than his dad's the manager
of the team?
This won't hurt the White
Sox.
In fact, it might help them. We've
seen this type of energy----created by a dispute----spur teams on previously. Aside from that, it means nothing.
The cyclical nature of injuries:
After the way the injury-wheel got stuck at Citi Field
last season and savaged the Mets like the Grim Reaper's younger brother----the Belligerent Reaper----showed up and was bent
on causing pain rather than death, so it's been with dings, dents and catastrophes popping up everywhere in baseball rather
than in one place.
The Twins Joe Nathan
is lost for the season with Tommy John surgery.
Cliff Lee of the Mariners needed surgery on a bone spur and now has an abdominal strain.
Albert Pujols is having back spasms.
Brandon Webb of the Diamondbacks is still having shoulder problems.
Aroldis Chapman of the Reds left yesterday's game
with a stiff back.
These are just a few
of the injury issues around everyone's camp. While they're not inspiring the laughter and ridicule the Mets received last
season, they're of a similar nature.
Injuries happen and sometimes there's no blame and no explanation. While the Mets medical mishaps last season were part of
the tragi-comedy 2009 became, the way injuries hit like lightning strikes everywhere show that the reach of the Belligerent
Reaper (who's yet to graduate to a full-blown sickle and is still carrying around ligament shredders; a hamstring puller;
and a back spasmer), is traveling around and wreaking havoc.
I don't see anyone laughing as they did at the Mets though. It wasn't funny then; and it's not funny
now when it happens to other teams.
The Yankees "battle" for fifth starter:
They're playing this to the hilt and it's gotten to the point where no one should even pay attention
anymore.
It's enough.
The candor of the aforementioned Guillen would be
much-appreciated in the face of Yankees manager Joe Girardi's cautious use of language and flailing joints like a puppet whose
strings are being manipulated by the front office.
Is there anyone who doesn't realize that Phil Hughes is a starter and that Joba Chamberlain is a reliever? Anyone outside
the Yankees organization and among the holding out stat zombies who still insist Chamberlain's innings as a starter would
outweigh his value as a reliever?
I'm
wondering what would've been said in 1996 had the value of the number of innings a young right named Mariano Rivera would've
provided as a starter left in question his use and been equated with "value". That Yankees team would not have won
the World Series had manager Joe Torre not stumbled onto the formula of shutting the game down after the sixth inning by going
to the devastating combination of Rivera and John Wetteland from the seventh inning on.
Despite the end result of the game being O-V-E-R after the sixth inning,
would they have clung to this belief that every pitcher must fall into their faulty template?
The Yankees can have that same formula now.
They can have destruction at the back end of the game with Chamberlain
and Rivera if they finally choose to end this self-serving charade of "Joba As Starter".
Speculation continues.
Who's going to "win" the fifth starter's job?
The club is being obnoxious, hard-headed and obstinate with this "competition";
and the way it's looking, there still seems to be a possibility----however small----that they're going to start Chamberlain.
It's enooooouuggggghhhhhh!!!!!
Hughes is a starter.
Chamberlain is a reliever.
Accept it and move on. Please.
"The Most Hated Man
In Sports":
Mike Silva at NY Baseball Digest tweeted the following regarding yours truly yesterday:
You might be the most hated man in sports!!
I'm not quite sure what I did to earn the designation. Then again, I'm never sure what I've done rightly or wrongly.
I just do things.
Considering
the number of despised people in sports, it's a pretty impressive rise to the top for me. I must be doing something very,
very right; or very, very wrong.
One of those.
One question: Does
it make me dangerously disturbed that I take this as a compliment? And I am taking it as a compliment.
Viewer Mail 3.23.2010:
Michael Fierman at MichaelFireman.net writes RE yesterday's posting and sabermetrics:
one
of your best- here's a not too crazy analogy: you're like leonard bernstein circa 1970- a rationalist/tonalist fighting the
world of atonality ( in your case sabremetricians) we all know how that tuned out in the end. almost everyone in the serious
music world has returned to tonality.
i'm not a troglodyte who rails against stats and I know that you aren't
either, but i DO get annoyed when I read that Mark Teixeira's UZR in worse than "league average" and by the same
token last year Daniel Murphy played the 4th best D at 1st base- no knock on Murph-I like the kid, but i've seen him play.
anyway-that's just an example. sometime when I look at the literally unbelievable formulas for some of these exotic statistics
it really infuriates me in an "emperor's new clothes" sort of way.
Much like the above-mentioned Chamberlain comparison to a 1996 Rivera, it's as if they're so desperate to prove their
point that they're willing to ruin careers or use players in roles for which they're not suited.
The pitch/innings-counts; denigration of players who don't fit the ideal
facilitated by numbers with objective analysis ignored; and the refusal to acknowledge anything other than what pops out of
their mathematical equations is not adding to the game, but twisting it into something unnatural.
Many of those who are so invested in stats that they can no longer
see reality are well-meaning; they're not trying to put forth an agenda. I actually respect those that believe so
fervently in the value of numbers above all else and do so not because of an attempt to bolster themselves or their friends;
I don't agree with them; and I'm here to destroy them, but it's nothing personal. If they listened, maybe a few can be converted
to what's true.
Good call on Mauer. Your reasoning made it hard to believe
he'd be anything but a Twin in 2011.
And the Olney-Pujols-Howard mess STILL has me seething.
Whether
he knew it or not (most likely he did) Olney's actions caused great concern among Cardinals and Phillies fans.
I'm
still waiting for his apology.
Apology? Hahahaha!!!!!
Of course he knew what kind of explosion this would create. That was the
point.
I think it's probably better
that the "story" was so adamantly denied by all parties and Buster Olney was made to look like such a foolish hack.
It had no basis in reality; no one other than his mystical "sources" seemed to know anything about it and it took
another chunk out of the nearly non-existent credibility at ESPN. In the long run, it'll be a positive that they want this
to go away.
As
an aside from "Mauer is not a money whore," I agree that the McCourts did a good job with the Dodgers - before their
personal issues got in the way. Such a shame if the divorce is what's keeping Torre from signing a contract extension, though
he denies it.
I'm guessing Joe Torre is secure in his own resume and personality controlling
the clubhouse (along with good cop, Don Mattingly; and bad cop, Larry Bowa) so that he's not a lame duck. He'll have a job
as Dodgers manager as long as he wants it and the distraction from the negotiations for an extension was only adding to the
mess that is the McCourts' divorce.
Unless the Dodgers win the World Series this year, Torre will at least manage another year and will continue to do so as long
as he feels good and is enjoying it.
Joe Mauer has agreed to an 8-year, $184 million contract to stay with the Minnesota Twins.
Despite speculation to the contrary, Mauer was never, ever going to leave the
Twins.
The Twins were never going to
let him leave.
Let's take a look at the
reasons why.
The ties that bind:
It would've been understandable that the idea of a Mauer trade was floated had there ever been any chance at all of the player
leaving or the club deciding that they could no longer keep him. But the relationship between player, team and city ware so
intertwined that there was never, ever, ever any way he was going to be allowed to depart; nor were they going to take the
public relations hit if he were dealt away.
Joe Mauer is from Minnesota; he's a hometown hero who has blossomed into the best hitter in baseball this side of Albert
Pujols. He's a Gold Glove catcher. And he's a Twin.
The first pick in the 2001 draft, the Twins were ridiculed for taking a high school player who was at least four years
away from the big leagues; for bypassing Mark Prior, who was poised, polished and close to big league ready; for putting locale
and popularity ahead of what was best for the club.
How's that decision look now as Mauer has developed into a Hall of Famer and quite possibly the best all-around catcher
in the history of the game and Mark Prior's career is over?
Has anyone who scoffed at the notion that the Twins might've been putting the organization first by
taking Mauer retracted their knee-jerk reaction of stupidity?
Or, like everything else that's said based on nothing more that what's convenient at the time within
the flexible reality of the armchair experts, has it been pushed off to the side so no one remembers?
There were too many connections; too much at stake for both sides for
Mauer to be allowed to leave. It was never going to happen.
Mauer is not a money whore;
and his agent is Ron Shapiro:
How much money could Mauer have gotten had he gone
out on the open market?
A handsome,
stand-up guy who wins Gold Gloves behind the plate and bats .360? A player who's in his prime and getting better at age 27?
With the Red Sox, Yankees, Mets, Angels, Dodgers and White Sox likely to be lurking, waiting and watching to see what happens
and if he becomes available?
Even
in a sluggish economy, we're talking about $250 million----at least.
Could Mauer have extracted more than the $184 million from the Twins by being
a hardliner? By using his pending free agency as a hammer? By going to the media and pressuring a club that he knew couldn't
let him leave with a young team and a new ballpark?
Absolutely.
Is he that kind of person?
Obviously not.
All you need to do when assessing the "greed factor" of a player
is look at his representation. If the name Scott Boras is listed under "agent", you know where the player stands
in terms of desired financial remuneration.
If you see the name Ron Shapiro, you also know where the player stands.
This is not to denigrate a player for wanting to extract every single penny he can possibly accrue
from an interested club. This is America. The skills of a player the caliber of Alex Rodriguez; of Mark Teixeira; of Carlos
Beltran predicate what he can legitimately request from any team that wants him during the course of free agency.
Of course, when a player signs on the dotted
line with Boras, he's running the risk of the near disaster that was the ARod opt-out from his contract as he almost shut
himself out from the Yankees during the 2007 World Series; of teams who don't put up with the Boras style of doing business
walking away entirely; of playing in a venue where he really didn't want to play (as ARod did with the Rangers).
Ron Shapiro doesn't do business that way.
Shapiro's first priority for his players is where
said player wants to play. Before anything else, that's one of the most important factors in his negotiations. Don't think
for a second that Shapiro won't play hardball if he has to and use the possibility of a player leaving to his advantage, but
the comfort and security of his client is paramount and unassailable. There's no attempt to demolish a club's existing salary
structure or win some non-existent contest of wills to be known throughout the land as the epitome of evil amongst player
agents.
Mauer is not a money-whore.
Shapiro doesn't represent money-whores.
Is Mauer going to buy that much more
stuff with an extra $70 million and withstand the casting out from his home that would've been his lot in life if he'd left
for greener pastures (and by greener, I mean money)? He'd never have been able to return to Minnesota again; and he didn't
want to leave in the first place.
In a trade, the circumstances were prohibitive and the Twins
would never have gotten equal value:
Let's say hypothetically the Twins or Mauer had broken
off negotiations and things got to the point that the club decided to field offers for the superstar catcher in a trade. What
could they have gotten for him in July had that happened?
Would any of the big market clubs give up the five prospects that it would take to get Mauer and then put
themselves in an even more precarious position than the Twins were while the negotiations were taking place? Let's just say
the Yankees and Red Sox got into a bidding war for Mauer; and let's say that the winner of the bidding war gutted their farm
system to get Mauer. They'd have no choice but to pay him whatever he wanted to stay. They'd have to ante up their best prospects
and then essentially sign Mauer as a free agent.
Given the way both teams now do business, was that going to happen? Seriously?
Trust me when I tell you that once Mauer was out of his hometown and wearing the
colors of another club, the discount sign for the home club would've been gone. Whoever was ready to pay the cash was going
to get the player.
So were the
Yankees going to add another $200 million player to the roster? While they have Teixeira, ARod and C.C. Sabathia on their
payroll and need to sign both Derek Jeter and Mariano Rivera after this year?
Were the Red Sox going to pay that amount of cash with the way they're constantly
trying to cast themselves as financially sane while existing in the same financial stratosphere as the Yankees?
It wasn't going to happen because it couldn't happen.
What of the Twins?
Let's say the negotiations became heated and so contentious that they
ended and the club decided they had no choice but to trade him. A blunted public relations hit due to outrageous demands still
wouldn't let the Twins get equal value for him. Because of the economy and Mauer's pending free agency, the Twins would've
found themselves in a similar circumstance as they were with Johan Santana.
Despite the club winning and maintaining their annual success without Santana, that trade was a disaster.
Left with no options after the Yankees and Red Sox withdrew, the Twins were left with whatever crumbs Mets GM Omar Minaya
was willing to surrender. Take a look at the return on that deal:
Carlos Gomez----supremely talented
and wild showing no signs of maturing; an excellent defensive outfielder with no plate discipline whatsoever and subsequently
traded to the Brewers for J.J. Hardy.
Philip Humber----a right-handed pitcher and former first round draft
pick with average (at best) stuff and stagnating in the minor leagues; Humber was released by the Twins and is now with the
Kansas City Royals.
Deolis Guerra----a 21-year-old right-handed pitcher with weak numbers and currently
in the minor leagues for the Twins.
Kevin Mulvey----a 25-year-old right-handed pitcher with mediocre
minor league numbers who was traded to the Diamondbacks for Jon Rauch.
In other words, the Twins
have wound up with Jon Rauch, J.J. Hardy and a minor league right-handed pitcher for a 2-time American League Cy Young Award
winner, Johan Santana; and that's two years after the fact of the trade.
Because it would've been a mid-season deal, the Twins would likely have gotten less for Mauer than they got for Santana. Regardless of the perception as to whose fault it was that the negotiations
fell apart to that point, no one in the trade would've won. The Twins would've gotten pennies on the dollar for a homegrown
superstar; the trading club would've either gutted their system and/or spent $250 million; and Mauer would've looked like
a money-grubbing mercenary.
It....was...never...going...to...happen.
The absurdity of the media:
Is there anyone out there with a shred of integrity?
Anyone who can be honest and speak the truth? Or at least stands by their beliefs even if proven wrong? Who doesn't adjust
their shape like an amoeba to fit into whatever inextricable maze their ineptitude places them?
It's all about agendas; laziness; hypocrisy and lies.
Because there's such a divergent series of camps in baseball today, there's
never any accurate and aboveboard series of reporting. It's about defending one's territory and it's blatant and embarrassing.
How else do you explain the likes of Mike Francesa
going on-and-on with rampant egomania and all-knowing foresight with his mantras the likes of "'da Mets hafta break up
'da core" not because it made sense; not because it was presented in a line-by-line, coherent case, but to drum up attention
for himself with controversy. Or the self-serving way he "thinks" things are going to happen not based on reality,
but because he made a prediction earlier and wants to be able to crow about being right? Or his "forgetting" prior
statements because admitting a mistake would sabotage the omnipotence inherent with being such a brilliant sports mind.
The stat zombies do the same thing. When you read
a Dave Cameron or Rob Neyer put forth the bi-monthly defense of Paul DePodesta as a baseball executive, you have to read between
the lines. In a recent posting, Neyer unloaded on Jamie McCourt's incompetence as a baseball executive based on a speech he
heard her give at MIT.
I'm not
about to sit here and defend the McCourt circus that's currently being played out in the courts and media; there's a certain
Beverly Hillbillies aspect to the way they sauntered into town and took over the historic franchise known as the Los Angeles
Dodgers. But if you examine the way the club has been run on the field since they took over, what's there to argue with?
Aside from this past winter (and due to embarrassing,
though understandable circumstances with the divorce) the Dodgers have spent lavishly on players; they paid for the most recognizable
manager in Joe Torre; they've been aggressive in trades; and they've made the playoffs in three of the past four years. Even
with the lack of movement this winter, they're still legitimate contenders. Ignoring the vitriol directed at the owners, what
possible reason is there to criticize aside from casting blame on someone other than DePodesta for what happened when he wrecked
the team in 20 months between early 2004 and late 2005?
How hard is it to admit a fellow believer made a mistake? If any of the DePodesta defenders had the courage to break
from their crowd of stat zombies and say something to the tune of: "he's my friend; I believe what he believes in terms
of running a club; but he screwed up terribly when he got the big job", they'd have a chance to garner some credibility.
But they don't. They push him for jobs;
reference his bonafides; and turn themselves into pretzels offering caveats for his multitude of inexcusable errors. Blame
the McCourts. It's easy and it's fun.
How about the "insiders" like Buster Olney and Ken Rosenthal?
Lazy and clueless; unable to find things to write about so speculating while leaving room to adjust
their feelings based on whatever time of day it is, they contradict themselves numerous times in the Joe Morgan fashion while
maintaining the veneer of entities with contacts and insider information.
Now that Mauer's signed, because they didn't go out on any kind of a limb (that was never really a
limb at all because he was never leaving the Twins to start with), they can "report" on what happened while promulgating
the myth that they were on target with their stories from the start.
One day it was the negotiations were gaining momentum; next they were at an impasse; then there was
the chance that a deal was never going to get done at all; then the trade ideas were floated complete with the wishy-washy
and self-protecting, "I think a deal with the Twins will still get done".
Which is it?
We've seen Olney's degeneration from respected reporter for the New York Times to an ESPN joke. If
the Mauer silliness didn't convince you of this fact, the ridiculous "story" that the Phillies wanted to trade Ryan
Howard for Albert Pujols----presented as if it had basis in reality and clung to despite denials from all involved----should
clarify the viability of these sources that may or may not exist; may or may not be in a position to say such things.
The connections in the game of telephone that are
these faux rumors never ends. After the Howard-Pujols garbage blew up, the ESPN machine went into overdrive with Olney a guest
on one of the updates and the hostess reporting the rumor as fact and asking (I'm paraphrasing), "So, Buster, how close
is this to happening?"
Olney went
on about the reasons for the idea; the logic behind it; and how it wasn't close to happening.
How close is it to happening?!?!
It might've behooved those that were wondering how "close" this
was to happening to inform the Cardinals of this deal since they didn't appear to know about it. The Cardinals being informed
about the proposition would have facilitated a deal faster than nonsensical speculation that could well have come from Olney's
dog instead of an actual person.
If you needed to understand the floating nature of
these stories; of the way things are twisted and turned and altered into something based not in reality, but in the alternate
world that exists only at the stroke of a key because there's no honesty; no truth; no guts to say what needs to be said regardless
of public perception, the Mauer mess is indicative of the hand-in-hand nature of what these so-called reporters and analysts
say today.
They can write what
they want; cite the sources they choose; change or forget their statements based on whatever their endgame happens to be.
But know the truth----the truth that they're not giving information of putting themselves on the line with cold reality, ruthlessness
and well-thought-out beliefs. They're fulfilling a corporate and selfish series of lies for their own ends.
It's never going to end unless that's realized, accepted
and rejected.
And even then, it
might never stop; but at least it won't be hidden. It won't be a myth put out as truth to those that are still willing to
read and accept it. Then we'll be able to rebuild.
Much like the questions surrounding how much
money the Washington Nationals should have committed to star-in-waiting, über prospect Stephen Strasburg when he was
drafted, the newest debate with the young pitcher is whether or not to let him jump straight into the big league fire with
barely any professional seasoning.
I'm
not of the Rick Peterson school in thinking that a pitcher must have a certain number of minor league innings to best prepare
him for the big leagues; a cookie-cutter system in any endeavor disregards individuality both personally and professionally.
Nor am I in the camp of prescribing a number of innings for pitchers and adhering to them no matter what; such a strategy
leads to the way the Yankees have come precariously close to the edge of ruining Joba Chamberlain.
When a pitcher's ready, he's ready; and if a pitching coach and manager
are incapable of watching said pitcher's mechanics and knowing whether or not he's altering them slightly due to fatigue and
not to push him any further in a game regardless of him having thrown 80 or 110 pitches, then perhaps they shouldn't be in
those positions of power, entrusted with the organization's most valuable assets to begin with.
After talk that Strasburg might make the Nationals out of spring training
if he was judged "ready", the club sent him to Double A. Strasburg was impressive in the spring with 1 walk; 12
strikeouts; 8 hits allowed; and an ERA of 2.00 in 9 innings.
Could the Nationals keep him in the majors and not hinder his development?
Is it possible that he really is ready for the majors now?
Yes.
Is it worth it to run that risk?
No.
Stephen Strasburg has not
thrown one regular season minor league pitch. He's 21-years-old and the Nationals are going to be atrocious. They've invested
a ton of money in him and his success or failure will define the organization for the next ten years. There's no earthly reason----aside
from selling extra tickets and garnering attention to a last place team----to keep him in the majors when it's smarter and
safer to let him hone his craft in the diminished pressure of Double A.
Because he's so gifted, Strasburg would probably hold his own in the big leagues now; but why? Why
gamble on such a talent? Even though he's armed with a fastball that comes along once every generation and a wicked curveball,
that doesn't mean he's mentally polished enough to step right into the spotlight and function as a freakshow for a team that's
going to be terrible.
I said months
ago that I'd send Strasburg to Double A to start the season; let him pitch; get acclimated to professional baseball; then
see what happens as he moves along. The biggest obstacle for Strasburg will probably be mentally preparing himself for the
distractions that come from being such a household name and borderline legend before he starts his career.
Double A is now where the real prospects are housed. Strasburg will likely
dominate the young hitters, who themselves are still learning to play; it's Double A where the prospects are separated from
the journeymen/organizational filler.
If he pitches well into the summer, then send him to Triple A and let him deal with the veteran players who are interchangeable
with the 24th and 25th men on every big league roster. Triple A is a warehouse for veteran insurance, mostly with everyday
players who have big league experience. Their discipline will be better; they won't be starstruck by Strasburg; and they'll
actually be focusing with greater intensity to get to Strasburg and draw attention to themselves.
This is the right thing to do for his development.
I'm not a fan of players----especially pitchers----"learning"
in the big leagues. It's not the physicality that's the issue; it's the ancillary parts----mental and emotional----that have
sabotaged many a player and ruined them.
When you hear people like Keith Law, who have such a wooden view of players that you have to wonder if they even have a concept
of what it takes to be a big leaguer aside from regurgitated scouting terminology that he endlessly parrots. Law appears to
suggest that it makes financial sense for Strasburg to be in the minors, but he's ready for the big leagues now. Here's the
clip about his on-field readiness:
Getting him to the majors sooner would accelerate his
development for future years, since he has very little to work on in the minors -- "slowing his delivery from the stretch"
is a new one for me -- and what he does need to improve is only going to improve in the big leagues.
The Nationals don't have to give a reason for demoting him. If it were me, I'd say: "I'm sending
him down because I'm sending him down." Their responsibility is to the organization and the player, not the media and
armchair experts.
There's such
a thing as shellshock and if Strasburg, who's known nothing but success on his way up, gets rocked repeatedly, his development
will be hindered, not accelerated. What people like Law are evidently incapable of understanding is that the mental part of
the game is far more important to such a prospect than his talent. Someone like Strasburg might be more inclined for self-doubt
and questioning of his ability than a player who's had adversity and fewer natural gifts.
The most talented among us are sometimes the most insecure. If he's
in the majors and struggles while pitching for a rotten team, who does that help?
It makes no sense for Strasburg to pitch in the majors now. It won't hurt him or
the Nats to let him pitch in Double and Triple A, then if he shows the physical and mental maturity for a late season promotion,
bring him to the big leagues. For right now, putting such a burden on a 21-year-old pitcher is a recipe for disaster.
The Nationals are doing the right thing in playing
it cautious and it's not going to damage the pitcher to spend some time in the minors. It's the smart move.
This looks familiar....
I like Bill Madden as a columnist, but someone said
the following already about Rangers manager Ron Washington. This is from today's column in the NY Daily News:
In spite of his heart-felt apology, it would seem he's still got a lot of
explaining to do. I mean are we really supposed to believe, as Washington implies, that this was a one-time deal by a 57-year-old
man? And, if so, where and how did it happen and what possibly possessed him to put his career on the line (literally) like
that? Clearly, something's amiss in Washington's life to engage in such a reckless manner. Perhaps if he were a player it
might be a little more understandable – and easier to grant a second chance. But Washington is a manager – and
therefore a role model. And not only a manager, but one whose best player, Josh Hamilton, is a recovering drug addict.
I must have heard this somewhere before.
Oh. Yeah. It was the voices in the vast expanse of my head and exploded out through my fingertips and
hit the mark with laser precise accuracy.
Kerry
Wood out for 6-8 weeks:
Indians closer Kerry Wood has a back strain and could miss the first two months of the season.
In the grand scheme of things, the only negative about this is that the
Indians are going to have to wait for Wood to show himself to be healthy enough to get something for him in a trade at mid-season.
Realistically, it's not a negative. It's a positive.
The Indians are going to be 100-loss bad, so they're not going to have many games for Wood to close; he's got an option
in his contract for 2011 at $11 million that kicks in with 55 appearances. The injury pretty much demolishes that possibility
which, if he's pitching well when he gets back, will make him more attractive to a contending team looking for some bullpen
help. The return will be greater in a trade due to the non-guarantee for anything past this year.
It's not unseemly to take such an occurrence like an on-field injury (as
long as the player is not damaged long term) as a positive. Years ago, the Mets got a bolt from the sky when Mo Vaughn's knee
ended his career and they were able to get rid of a clubhouse distraction; a financial albatross; and a declining player while
collecting the insurance money for a contract that was more bloated than Vaughn himself.
Teams can say all the right things, but we all know the sigh of relief
that emanates from their lips as the decisions are made for them and it's saving them multiple millions.
Viewer Mail 3.21.2010:
Gabriel (Capo) writes RE the Cardinals and the Blue Jays:
I think the Cardinals are in a little better shape than that, they have
a better lineup than the Mariners and Brad Penny will eat innings and win around 12 games at least.
On another
concern, what do you think of Dustin McGowan? Seems like he's been hurt forever, and maybe it's time to call it a career.
Whenever he feels ready, he's shut down due to soreness, fatigue or pain. I don't think it's realistic for the Blue Jays to
count on him anymore.
I think Penny's going to have a good year for Dave
Duncan as well; and if Kyle Lohse shows his form from 2008, they'll be okay; but if they want to contend for a title, they
need Chris Carpenter. Period.
I haven't
seen McGowan pitch this spring, but he's only 28; it's a little early for him or the Blue Jays to bag it. He had got great
stuff and after what happened when they dumped Carpenter, I'd think they'll be more willing to give McGowan a chance to recover.
That said, we regularly hear the stories of pitchers
coming back better than ever due to the new techniques that weren't available 30 years ago to repair what was seen as a career-ending
injury. Orel Hershiser came back from shoulder surgery; and Tommy John surgery is almost a guaranteed success now; but there
are sometimes pitchers who can'tmake it back.
I'm thinking of former White Sox and Marlins pitcher Alex Fernandez. Fernandez blew out his shoulder
as the 1997 Marlins were making their World Series run, had surgery and came back to pitch serviceably in 1999, but repeated
injuries to the same shoulder ended his career in 2000.
It's too soon to think this is anything more than "dead arm" and a slight setback for a pitcher
returning for a shoulder reconstruction; but it's not something to dismiss entirely as a part of the recovery process. McGowan
needs time to regain his footing. Dumping him now or having the pitcher give up entirely would be a mistake.
Combine the prolific frequency of Stephen King
with the pomposity, pretentiousness and pablum of Jonathan Franzen and you get the PAULLEBOWITZ.COM 2010 Stories To Watch!
Until the season starts, this...will...not...end.
Cliff (Stone Cold Killer) Lee's injuries:
Despite morphing into
a ruthless and brutally efficient assassin in the past year, Cliff (Stone Cold Killer) Lee is not indestructible.
In the latest injury for Lee (diagnosed immediately
following his 5-game suspension for throwing at the Diamondbacks' Chris Snyder), the Mariners ace 1A will miss at least a
week with an abdominal strain. On the injury note, this is after Lee underwent surgery right before spring training for a
bone spur on his left foot.
The abdominal
injury is a bigger concern for Lee than is being suggested by the Mariners; he's had similar problems in prior years with
the Indians. In 2003 and 2004, Lee missed substantial time with abdominal injuries, so it's not something to dismiss as "minor"
and it could be a big problem for a somewhat short-handed team that's relying on their two aces (Lee and Felix Hernandez)
at the top of the rotation to keep them in contention in a very rough division.
Almost identically to the Diamondbacks of 2009, if the Mariners lose either
Lee or Hernandez, they're not going to contend because the rest of the team is a series of questions.*
*Speaking
of which, Milton Bradley got ejected for the second time in three days for arguing a called third strike immediately after
I wrote that the ticking time bomb that is Milton Bradley was one of the keys to the Mariners season.
Some are floating the idea that Jarrod Washburn might be a worthwhile signing for the Mariners
as insurance.
Yah. Right. He's a step
above....Jason Vargas!!!!
Teams built in such a way must have health from their stars; and if they don't have it, things can
spiral very, very quickly.
The Cardinals are in the same situation as the Mariners----almost:
The Cardinals are another club that's top-heavy with stars and reliant on cogs to fill out the roster.
Through no fault of their own, they were dealing with the silliness that is the Buster Olney report that the Phillies wanted
to trade Ryan Howard for Albert Pujols. Then yesterday, Chris Carpenter got shelled by the Marlins for six runs and seven
hits in the first inning.
Spring training
results aren't the issue for a pitcher of Carpenter's caliber----they're meaningless; but with Carpenter's extensive injury
rap sheet, there's always a sideways gaze cast on him with every move; and it's not as if there's one body part that keeps
breaking down. His entire body is always at risk of a pull, strain, tear or tweak. Even in the weak NL Central and the genius
of Tony La Russa and Dave Duncan, the Cardinals will be left scrambling if they lose Carpenter for any amount of time.
As stunning as it was that Carpenter was able to return
to form and pitch masterfully last season after another injury (to his oblique) sent him to the disabled list early on, it
was indicative of Carpenter that he was: A) almost unhittable; and B) hurt.
These issues have been the hallmark of Carpenter's career. With the Blue Jays, he was overused by then
manager Carlos Tosca, got injured and was released. (Nice move from J.P. Ricciardi.) He rehabbed with the Cardinals, cleaned
up his motion with Duncan and won a Cy Young Award while finishing 2nd and 3rd in the voting in two other seasons. He also
missed almost the entire 2007 and 2008 seasons with injuries.
The Cardinals need Carpenter and they need him healthy. The outing wasn't a concern; the potential
for another catastrophic injury is.
The Mets youngsters:
I said it before and I'll say it again: suddenly the Mets farm system isn't looking so bad.
The brilliant play of Fernando Martinez; Ruben Tejada; Ike Davis; and
Jenrry Mejia has opened eyes around baseball. Undoubtedly the predators who think the Mets are saddled with the in-bred stupidity
of a creature from Texas Chainsaw Massacre are waiting to pounce and try to trade for the whole system for a veteran player
in a futile attempt to win now.
I'm not prepared to say the Mets won't do something stupid, but they've been resistant so far. These are the Mets
we're talking about, paragons of self-sabotage that they are, there's always a chance of doing something disastrous.
I believe they've learned their lesson, but we'll
see.
There are two situations that bear
close watching----20-year-olds (born within three weeks of each other in 1989) right-handed pitcher Jenrry Mejia; and shortstop
Ruben Tejada.
People (including manager
Jerry Manuel) are proposing that Mejia be kept in the big leagues as reliever; and they're also saying (again, manager
Manuel) that Tejada is going to be in the minors so he can play every day.
Having looked at both and the Mets current circumstances, they've got it backwards.
I don't care how good Mejia looks. If I were running
things, Mejia is in the minors as a starting pitcher going every fifth day with an eye on him joining the club late in the
season as a weapon out of the bullpen for the stretch run a la Francisco Rodriguez with the Angels in 2002 and Joba Chamberlain
with the Yankees in 2007. Mejia needs to pitch without pressure; he needs to hone his command. He's not quite ready regardless
of how great he's looked in the spring.
As for Tejada, the Mets have a dilemma that's not really a dilemma if they really think about it. They have no idea when Jose
Reyes is going to be able to play. By now, it's almost assured that he's going to miss opening day and the club is adamant
(with some wiggle room) that if Reyes is out, veteran Alex Cora will play shortstop in his stead.
I'd roll the dice on Tejada., let him play to start the season and hope
he's able to handle the pitching. He's far superior defensively to Cora; has handled himself with maturity in the spring;
and his youthful energy will be infectious to the club and fans. Sometimes these injuries are fortuitous. If Tejada plays
well until Reyes's return, there's always the option of shifting him to second base in front of Luis Castillo.
Giving Tejada a chance for a couple of weeks
in April and sending him down if he's truly overmatched won't hurt him; but I don't think he would be and, as admirable as
Cora is as a player, how much worse can Tejada be as a hitter even if he struggles?
The move could be a sparkplug for the Mets that they never anticipated. It happens
sometimes and it's worth the shot to see what they have.
I think the Washington case is interesting. Most of
the substance abuse headlines have involved players, so this is sort of new territory. Backman was fired immediately, but
domestic abuse isn't a victim-less crime. I honestly don't know what to think, although I'm inclined to agree that they should
send him packing.
I don't know what the holdup is unless there's more
to this story that the Rangers want to keep hidden; but if that's the case, I'd think they'd rather get it out there, let
the bomb go off and conduct one big cleanup rather than have a series of moderate explosions of varying frequency and devastation
pop up intermittently for the club to spin their way out as they happen. If there's an incurable infection, you cut it out.
This won't end until Washington's gone.
John Seal (West Coast Spiritual Adviser) writes
RE the Athletics:
Alas, the A's immediately released Jay Marshall. Perhaps
he'll resign with them...or settle for a minor league deal with the Mets once his shoulder recovers.
I have it
on good authority he suffered the injury whilst arm-wrestling with Brad Ziegler.
I'd think someone would sign a side-arming lefty no matter how bad he's been in his big league chances. Tony Fossas
and Mike Myers lasted forever due to the good fortune of being born left-handed.
Arm wrestling?
Is that allowed under the Billy Beane dictatorship under terms of permissible inmate activity?
And where was Bob Geren during all this? Refereeing?
Then again, who is one such as I to question the judgement
of a GENIUS!!!!
How many times has it been said, in sports as
well as politics, that it's not the crime itself that cements the downfall of the participants, but the subsequent cover-up?
We see it again and again, in an attempt to avoid
the fallout in the immediate aftermath of the incident, lies are told; payouts are made; greater embarassments are fostered
and the end result is exponentially worse that if it had been nipped in the bud and handled immediately.
No matter how painful it is, it's far better to cut the cord sooner
rather than later.
In case you expected
the Ron Washington mess to stand on its own after the initial blast, comes the story----denied by the Rangers----that the
failed drug test led to the club being blackmailed----Yahoo.com Story.
Who knows whether or not the
blackmail allegation is accurate?
Are
the Rangers still indulging in spin to try and keep this at bay and hope it recedes into the background?
Have their own short-sighted activities dragged the Rangers front office
into the morass built by Washington's stupidity?
Does it matter?
Unless they cut
the ties and sacrifice the manager for the good of the organization this...is...not...going...away.
It's unconscionable, irresponsible and outright stupid if the club let
the fact that they were in contention and didn't want to upset the applecart by firing Washington cloud their judgment and
allow themselves to be neck deep in what should've been a cut-and-dried case of an employee doing something to cost himself
a job.
It all could've been avoided
had they accepted Washington's offer of resignation when news of the failed drug test came to the Rangers; they could've fired
him and given a reason to protect him if they so chose. There are a million of them and many would be valid.
"His strategic mistakes were too egregious to ignore."
"Despite out record, we felt a change needed to be made to contend for a playoff spot now."
"We wanted to make a change and now was the time."
Or, there's the old indistinct and convenient excuse: "It was a lack of communication."
They could've fired Washington then or let him resign.
Instead, they took this path hoping it would go away (and that's regardless of the accuracy of the
blackmail story----one way or the other, the failed drug test was going to be revealed eventually). Now, they're paying the
price as a young, up-and-coming team bursting with talent, built the right way is under siege because of the naked betrayal
of principles upon which the club president Nolan Ryan has based him life and career.
A conservative, hard-liner and vicious competitor, Ryan probably knew back then
that Washington had to go. For some reason, he was allowed to stay on. Now, they're trapped in the muck with their manager
and are paying the price.
The only way
to properly make this disappear is to make the manager disappear. It's nothing personal; it's not because of any moral judgments
due to drug use; it's not because of an agenda; it's because it's what's right for the organization.
Had this been a player who failed a drug test for using a recreational
substance like cocaine, it'd be received with a "what can you do?" shrug. That Washington admitted using amphetamines
and marijuana as a player is irrelevant to me. Believe if you will that Washington's cocaine use began and ended with the
failed drug test----if true, that's some inconvenient luck that they tested him right there and then!!!----but he's
not just a distraction to the Rangers, he was a hindrance before because he's a rotten strategic manager! They have every
right to fire him for that reason alone. Now? How can they keep him?
How?
It's
March and the Rangers promising season is bearing the earmarks of going up in flames because of a scandal. There comes a time
to take a step back, assess and determine where things are and what the risk/reward of keeping that which has become a liability.
They're postponing the inevitable
with their reluctance to do what must be done.
For those of you who missed it, Wally Backman was hired to manage the Diamondbacks for the 2005 season
when a DUI and domestic incident that he failed to disclose during the interview process led the club to fire him right after
he'd been hired. It wasn't worth it to keep him; just as it's not worth it for the Rangers now to keep Washington.
This is a tough one Prince. I think Nolan Ryan has had
a dramatic impact on the Ranger organization for the better. That's why I'm inclined to trust his handling of the situation.
If it weren't for him I'm sure I'd be thinking differently. No Doubt there have been managers I would have fired for less.
For some reason I don't have a problem with the way the situation is playing itself out. Yet! For Nolan this is like buying
into a Junk Bond; High risk; High reward. Let's see if it comes back to bite Nolan in the ass. I'm compartmentalizing and
maybe this story broke out when I'm in an empathetic mood. I feel the heat you're generating though.
I'm not making any values judgments on Washington here; he wants to do coke, hey have a ball as long
as it doesn't affect me; but this is turning into a nightmare for the club on the whole and has to be handled. And the only
way to handle it is to get rid of Washington.
You've come to the wrong place for empathy though. I don't understand why he'd take this kind of risk and be so inexplicably
stupid. Since this supposedly happened around mid-season, because they were hovering around first place and ten games or so
above .500, they let the circumstances factor into the decision to keep Washington. Ryan and the club chose to ride it out
and hope to make the playoffs. They couldn't easily explain away Washington's firing and left it to "later".
Well, they didn't make the playoffs and it's
now "later".
I can tell you
now, that if the club was under .500 when this was called to their attention, Washington would've been fired.
Larry writes RE your humble
narrator (and if anyone gets that reference, I'll be summarily impressed):
"Plus, it makes me interesting"
Well I'm not sure I'd go that far...
Maybe fascinating would be a better word. Like something to watch and study to see what it's gonna
do or say next.
John
Seal (West Coast Spiritual Adviser) writes RE Ron Washington:
In
all seriousness (for a change), good piece on Ron Washington. When I started reading it, I was definitely in the 'leave the
man alone and let him do his job' school, but you make some excellent points. I still don't think people should lose their
jobs over victimless crimes that occur off the clock, but considering the political context and potential for team disruption,
your case is a strong one.
More importantly, though, do you think he was stoned when he named Scott Hatteberg 'Pickin'
Machine'?
I understand he's a well-liked guy; I get that the players play hard for
him. I've said it again-and-again that regardless of his strategic mishaps, that the players knew he was about to get fired
and still turned things around in 2008 to save his job is not something to ignore. But this can't be saved. It just can't
be.
I agree with the premise of
an individual not losing his job based on a personal issue----as long as it doesn't affect his ability to do the job. And,
like Tim Johnson with the Blue Jays, Washington's credibility is shot not just because of the failed test, but because he
had the audacity to claim that it was the one and only time he did it.
I mean, please.
On another note, since you mention the Athletics, John, I have to remind you that lefty side-armer Jay Marshall was
returned to the A's after the Mets discovered he was hurt. So lives your dream of seeing Marshall and righty side-armer Brad
Ziegler forget which side of the bullpen mounds they need to be on when warming up together and locking arms in a humiliating
incident befitting the prospects of the 2010 A's.
It's more likely to have that happen than to see the club contend.
Texas Rangers manager Ron Washington tested positive
for cocaine last season and the news was reported yesterday by Sports Illustrated's Jon Heyman----Story.
Washington offered to resign
when the Rangers were informed; the club allowed him to stay as they said they were convinced by Washington's assertion that
he only used the drug once----ESPN Story. The Rangers are standing by Washington and have said he will not be fired.
Ron Washington must be fired.
Immediately.
This is not going
away. It will follow a young, up-and-coming club poised to take the next step into possible championship contention; it will
haunt them throughout the season no matter how they play. It's a distraction that the Rangers did not need. Already having
had a tumultuous off-season including a desperation sale from former owner Tom Hicks to a group including team president Nolan
Ryan, things had quieted down off the field so the Rangers could focus on moving forward.
Drug use by the manager and the resulting controversy could sabotage the
whole season.
He has to go.
There are things you tolerate from a manager in terms
of off-field behavior as long as it doesn't cause lasting damage to the organization. While in a slightly different context,
this undermining of Washington's credibility is startlingly similar to what happened to the Toronto Blue Jays several years
ago resulting in rare spring training a managerial change.
Do you remember Tim Johnson?
Johnson was a longtime coach who was hired by the Blue Jays to replace Cito Gaston in 1998 and managed the Blue Jays to a
surprising 88-74 finish. During his time as a coach and manager, he used his experiences as a veteran of the Vietnam War to
inspire and teach his players, getting them to follow his lead as a true hero; someone who'd put his life on the line for
the United States.
It was all very
heartwarming.
And it was all a lie.
Tim Johnson had never served in combat in the Marine
Corps as he claimed.
Like something
out of Tropic Thunder, Johnson promulgated this myth for years, undoubtedly increasing the amount of action he supposedly
saw in the stories he told to save face and maintain an aura of something more than a baseball player and coach. The breadth
of experience that comes from service in a war theater could only make Johnson more attractive to a team looking for a manager
and it worked as he got the job to manage the Blue Jays.
What made things worse was how Johnson not only falsified his service record (he was in the
Marines teaching mortar training to recruits heading to Vietnam), but used his faux "experiences" in meetings with
players. The Blue Jays initially stood by Johnson, but as the questions and ridicule followed him everywhere; the players
rightfully tuned him out; the public was enraged; and Johnson was fired and replaced by Jim Fregosi in spring training.
The Blue Jays had no choice then because
there was no end in sight to the mess; no chance of letting things settle and hope that Johnson would repeat his 1998 success.
The Rangers have no choice now.
How is it possible for Washington to maintain his
credibility as the field leader of a young club when he was using drugs and has come up with the oft-heard and utterly preposterous
excuse of "it was the first time"?
There are circumstances in which a manager might be allowed to endure the controversy of an off-field incident. In
1995, Bobby Cox was accused of domestic violence by his wife and charged with simple battery. In 2007, Tony La Russa was busted
for driving drunk. Billy Martin was always getting into off-field trouble.
As bad as the above cases are, they're easier to endure the firestorm because: A) the managers in question
were at the top of the heap in terms of doing their jobs on the field; and B) the incidents weren't so heinous that they risked
losing credibility with the players. People don't want to hear this truth, but the players would be able to explain away the
domestic violence; drunk driving; and whatever it was that Billy Martin used to do more readily than they'll accept a manager
lying about war service or using cocaine.
That's not to imply players didn't and don't use recreational drugs on their own (of course they do), but to have the manager
of the team using narcotics and still appearing to deny the extent of what it was he did as a 57-year-old man claiming to
have used the drug once makes Washington a dead man walking.
How can they take him seriously?
The young players emerging now must, must, must have respect and, more importantly, fear
of their manager to keep them in line on and off the field. What message does it send to Elvis Andrus; Chris Davis; Julio
Borbon; Neftali Feliz; Matt Harrison; Derek Holland and others if their manager----the supposed leader of the club----is using
recreational drugs?
The Rangers are a
very young and super-talented team playing in a state that is so conservative that their governor has suggested secession
from the union. Nolan Ryan himself is a conservative hard-liner who very seriously considered running for governor of Texas
as a Republican. He's going to hear how bad of an example Washington set; that he can't be allowed to skate through and stay
on as manager of the club; that the manager has to be replaced. It's never going to end.
In a bit of cold-blooded reality, Washington isn't a very good strategic
manager to begin with. I joked on Twitter yesterday that his being high would explain some of the bizarre moves he makes during
games. The saving grace for Washington----who was days away from being fired in 2008 before the club had a drastic turnaround
and saved his job----has been that the players always played hard for him. Sometimes that overrides the sins of repeated and
inexplicable errors. But this is too great an obstacle to overcome.
There's only so much leadership the stand-up guys in the Rangers clubhouse----captain Michael
Young; Ian Kinsler; Vladimir Guerrero----can dole out. In the end, it comes down to the manager and steering the club through
the wilderness; and young teams need someone they can look up to or at least respect. They may shrug and stand by Washington,
saying he made a mistake and owned up to it as a man; but the underlying sense will reduce Washington's stature to an untenable
level for him to stay.
The Rangers
are moving forward this charade with excuses of having been angry but accepting Washington's apology and explanation; of letting
Washington's body-of-work overcome the misstep; that they're standing by him.
It won't work because in every possible machination, it can't work.
Washington will be under managerial death watch until
the axe is swung. If the Rangers start the season 3-6; or even if they play poorly in spring training, the queries of Washington's
self-created distraction and tenuous job status will become deafening and possibly sabotage a season in which the Rangers
are legitimate playoff contenders.
On the field, the American League West is so tough that the Rangers can't afford to leave anything to chance. One game lost
because of this may well keep them from the playoffs. Off the field, the roar for Washington's dismissal to set an example
will be so loud that Ryan (probably already under siege from conservative cronies) can't ignore it.
AHHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! I can't stop laughing at the truth of this statement!
Carmona's actually been worse than Perez in the last two years after winning 19 games in 2007, looking like----and
getting paid----like a rising star.
Larry writes RE the dichotomy of me:
So
if my twitter persona, HeartyLarry, sees the Prince as a borderline psychotic whom HeartyLarry likes to tweak and provoke
and play with, my Larry persona, a lifelong baseball fan who loves watching the game, loves in-game strategy but has never
had the time or patience to follow every team closely enough to have a considered understanding or opinion about teams other
than the NYY, respects and enjoys your blog about it. No shit, Sherlock; no punchline here (except maybe that I'll pay attention
to you even though you are a Mets fan). Thanks!
Larry, it's difficult
to put you in your place as a habitual line-stepper when you say such nice things about me and promote me so enthusiastically.
I told you, the borderline psychotic
and rational, sometimes ruthless, analyst go hand-in-hand; one cannot exist without the other. A Prince divided against himself,
cannot stand. Plus, it makes me interesting. In certain cases, it seems to be an irresistible attraction through not intent
of my own. I'm either going to blow up into the public consciousness of explode like comet.
Even I can't tell you which and I'm just as curious to see as everyone
else.
I think it'll be interesting to see which Milton Bradley
shows up. Maybe he's had therapy in the off season. On second thought, probably not.
Almost on cue, hours after I published that posting, Bradley got ejected from a spring training game after a called
third strike. In fairness to Bradley, all he supposedly did was drop his bat at the plate after the call; he didn't look at,
nor did he say anything to umpire Dan Bellino.
One problem that will follow Bradley forever is this perception that he's a
deranged maniac ready to flip out at a moment's notice. Because of that and the huge argument he had with umpire Mike Winters
in 2007, the umps do----intentionally or not----have an eye and zero tolerance attitude with Bradley.
Because Bradley's over-the-edge and paranoid doesn't mean he's wrong
about the umpires provoking him.
Gabriel (Capo) writes RE Milton Bradley and Cliff (Stone Cold Killer) Lee:
How do you think Lee's presence in the clubhouse will affect Bradley? Will
he beat the crap out of him and tell him to behave, or cause a major breach on the clubhouse damaging the club?
Lee and Bradley were teammates with the Indians when Lee first came up to the big leagues; but I don't
know the nature of their relationship. Bradley doesn't appear to listen to many people and his outbursts are related to his
short temper than anything. I dunno if a fistfight is the solution nor do I know if Lee can actually fight. Because he throws
at people and is an assassin on the mound doesn't mean he can throw hands.
I'd be reluctant to take on Bradley in a fight. You can go up against a loudmouth;
someone bigger; or a person who has a rep, but if you get into it with someone who might be certifiably crazy, you're taking
your life in your hands and it's something to consider before taking that step.
The interesting thing about Bradley is that the majority of his former teammates
have rarely had anything bad to say about him. Well, there's Jeff Kent; but Jeff Kent was loathed everywhere he went----and
it was personal because Kent was an acknowledged jerk.
This could be compared to several tiresome or unintentionally
funny sequels:
If
Sylvester Stallone decided to combine Rocky and Rambo to craft a nearly unintelligible and senseless mass of egomania in which
he battles.....Mother.....Nature (Rockbo--Earthquake? Ramrock--Tsunami?) it would come nowhere close to the quality and relentless
return to the same theme that I continue to perpetrate on an unsuspecting public.
At least I have a sense of shame.
Let's take a look at some more 2010 Stories To Watch, Part VIII.
Milton Bradley:
Despite the repeated reference to Mariners GM Jack
Zduriencik as a "genius", the Mariners are an iffy contender this year. They have two of the best pitchers in baseball
after getting Cliff (Stone Cold Killer) Lee from the Phillies, and they made a lot of noise this off-season without necessarily
improving themselves all that much from the team that won 85 games last season.
Rather than call Zduriencik a "genius", I prefer to call him ballsy.
He's in on anything and everything and willing to discuss any player on his roster if he thinks he'll make his team better.
Even with that, the Mariners offense is going to be a question in 2010.
That's where Milton Bradley comes in.
Will the Mariners be getting the Milton Bradley that behaved himself well and was an MVP candidate
with the Rangers in 2008? Or will they be getting the raving lunatic he's been everywhere else he's been; always ready to
explode at the most inconspicuous slight that any and all professional athletes or public figures have to endure as a matter
of course due to their station.
It's a trade-off. If you want the advantage of being famous and wealthy, sometimes you have to listen to heckling and accept
what Bradley would refer to as "disrespect", walking away and eating it. Bradley's never been able to do that and
there's no indication that he's a changed man. It's far more likely that something's going to happen to cause a problem based
on little more than history.
The problem
for the Mariners is that they need Bradley. They need him to hit; they need him to hit the ball out of the park;
they need him to stay healthy; and they need him to behave. The first two are very possible; the latter two are not.
If the Mariners think their defense and pitching is
going to carry them through in a very rough division, they're following the lead of their GM and rolling the dice hoping it
comes up sevens. It's either going to work or it's not and the main actor in the show will be Bradley.
Amid all the noise the Mariners made----Chone Figgins; Casey Kotchman;
a long-term extension for Felix Hernandex; Lee----they also may have made a season-wrecking mistake in re-signing Ken Griffey
Jr. to be the primary DH. I can't imagine that someone as rational as Zduriencik was enamored of the move that probably came
as an order from above----they would've been far better off with Jim Thome----but this is where they are. The deal for Bradley
allowed them to get the sunk cost of Carlos Silva off the team in an exchange of two players who needed a change-of-address.
Bradley was one of the main reasons
for the Cubs collapse last season because his acquisition also predicated the trade of club leader Mark DeRosa. The Cubs chemistry
was shot from that moment on and all indications are that they're not going to recover.
So which Bradley are they going to get?
Who knows? But if the Mariners think they're going to contend, they'd
better hope they get the well-behaved and productive Bradley and not the out-of-control maniac. Their season rides on it.
A Reds housecleaning:
In certain circles, the Reds are seen as a darkhorse
contender.
I don't see it. They have
one of the worst outfields in baseball and don't hit enough; but if their deep starting pitching performs, they could hang
around respectability; that alone could keep them in contention if the number of wins for the Wild Card hovers around 85 or
so.
If they're playing poorly into May/June,
you could see a drastic and wide swinging of the axe by GM Walt Jocketty to reload. Bronson Arroyo; Aaron Harang; Francisco
Cordero; and manager Dusty Baker could all be caught in the crossfire and moved. Arroyo and Harang have contract options for
2011, but could be free agents at the end of this season; Cordero's guaranteed $13 million for 2011.
Depending on what's coming back, the Reds might be willing to eat some
of the money to get better prospects in the deal. All three would be attractive to a contending team. I've never been shy
in my admiration for the gutty and unflappable Arroyo; Harang's been horrible in the last few years, but isn't far removed
from being one of the best pitchers in baseball that few knew about; and Cordero would either be a fine set-up man to bolster
a bullpen or a closer for a contender.
With Baker, his contract is up at the end of the year and his reputation in recent years has taken a brutal beating. I don't
think Baker is a bad manager and he's been a historic winner; but unless the Reds contend, he's not getting a contract extension,
so he could go and go early.
The Reds
have a lot of talent, but even in the weak NL Central they might not have the horses to be in the race. They'll make sweeping
changes if things aren't going well.
And I don't think things are going to go well.
How bad are the Indians going to be?
Some of the projections have the Indians winning as many as 81 games (unless they've been changed again,
and they might've been; I haven't checked). Where this came from, I have no clue.
The Indians are awful.
They have absolutely no pitching and their offense, while serviceable, won't be good enough to account
for the starting pitching that includes Jake Westbrook (returning from Tommy John surgery and immediate trade bait); Fausto
Carmona (the right-handed Oliver Perez); two soft-tossing lefties (Jeremy Sowers; Aaron Laffey); and youth (Carlos Carrasco;
David Huff).
The bullpen ain't
that great either.
Unless Travis
Hafner suddenly finds a magical potion to stay healthy, they're a work-in-progress at the plate and a disaster on the mound.
They're not going to be bad. They're going to be superbad.
One big question I have is whether Mark Shapiro will put it out there that Grady Sizemore is up for
discussion in trade talks. I think he might and that would be a feeding frenzy if Sizemore's healthy and playing well.
Nationals release Elijah Dukes:
You can't argue with the decision in the context of on-or-off-field issues.
Supposedly it had nothing to do with off-field stuff and Dukes, despite
his absurd talent, has yet to put it all together apart from flashes and towering homers. The Nationals are a weird amalgam
of young players; useful journeyman (and that includes their manager); and veterans on their last legs. It makes no sense
to play Dukes if they don't see him getting any better than he is; if he's never going to fulfill his limitless natural gifts;
and if they're intent on playing the best eight every day, then a benched Dukes could cause trouble; trouble they didn't need.
I might've let Dukes play for the first month, hoped
he hit and behaved, then traded him; but I understand where the Nats are coming from.
Who might pick up Elijah Dukes?
His talent is alluring and if a team has a strong support system with a manager
he'd listen to and respect, he's worth a shot with a no-tolerance policy for on-and-off field behavior. If I was running a
team, I'd sign him and make it clear that he wasn't going to get away with anything with me.
He'd be at the plate with one strike and I'd be egotistical enough
to think that he might listen to me for no other reason than that I wouldn't be afraid of him.
It might work.
Viewer Mail 3.17.2010:
Jeff
(Street Boss) at Red State Blue State writes RE Cliff (Stone Cold Killer) Lee:
Totally agree on Cliff Lee. Stone cold killer. He just
has that Patrick Bateman like gaze in his eyes (and I know you're no fan of Ellis but ya gotta admit Lee has that gaze).
Lee's persona is what a pitcher's persona SHOULD be! It gives me goosebumps knowin' such a player still exists, as
it is surely a thing of beauty.
Players get so angry when someone like Lee does what
needs to be done because they're: A) not used to getting out of the way of a thrown ball because so few pitchers are willing
to brush them back at any level; and B) are so buddy-buddy with opposing players that they expect everyone to give them that
courtesy.
Lee wasn't trying to hurt
Snyder; it was a message. Nothing wrong with sending a message. It says something about the receiver of said messenger's fortitude
based on how they react. If they retract into their shell or out-and-out run away, you can pretty much get a gauge on where
they stand and if you want them with you in a dark alley.
Gabriel (Capo) writes RE the insipid idea of Ryan Howard for Albert Pujols
and Ruben Amaro Jr:
Could Amaro be so angry because the news leaked far
earlier than they could've wanted?
I think Lee's trade to the Phillies revitalized him, and he now means business.
So glad the Jays don't face him regularly.
Amaro's reaction was so visceral; so incensed that
I can't imagine that to be the case. He was mad because he, as the front man of the Phillies, was undercut by a story that
may or may not be true and is something that he wouldn't have wanted to deal with now even if it is accurate.
With Lee, the move from the fading Indians to the
Phillies and his first chance at post-season participation did wake him up and spur him to another level. He's going to have
a massive year with the Mariners. Then he's getting paid.
Because a reporter is not required to reveal
his sources----whether they exist or not----doesn't preclude a club from conducting an internal investigation as to who's
leaking stories that are either inaccurate or that they don't want out in the public for fear of a PR disaster.
Such a situation is currently being faced by the Phillies
and----through not fault of their own----the Cardinals because of Buster Olney's reporting of internal discussions the Phillies
supposedly had of trying to deal Ryan Howard to the Cardinals for Albert Pujols. As the days pass and more and more people
react apoplectically and with utter bewilderment, the heat on whomever leaked this story----again, accurate or not----is increasing
incrementally. One would have to assume that if Olney embellished something he heard in the wind from a mid-to-low level staffer,
the pressure on him is rising as well.
Unless Olney really goes over the deep end (okay, further over the deep end) and reveals his source (he'd never get
any real insider scoops again, so forget it), the information's not going to come from him. Let me be clear here: I'm not
accusing Olney of making up the story because I have no idea where he got it; but it could've been anything from anyone, anywhere
in the Phillies hierarchy and he ran with it before getting real confirmation from someone in a position of power that it
was anything more than a passing mention in fantasy of what they'd like to be able to do knowing that it was nearly
impossible to complete.
The Phillies
front office led by Ruben Amaro Jr. has reacted swiftly, angrily and adamantly in their statements; the Cardinals were clueless
because they were never even approached with this silliness----ESPN Story.
The clip regarding Amaro:
Phillies general manager Ruben Amaro Jr. denied his team had discussed a trade and used "lies"
and "ridiculous" and "irresponsible" to describe the report.
The clip regarding Cardinals manager Tony La Russa:
"Our organization plans on making Albert a player
to start and finish his career here, and Albert has said he wants to stay here, so why would anybody want to start speculating?"
he said.
I judge the veracity of such a proposal by the subsequent reaction from
the participants. With the way Amaro forcefully and angrily denied the rumor; and La Russa so stunned, it's clear that this
is absolute garbage. If a team is considering such a move and has executives who choose their words carefully and answer questions
without answering questions, you can read between the lines and tell what's really being said. If Amaro said something
to the tune of, "That's a wild suggestion for the acknowledged best hitter in baseball", but neither confirmed or
denied, that'd be an answer right there; the answer being that it was considered and discussed.
There are also instances where stories are leaked to get a public reaction
to how it would play out and lay the groundwork so it's not such a shock to everyone involved; also so that the clubs couldn't
back out and say forget it when it's gone too far. There's a method to the madness. These things are sometimes strategically
dropped into the water to see the ripple and whether it creates a devastating tsunami or is an acceptable splash.
Such is not the case here.
Amaro seemed genuinely angry.
Is Olney going to have a problem because of this? Will he have to start
backtracking on his "story"?
Doubtful.
Even if he doesn't have
a real source or it was something akin to a game of telephone that got out of hand, we're unlikely to ever know it from anyone
at ESPN. That said, there's nothing to stop Amaro----if he's mad enough----to deal with it himself in his own organization
by flushing out the person who supposedly leaked this.
The confines of "reporters not revealing their sources" doesn't apply to inter-organizational
politics. If I were Amaro, I'd find out who was whispering this stuff to Olney and their betrayal would be dealt with. So
as not to make this a distraction, I'd have my key people put the word out that I simply wanted to know who said this; who
spoke to Olney and hurt the club with this story. The sooner they 'fessed up, the better for them.
The consequences would vary upon who it was. If it was a loudmouthed low-level
staffer, I'd fire him. If it was someone I needed, he'd be warned. Failing that, I'd put it out there that the guilty party
wouldn't be fired from their job; I just wanted to know who it was. This too would be an example of semantics because not
firing them wouldn't preclude me from making their life so miserable at work that they up and quit.
This type of thing, if true, is damaging to the Phillies organization;
it has to be nipped in the bud. If Amaro is telling the truth, his credibility is on the line as the leader of the Phillies
front office and it has to be handled.
One way or the other.
Cliff Lee--stone
cold killer:
Spring training
isn't too early to send a message and Cliff Lee obviously did just that when he fired two inside pitches at Diamondbacks'
catcher Chris Snyder after the two collided as Lee was backing up home plate----ESPN Story.
Lee was ejected after the second
pitch, which was over Snyder's head; Snyder walked to the mound, both benches emptied, but no punches were thrown. Lee denied
throwing at Snyder, but as the mouthy Mark Reynolds put it, "I've faced Cliff Lee plenty of times to know he's got amazing
control."
If you watch the clip,
Lee was throwing at Snyder.
More evidence
(as if you needed it) that Lee is a cold-blooded assassin out on the mound and couldn't care less about perceived propriety
in spring training. Taking liberties, intentional or not, will be handled on the field.
After the way he dismantled any and all comers in the post-season last
year, including the mighty Yankees, it's clear that Lee means business in his contract year. He's getting paid; he's doing
what must be done; and it's one of the coolest things you'll see on a baseball field.
In an era where players are so friendly that it's driving such vicious competitors
like Bob Gibson to wonder why they don't take each other for beers during the game or why they play at all, it's refreshing
to see such ruthlessness from a modern player who's so clearly old-school that he's ahead of the game.
I know it's spring training, but...
The only times to place any weight on a spring training performance are
when it's a young player trying to make a club or a veteran returning from injury.
With that the case, there's genuine cause for concern for the Athletics over
the way Ben Sheets has been pitching. He's been getting blasted----SFGate Story----and there has to be legitimate worry that the guaranteed $10 million the A's gave him will end up going down the tubes.
Does this matter when the season starts? In the cosmic
scheme of things, no; but with Sheets, there's never been any conscientious objection to yanking himself from a game when
he's not feeling 100%; it's not as if he's going to stay out on the mound if he's hurt. Because of that, he might feel great
and be pitching horribly, which is on the same level of bad news for the Athletics.
For Sheets's state of mind and the hopes of the team getting anything
out of him, they'd better get a better performance from him at some point in the spring because if he pitches like this, it
doesn't bode well for the Billy Beane $10 million Hail Mary that he'd get the front-of-the-rotation ace that Sheets has been
in the past; in fact, it could be another mound of dirt on Beane's Moneyball-crafted "genius".
Nice link between Heyward and Frenchie. I've been wondering
the same thing.
As for Pujols for Howard... thank you for squashing such a FUCKING RIDICULOUS AND ASININE non-story
from Buster Shoe-Licker Olney.
Please, Buster. Please. Go out and get laid, Buster. Please. You need it.
The Braves don't appear to get it. Amid all the ridicule doled out on teams like the Mets, the Braves
front office screw-ups going back to when John Schuerholz's tenure as the GM was winding down has been relatively ignored.
With the battles between Bobby Cox and GM Frank Wren (much of it centered around the treatment of Jeff Francoeur), they've
been a foundation of dysfunction. Heyward's a great talent, but they're not being fair with a 20-year-old kid anointing him
as a savior.
With Olney, I have no idea
of his personal issues/proclivities; but I seriously think he's too far gone for your eminently reasonable suggestion to do
any good now.
Yeah,
the Cardinals would really swap Pujols for Howard. Um, no. Ridiculous. Could never happen. Of course that's what I said when
the Phillies dealt Cliff Lee.
As big a mistake as the trade of Lee was, at the very
least there was an argument for it----a stupid argument that is going to cement the Phillies' downfall, but an argument nonetheless.
With this deal, it'd be a great idea for the Phillies, but the Cardinals would never do it.
Never. Never. Never.
If they even entertained the idea of trading Pujols, they'd send him to the American League and
preferably to the West Coast. It's not happening.
Gabriel (Capo) writes RE Albert Pujols:
Maybe
the Phillies are discussing that trade, but it's an illusion. They don't have the money to pay Pujols what he would want to
leave St. Louis.
The Phillies have signed their core players to long
term deals; they have Halladay on the books and aren't going to be able to keep Jayson Werth; the trade of Howard would free
up some cash; presumably, they'd find a way to do it; but they'd have to let Jimmy Rollins go (which they should do anyway);
and they're going to have to pay Cole Hamels and J.A. Happ eventually.
Plus if Pujols allows a trade, he is going to want the Alex Rodriguez-money that Olney
suggests would be the motivating factor for the Cardinals to think about moving him. The Phillies won't pay him $275 million.
There are maybe five teams that could do it now; and probably none that would. Forget it.
The old adage of a reporter protecting his sources
is understandable and necessary; but it works both ways. The cloak of secrecy that surrounds said "unnamed" sources
can spur the desperate and unimaginative to (at best) exaggerate; or (at worst) out-and-out conjure up a phantom quote to
create a story. I have no idea which is the case with Buster Olney's latest bit of absurdity suggesting that the Phillies
had internal discussions of a Ryan Howard for Albert Pujols trade, but the very idea isn't just stretching the boundaries
of reality, but destroying it.
It's not as if Olney has any credibility left to begin with and it's hard to know whether this stuff is due to pressure
from above at ESPN to initiate buzz and garner attention rather than report news from an entity that still casts itself as
the "worldwide leader in sports". Aside from Jerry Crasnick and Jayson Stark, the writers and bloggers at ESPN are
lazy, incompetent, faux experts who don't bother to put any effort into their work----or simply make stuff up.
Long ago, I accepted the fact that the mainstream
writers who are aware of my shadowy existence: A) hate me; B) want nothing to do with me because I'm such a loose cannon;
and C) feel free to rob me or try to refute arguments I've made without crediting me.
It's fine because I'm glad to be able to write, say and do what I want
without some corporation breathing down my neck steering me in a direction convenient for their own nefarious ends.
I've got a few nefarious ends of my own.
I'm not a monster.
I'm just ahead of the curve.
That said, let's look at a proposed trade of Albert Pujols for Ryan Howard. Here's
the Olney posting----link.
The relevant quotes (to be examined
with----let's be gentle----a skeptical gaze:
...according to sources, an idea has been kicked around
the Phillies' organization internally, with discussions about proposing a swap of slugger Ryan Howard for St. Louis superstar
Albert Pujols.
The logic for a Howard for Pujols swap, as discussed
within the Phillies' organization, could fall along these lines: Pujols, 30 years old, is eligible for free agency after the
2011 season, and early conversations about a contract extension have not led to any long-term deal. The expectation within
baseball is that Pujols may ask for a deal that would rival, in annual value, the record-setting 10-year, $275 million deal
that Alex Rodriguez negotiated with the Yankees in fall 2007.
If the Cardinals were to decide, at any point, that they could not afford to sign Pujols, they could consider dealing him,
in the way the Toronto Blue Jays traded Roy Halladay, or the Minnesota Twins traded Johan Santana.
And Howard, who is just a couple of months older than
Pujols, would not be a bad alternative. In the past four seasons, Howard has hit 198 homers and accumulated 572 RBIs, and
has finished in the top five of the NL MVP race.
Here's the public relations kicker: Howard was born in St. Louis, and is regarded as a hometown kid
in that city.
We'll ignore the patched together "story"; the nonsensical,
non-existent logic therein; the atrocious writing; that it could've been said as a passing joke among low-level staffers and
that Phillies GM Ruben Amaro Jr. said the following at the mere suggestion:
Phillies general manager
Ruben Amaro flatly denied that the internal discussions have taken place. "Lies," he said. "That's a lie. I
don't know who you're talking to, but that's a lie."
Let's instead examine
the idea as if it's real.
In comparing
the two as players, the 30-year-old Albert Pujols (if his age is accurate) is in fact two months younger than Ryan Howard. The misconception in ages is a direct result of the Phillies having kept Howard in the minors until he was 25.
Pujols is the best hitter in baseball. Period.
He murders both lefties and righties; he gets on base 45% of the time; he hits tons of homers; loads of extra base hits; bats
.330; can steal bases; rarely strikes out; and is a great fielder.
Howard, as powerful and productive as he is has gigantic holes in his game. He was horrific against
lefties last season to the point where it wouldn't have been out of line for the Phillies to platoon him. He batted .207;
had 6 homers; a .298 on base percentage; and 83 strikeouts in 252 plate appearances. In any language and by any measurement
that...is...unacceptable.
Howard will
hit 45 homers and drive in 130 runs; while he's a better fielder than he's given credit for, he's nowhere near Pujols; and
he strikes out 200 times a year.
Then we get to money.
Like Joe Mauer,
Pujols is not a money whore. All you need do when determining whether a player is going to hold his team hostage by impending
free agency is check his representation. If the name Scott Boras appears next to the player's name, you can pretty much guess
where it's going. If the name Ron Shapiro (Mauer) or Dan Lozano (Pujols) is their agent, then squeezing every single penny
from the club is not the motivating factor in making a deal or where he plays.
Is Pujols going to want to be paid commensurately with his performance when he receives
his next contract? Yes. Is he going to look for an exorbitant ransom from the Cardinals or shoehorn his way to the only cities
that can pay him like Los Angeles, New York, Boston or Baltimore? No.
Pujols will be faced with the Cardinals salary structure and that they cannot turn the dual trick of
paying Pujols and surrounding him with the players the club needs to be a legitimate contender. Pujols loves St.
Louis; he's happy there and as long as Tony La Russa and Dave Duncan are patrolling the dugout, he has a chance to win. Would
he need the aggravation of Philadelphia? A city that will boo him if he grounds out in his first at bat in a Phillies uniform?
Let's say Pujols decides he wants
an Alex Rodriguez contract, would he really want to deal with New York? With Boston? He'd handle it, but he doesn't have
to. He can do no wrong in St. Louis; he's won his championship; they're an annual contender; and he's going to get an
amount of money that he's going to be wealthy beyond any normal comprehension.
So why be a hard-liner? Why?
The idea that Howard going back to his hometown of St. Louis would ease the sting of losing Pujols
is a stupid reason to make a deal on the surface before even getting to the quality of the players. Pujols is head-and-shoulders
better than Howard.
It's not just
dumb; the stuff that would emanate from a voice that literally knows nothing about baseball, it's downright ridiculous. When
the GM of the club in question says something to the tune of "that's a lie" you have to question the motive and
scrupulousness of the author and the forum upon which it was published. Is Olney out of his mind to write this? ESPN to publish
it? Are they sure they want to go down this road?
As if ESPN didn't have enough issues in the credibility and morality of reporting to begin with, they get worse and
worse. I'd say they've found the bottom of the barrel, but considering how things have degenerated to lower levels on a weekly
basis, I can't say they won't get worse.
If they had any shame, I'd say they should be embarrassed; but like the Pujols for Howard trade, that's a fantasy. They can
tie the noose around their own necks. I'll be glad to pull the lever. It's my pleasure in fact.
Have the Braves learned nothing from Jeff Francoeur?
To have a player dubbed as "The Natural"
and promoted as the next superstar by the media and the club itself, then to blame him when he slumps; demote him; and send
him to the minor leagues and finally dispatch him should've been enough of a wake-up call to ditch the hyperbole and let a
player's stature grow organically as he develops; but the Braves are in the process of making the same mistake with Jason
Heyward.
This is not to equate Francoeur's
abilities to Heyward's, but the comparisons are, in fact, worse. How can a 20-year-old player walk into big league camp and
be told by the Hall of Fame manager Bobby Cox that he's similar to Willie Mays, Mickey Mantle and Hank Aaron and not feel
the pressure of those comments?
Heyward knows that the club is short in the power department and will need him to come in and be a mid-lineup terror. At 20-years-old,
it's wrong. It's a possible hindrance to his development; and if he slumps or fails and needs to be sent back to the minors,
is he going to be able to recover? The smart thing to do would have been to low-key it; say that Heyward will get a chance
to show what he's got in the spring, but is likely to begin the season in the minors for more experience, keeping it close-to-the-vest
that the intention is to give him every chance to make the big leagues and be the everyday right fielder.
Instead, the Braves are turning this kid into a larger-than-life savior
just as they did with Francoeur and it's wrong.
They made the identical mistake with Francoeur and it fell apart. Evidently they haven't learned their lesson and it could be to the detriment of
another potential star player. It'll be the organization's fault if he falters.
Aceves's spring success is not helping the Yankees:
Yankees righty Alfredo Aceves, battling for the
fifth spot in the starting rotation, has been pitching masterfully all spring. While this normally wouldn't be seen as a problem,
it's creating a dilemma for the Yankees as they've clearly wanted either Phil Hughes and Joba Chamberlain to stake their claim
to the rotation spot once and for all. Chamberlain's been terrible; Hughes has been pitching well, but not as well as Aceves.
Based on performance alone, clearly
Aceves would be the fifth starter; and the Yankees have put themselves in this position of having to watch and essentially
hope that Aceves doesn't pitch as well as he has to make things easier for them to insert either Hughes or Chamberlain into
the rotation.
Hughes is still the likeliest
of the candidates to be named fifth starter and won't be needed to start a game until mid-April anyway; it's not really a
"competition" but a mind-game to keep the two young starters' heads together as they vie for the slot. Chamberlain
has been so rotten that he's not only losing the battle, but if he keeps pitching like this he might be sent to the minors
(unlikely); or kept in Florida for extended spring training (very possible).
Chamberlain could be inadvertently self-sabotaging since everyone----the media, the fans, the players
and Chamberlain himself----knows that he wants to be a reliever; that he should be a reliever. That doesn't matter.
The only voices that count are the factions in the Yankees front office that insist Chamberlain should be given the chance
to be a starter. His head is so screwed up by the way the club has jerked him around that it's no wonder he's degenerating
into a total disaster.
The Yankees now
find themselves in an untenable situation. Aceves has taken the lead in the race, but on this Yankees team, he's not a starter;
he's more valuable out of the bullpen as a multiple-innings gobbler. He and the other background actors in the drama----Chad
Gaudin and Sergio Mitre----knew they had little chance of wresting the job from Hughes/Chamberlain with Gaudin and Mitre not
even guaranteed of a spot on the big league roster.
Based on performance, of course Aceves would win the job; but Hughes is the man who should be the fifth starter. The
Yankees know this and they're going to have to twist things to make that happen if Aceves pitches as well as he has. It's
not that big of a problem, but it's something to be vigilant about.
If Hughes and Chamberlain are edged out or even demoted, they'd both have a right to pop off to the
club. Teams tell their players in spring training not to worry too much about stats and performance, then use stats and performance
to justify what they do. It's not fair to tell Hughes/Chamberlain to work on their changeups; or to pump fastballs in without
concern for results, then punish them if they get shelled.
No matter how well Aceves pitches, barring anything catastrophic, Phil Hughes will be in the Yankees starting rotation
because it was never a competition to begin with; it was a statement for consumption without truth.
This happens quite often where one thing is said to the players and
the public, but circumstances require a contradiction that looks like a lie. But it's not a lie. As was said in Ball Four,
it's just baseball.
JOE MAUER'S NOT LEAVING
MINNESOTA, GET...IT...INTO....YOUR....HEADS!!!!!!
Now there are rumors going around that with the Joe Mauer contract negotiations hitting a snag, the
Twins might consider trading him.
Listen
to me very carefully:
Joe.
Mauer.
Is.
Not.
Leaving.
The.
Minnesota.
Twins.
Get it?
Not.....leaving.
He's not going anywhere.
Comprende?
Comprendre?
Ymmärtää?
לִהַבִין?
أدرك?
First of all, he doesn't want to leave. Second of all, the Twins can't let him leave. Third of all,
there's no way for the club to get equal value for him if they did trade him. Fourth, they're moving into a new ballpark with
all sorts of good feeling and a promise of contention (even without Joe Nathan); they have a real chance to win a championship
this year.
He's not going anywhere.
I've gone on again and again about Mauer and the Twins
needing each other; about how his agent Ron Shapiro is the polar opposite of Scott Boras in that he first asks his players
where they want to play before even starting with the monetary aspects of the deal; the club can't let him leave.
But for argument sake, let's say hypothetically
that things break down completely in the contract talks and the Twins do entertain the notion of dealing the best hitter in
baseball this side of Albert Pujols.
What are they going to get for him?
The Twins don't exactly have the best trading history in the world in recent years. Both the Johan Santana trade and the Matt
Garza/Jason Bartlett for Delmon Young trades were train wrecks; and they're going to get a fraction of what Mauer's worth
on and off the field if they did consider moving him.
In this economy, no team is going to sacrifice a chunk of their farm system and essentially sign Mauer
to a $200 million contract to keep him. Despite Mauer not being a "pay me" player whose main focus is money, if
he's traded to a big market team with the prospects to get him (the Yankees, Red Sox, Mets, Dodgers), he's going to say he
wants his money; and we're talking an Alex Rodriguez-type contract.
The Twins screwed up the Santana trade hideously by asking for too much from the Yankees and Red
Sox, who were both reluctant to make the trade-and-sign transaction. The only deal left for the Twins was what the Mets offered
and they had no choice but to take it. It was a total washout. The way things are now, they might end up getting less for Mauer than they got for Santana!
If you add the new ballpark into the equation and the explosion that would be heard among Twins fans
if Mauer was traded, it makes no sense, so end the speculation.
They won't trade Mauer. Mauer's going to be a Twin. Period.
Why is there this shock about the Blue Jays passing on Marco Scutaro?
I could understand such stupidity from the first I
heard expressing his shock at the Blue Jays not making a full effort to re-sign Marco Scutaro (it was Michael Kay; I think
that's enough of a reason to dismiss it); but now Bill Madden has said something similar in his column today:
Of all the new faces in Boston's winter makeover, the most interesting
is the 34-year-old Scutaro, who is just now getting recognized as an above-average shortstop after nearly a decade (with five
different organizations) of being labeled a utilityman. For reasons only they can explain, the rebuilding Blue Jays made no
effort to re-sign Scutaro after he hit .282 with 12 homers and 60 RBI for them last year and tied for the AL lead in fielding
for shortstops.
It's Marco Scutaro!!!
The man is 34-years-old; coming off his career year after having been an okay utilityman for a few
years. Uh, Bill? He was "labeled a utilityman" because that's what he was. The Blue Jays, with no chance of contending
this year and in the midst of a retooling, had no need of Scutaro and no chance to keep him. None. They weren't going to beat
the Red Sox offer for him and the Athletics had in fact offered more for Scutaro.
In fact, what would the likes of Madden and especially that buffoon Kay
say if the Blue Jays overpaid to keep Scutaro and he reverted to his career numbers for a team that was going to lose 90 games? Would the Blue Jays be ripped for repeating similar mistakes under Alex Anthopolous
as they made under J.P. Ricciardi? Or would it be the understanding that the current questions imply that keeping him was
a good idea?
It's Marco....Scutaro!!!!!
They were right to let him leave
because they don't need him. It was the smart move.
First time shame on us. Second time shame on the NY
Times. There is no doubt now, Rhoden is out of his baseball mind and good job staying on top of it Prince. How the Times has
fallen, from the great columnist Mr. Dave Anderson, to the daydream of sportswriting blather. Gimmie Joel Sherman!
I actually treasure these guys because they give me stuff to write about.
I can't get on board with Sherman though; he's not as bad as Rhoden, but
he's no prize either.
G.E.
writes RE Rhoden:
From reading Rhoden for the last few years, it seems
that he has an unspoken agenda: to write about minorities in sports...and usually to defend the decisions of said minorities...
I wouldn't attack him for that basically because I haven't paid much attention to him since the Billy
Wagner column I mentioned two days ago. He can write about what he wants; but when he gets into baseball and writes crap,
I'm watching....and waiting. If he steps into my domain, he'd better know what he's saying----or at least have an organized
argument. The last two days have shown that he has neither.
Jeff (Street Boss) at Red State Blue State writes RE the Diamondbacks:
If anything aptly represents the Diamondbacks' failure, it's gotta be Eric
Byrnes (who's must be laughing all the way to the proverbial bank... still, right?!?).
The contract extension to Byrnes was crazy and they're paying almost all of the $11 million he's owed this year so
he can play with the Mariners. That said, it was Byrnes's team-igniting blowup that was the catalyst to the division title
in 2007 as Bud Black and Jake Peavy decided to "finish off" the Diamondbacks by pitching Peavy on short rest since
he'd been so successful against them that whole season.
Here's the result of that brilliant bit of strategy: 4 innings pitched; 8 earned runs allowed on 7 hits; with 3 walks;
and homers allowed to Conor Jackson and Miguel Montero.
Byrnes whipped the Diamondbacks into such an enraged frenzy that they went on to win the division title and the
Padres stumbled out of the playoffs. That wasn't worth the money that they've ended up paying him, but his time as a Diamondback
wasn't a complete loss.
With the spotlight shining on the problems the
Mets are having on the East Coast, there's an even bigger nightmare playing itself out for a team that appeared to have an
even brighter future three years ago----the Arizona Diamondbacks.
Built on the premise of two Cy Young-quality starting pitchers and a young core, the Diamondbacks have
unraveled since their stunning run to a division title in 2007. In 2008, widely expected to build on the 2007 division title,
GM Josh Byrnes acquired Dan Haren from the Athletics to combine with Brandon Webb for the best 1-2 punch in baseball; he improved
the bullpen with Chad Qualls; and the middle of the starting rotation with Randy Johnson. During that season, he also made
aggressive moves to bolster the offense getting Adam Dunn; and the pitching staff with Jon Rauch.
It didn't work.
Despite having a young lineup with great power potential, they were 10th in the National League in
runs scored and finished at a disappointing 82-80.
By 2009, again expected to contend, injuries decimated the team. Webb went on the disabled list after one start and
underwent shoulder surgery. Despite Haren's brilliance, the club stumbled early in the season resulting in the firing of manager
Bob Melvin and the curious decision to install A.J. Hinch----heretofore a front office executive with no managerial experience----as
the new manager.
It was made worse
as the onus of the organizational stumble was placed over the head of Melvin; Byrnes asserted that Hinch would provide "organizational
advocacy", implying that he'd do as he was told putting him in an even more untenable situation with a shorter leash
to build a manager-player rapport. The players, who liked and respected Melvin were stunned by the change and who was brought
in; Hinch was left in an impossible position of gaining respect in a clubhouse while learning on the job.
That being said, the Stanford educated Hinch appeared
to gain his footing as the season moved along; and even with the injury-riddled year resulting in a 70-92 record and last
place finish, there was hope for the club if Webb was able to return at full strength. Having watched him, I can say that
strategically, Hinch did the right things the majority of the time.
Byrnes made a trade that was questioned by many as he dealt young pitchers Max Scherzer and Dan Schlererth
in a three-team move that brought starting pitchers Edwin Jackson and Ian Kennedy to Arizona. I didn't think it was a bad
deal for the Diamondbacks at all. But the entire 2010 season is hinging on the health of Webb----and he's a giant question
mark.
With Webb still experiencing shoulder
issues----ESPN Story----the Diamondbacks are going to have to rely on the lineup, bullpen and other starters to pick up for a recovering Cy Young
Award winner and two-time runner up for the award.
There's no replacing Webb.
In
looking past Webb at the rest of the club, the holes are too massive to ignore. They're strangely constructed and shaky with
pieces thrown together in the hopes that they'll mesh.
Relying on Conor Jackson returning to form after missing almost the entire 2009 season with illness; hoping Chris Young
can reverse his plummet; that Mark Reynolds repeats his 44 homer 2009; that Edwin Jackson will build on the Dave Stewart-like
excellence for the Tigers last season; and that Ian Kennedy does, well, does something.
If Conor Jackson is healthy, there's no reason not to expect a comeback
from him. Young's what he is----an overpaid, pedestrian player with huge flaws; Reynolds strikes out over 200 times a year
and is awful defensively; but the pitching is the key.
Edwin Jackson needs his defense to back him up. Despite a near 100-mph fastball, he's a contact pitcher---and the Diamondbacks
defense is rotten.
Kennedy still
has the word "potential" hovering over his head after his rapid rise through the Yankees system; the overhype that
said he was "better" and more "polished" that Joba Chamberlain in Phil Hughes has proven to be a gigantic
weight around his ankles; and he's been damaged even further by the constant running of his mouth. Those that focus on numbers
above all sanity continue to say that Kennedy will be good because of his minor league success; but when I watched Ian Kennedy,
I saw a pitcher whose stuff was simply not good enough to be a successful big leaguer----and that's before getting to his
bluster and inexplicably high opinion of himself.
In the low minors, when the hitters are still learning their craft and can't handle a pitcher who throws strikes and
has the ability to change speeds, Kennedy feasted on those circumstances; when he got to Triple A, that the players are older
and have flaws that prevents them from being anything more than organizational filler allowed him to again look as if he was
a top-of-the-rotation starter in waiting.
Then he got to the big leagues.
In the big leagues, the discipline of the hitters let them lay off of Kennedy's pitches that the minor leaguers swung at.
He walked more hitters and because his stuff isn't that good to begin with, got tattooed. Then his flapping mouth angered
teammates; his inability to listen made things worse; and he failed. Miserably.
This is not going to get better even as he moves to the National League. He doesn't
have the stuff to be anything more than a 5th-6th starter. The problem for the Diamondbacks is that without Webb, they're
going to need Kennedy as a third starter.
So what you have is a team with a lineup that strikes out too much; a short starting rotation; a bad bullpen; a neophyte manager;
an atrocious defense; playing in a hellish division.
The optimism in Arizona is a fantasy. They were in trouble with Webb. Right now, they're going to be lucky
to get 25 starts from Webb and who knows of the quality of those innings? Without him? They're going to collapse.
Barring something miraculous in the desert, it's going
to get bad for the Diamondbacks in 2010.
Very bad.
C'mon columnist, keep makin'
my life easy:
Now, you
see?
Look at the above examination
of the Diamondbacks.
There's a premise;
a body explaining the premise; and a conclusion.
Of course it's peppered with my general lunacy (I'm almost out-of-control when I write this stuff, but I steer the
ship as best I can), but agree or not, it makes sense.
Then we get to my newest target, William C. Rhoden of the New York Times, and I have to wonder whether he grasps the
concept of writing a column.
There's
a thing called organization. Ever hear of it?
In today's column, a day after extolling the Phillies stupidity for trading Cliff Lee for Roy Halladay and a Double
A closer, Rhoden turns to the floating piñata known in some circles as the Metropolitan Baseball Club of New York;
AKA the New York Mets----column.
Here's a clip from Rhoden's rip job
about Jose Reyes:
...right out of the blocks the Mets are faced with a great spring mystery:
Exactly what is wrong with Reyes?
Reyes was placed on the disabled list last May with a torn right hamstring. Now he is sidelined by a mysterious thyroid ailment
that seems to have come from nowhere.
Reyes has seen several specialists. Tests have shown he has slightly elevated thyroid levels. According to doctors, elevated
thyroid levels can cause dehydration, which puts stress on the heart.
Most rehabilitation requires exercise and conditioning, but for Reyes, doctors
have prescribed rest and inactivity.
The Mets seem confident that Reyes will be back in uniform and will be close to the Reyes of old. All things considered, the
Mets appear to be dreaming.
You wonder if the franchise has another plan.
A plan for what?
How does one make that leap from a torn hamstring
(which was mishandled by the club) to blaming them for a player having a medical issue with his thyroid? What were
they supposed to do? Put Reyes in a cage and monitor the diet and comings and goings of a grown man in his mid-20s? How are
they to blame for the thyroid condition?
What did he want them to do, exactly?
Reyes has a medical problem that all doctors spoken to regarding the matter seem to agree has been handled appropriately
by the club. If anything, the Mets have gone above and beyond in caution with Reyes because of what happened last
year.
Then there's a shadowy and imprecise
Rx from Rhoden for what ails the Mets, but he refuses or is unable to state it clearly as if to leave himself room to extricate
himself from the cage of his own words.
Since 2006 the Mets have been operating under Plan A:
a team with a core group of players that included Carlos Delgado, Carlos Beltran, David Wright
and Reyes. Plan A took them to the N.L.C.S. But the core is crumbling. Wright is solid but coming off a dismal season. Delgado’s
career seems to have come to an end. Beltran, at 32, is coming off knee surgery. And Reyes faces a future that is uncertain
at best.
The time has come for Minaya and the Mets to seriously
consider Plan B.
That was the last line in the column.
Generally, when someone presents a failed plan A as
a reason for moving on to Plan B, they give, y'know, details of what Plan B is. They don't simply end a column with,
"seriously consider Plan B".
What is this mysterious Plan B? Is it some James Bond villain plot for world domination that Omar Minaya has cooked
up and only shared with William C. Rhoden under the promise of secrecy?
I must know the details of Plan B!!!!!
How is this turned into an indictment of the organization because of what happened
last year? As yesterday's column on the Phillies showed (which I discussed----in detail) in Rhoden's world, apples are oranges
and vice versa, anything to get a column completed and published no matter how discombobulated and senseless.
He'll have a long season writing baseball if he keeps
it up.
With Lee the Phillies could have plowed through the
NL East like Sanitation in two inches of snow. I would have opted for a BigThree. I think the Phils and your featured writer
out-thunk themselves on this one.
Rhoden was looking for something to write about without
any conviction or an utter lack of knowledge, neither of which I can abide.
Gabriel (Capo) writes RE Roy Halladay:
I feel bad for Doc. He wanted to win, and he's going to get a chance, but
it's not gonna happen.
Don't feel bad for Roy Halladay. He had every right
to do what he did in forcing his way out of Toronto and to his preferred locale, but trading Lee was the way the Phillies
chose to do it. They're going to regret it.
I think the Mets are right to be cautious with Reyes,
but it sounds like he'll be fine. That has to be good news for Mets fans.
The non-stop attacks are so ludicrous now, I don't know why I pay attention and retort. I'd like to think I'd do it if it
was any other team as well, because I probably would. It's a farce.
I swear I think some of these writers/columnists
don't have the imagination or knowledge to come up with stories on their own, so they choose to be contrary and attack it
from a different angle just "because". Because others haven't selected the same path; because it's easy to write
the story when there's no conviction behind the premise to start with.
This is not analysis; it's not in-depth coverage. It's being lazy. What makes it worse is when there's
not even an argument to be made in a cogent manner to make their position seem tenable. It's difficult to differentiate between
a lack of conviction in coming to the wrong conclusion or a simple lack of knowledge.
No matter.
It's the same result.
In today's New York Times, William C. Rhoden goes to great lengths to defend the Phillies stupid decision to trade
Cliff Lee for Roy Halladay rather than keep Lee to team with Halladay for a starting pitching duo that would send shivers
throughout baseball----Column.
Rhoden's column proves that
he doesn't know what he's talking about; and weakly attempts context switching as a means to justify the Phillies' idiocy.
The argument (ably assisted by Rhoden speaking to
Phillies GM Ruben Amaro Jr) is that the Phillies, having traded a chunk of their minor league system to get Lee from the Indians
last summer, couldn't afford to gut the system further; they decided to "replenish". That replenishing would cost
them Lee, but allow them to get Halladay from the Blue Jays.
Replenishing the system netted them a minor league closer (Philippe Aumont); a minor league outfielder
(Tyson Gillies); and a minor league pitcher (Juan Ramirez) as they pretty much traded the players that the Blue Jays wanted
last summer when the negotiations for Halladay hit a snag.
Wallowing in the Amaro excuse-machine, Rhoden leaps into the morass of silliness by comparing the decision
of looking toward the future to the Indianapolis Colts choice to rest their starters late in the season to prepare for the
playoffs rather than go for history with an undefeated record.
The clip:
The Phillies’ decision not to keep Halladay, Lee
and Hamels together is not unlike the Indianapolis Colts’ curious decision to pass on
going undefeated in the regular season. Coach Jim Caldwell, saying he was looking toward the Super
Bowl, rested starters in the last two regular-season games.
Caldwell and the Colts passed up the here and now, and posterity, for a pie in the sky that never came,
thanks to their Super Bowl loss to the New Orleans Saints. Amaro and the Phillies, also looking
at the big picture, passed up an opportunity to out-Yankee the Yankees with a monster rotation.
You're sliding down the mountain at record speed when you even try to compare
the preparation for the NFL playoffs to a Major League Baseball season. You can't, under any circumstances, equate what Caldwell
and the Colts did to what the Phillies and Amaro did this past winter.
The Colts were heading for the playoffs as a number one seed; top heavy in
that they weren't a team that could rely on a system to carry them through if they lost Peyton Manning; and had a reason----albeit
questionable----for what they did. The NFL playoffs are in no way similar to a baseball season. The playoff spot was locked
up for the Colts; their seed was guaranteed; there was no way for them to move up or go down and chasing history----while
it would've been nice to go undefeated----was a speck in the big picture.
The Phillies decision was nothing like that.
The Phillies choice to trade Lee for Halladay
didn't lift them any more from where they already were. The combination of Lee and Halladay guaranteed a playoff spot barring
anything catastrophic; the trade of Lee keeps the Philllies among the rest of the National League and leaves them in very
real jeopardy of not making the playoffs.
You can't compare the two.
They're not even in the same category.
It makes no sense.
Then, Rhoden argues against himself with some odd comparisons to the Braves of the 90s.
For Amaro, the model franchise is the Atlanta Braves, who won 14
division titles from 1991 to 2005 (the other year was cut short by labor troubles). Critics are quick to point out that the
Braves won just one World Series championship in that period.
What made Atlanta intimidating was the core of its rotation for many of those years: John
Smoltz, Tom Glavine and Greg Maddux.
Um.
Okay.
Doesn't this argument sort of suggest that the Phillies
should've kept Lee to form a threesome of Halladay, Lee and Cole Hamels? Where's the comparison? Are they suggesting that
the addition of a Double A closer and two other minor leaguers is going to build the foundation for what the Braves were in
the 90s?
Did Rhoden have an intelligent
conclusion in his head before going into this story? Or did he decide that he'd talk to Amaro and cobble something together
to get his column done and ignore content?
Then, the topper. A quote from none other than Jimmy Rollins:
“You’d go into
that series feeling you’d be lucky to get one game,” Phillies shortstop Jimmy Rollins said. “It was like
that for a lot of years with the Braves when I first came up. You’d be thinking: We got Smoltz, Glavine — oh good,
Maddux threw yesterday, so we just have to get that third guy. We can win one out of three and salvage the series. That’s
how you felt. Honestly.”
It sounds to me like Rollins wanted to keep Lee. And
I can guarantee you----guarantee----that if you cornered the Phillies veterans and former GM Pat Gillick and, under
the influence of truth serum, asked them whether they'd rather follow Amaro's blueprint of thinking long term or trying to
win now with a rotation of devastation, they'd want the latter.
Do you really believe that the Phillies core----all in their 30s----care about the organization's future
for 2012-2014? Seriously? They want to win now. NOW!!!! Keeping Lee would've made them prohibitive favorites for
a third straight pennant; now they're a contender. Nothing more.
I'm not getting into the specious logic of what the Phillies did. I did so in the aftermath of the
deal when there was no one----no one!!!----making similar statements. You can read the posting (my perfect masterpiece),
The Phillies Sign Their Own Death Warrant if that's what you're looking for.
The bottom line is this, trading for a closer as the centerpiece of a deal that was ridiculous on and beneath the surface,
and was not a way to build for the future. If you look at the great closers of past and present like Dennis Eckersley, Mariano
Rivera and Jonathan Papelbon, not one was groomed as a closer. Not one. Teams happened to luck into finding a way to maximize
these pitchers given their circumstances. It happened. It wasn't created nor was it intentional; so to sit there and claim
that this Double A closer, Aumont, will justify severely damaging a title contender in the here and now, and the ground is
already collapsing beneath your ill-informed feet.
I haven't taken Rhoden seriously since he made some nonsensical claims about Billy Wagner in a column from July of
2008----link.
Say what you want about Billy
Wagner, but he never shied away from speaking and stood behind everything he said. He was incensed at the Rhoden allegation
that he "opted to sit this one out". Wagner wanted an apology and retraction. He received neither.
Consider the source when reading Rhoden.
I can respect someone who comes up with a point-of-view
based on deep-rooted belief with some semblance of logic behind it. Believe it or not, I do respect certain stat zombies for
coming up with a strategy, even if they're wrong. But Rhoden is all over the place in his column as he tries to defend an
indefensible decision and contradicts himself either through a lack of understanding, simple laziness or both.
He might just be a baseball imbecile.
That's a possibility too.
Jose Reyes's thyroid:
Mets shortstop Jose Reyes's elevated thyroid condition will not require medication,
is expected to revert to normal with diet and rest and he's going to be out from 2-8 weeks and might miss opening day.
I don't see this as a giant problem. Reyes has an
issue with his health; it sounds as if the Mets are taking a cautious approach and doing their due diligence to make sure
similar things as happened in 2009 don't recur in 2010. They'll survive a brief time without Reyes.
What I would do if I were the Mets is, instead of relying on Alex Cora
as the everyday shortstop in Reyes's absence, is to insert Ruben Tejada to play. Yes, he's only 20, but sometimes a youthful
exuberance and accident of circumstance leads to something special. Look at the 1985 Cardinals with Vince Coleman. It won't
hurt to roll the dice in this case and give the young player a chance to play in the big time.
That's right. I'm blossoming into a cult hero along the lines of
Ed Wood, except my stuff is good good, not so bad it's good. The sequels never end, but this show doesn't need Jason; Freddy
Krueger; or Michael Myers----I'm all three combined along with a nice bit of Darth Vader and a pinch of Hannibal Lecter.
It's a blockbuster.
An
intriguing closing option for the Twins:
Jon Heyman writes the following about a possible strategy
for the Twins dealing with the loss of Joe Nathan:
The Twins have a strong bullpen, but since they have
no one obvious closer-in-waiting (Jon Rauch, Pat Neshek, Matt Guerrier,
Jose Mijares and Jesse Crain are among the possibilities), one option would be to sign a
free agent starter and move Francisco Liriano into the closer's role. That scenario is said to be floating
around Ft. Myers, though it could depend on whether the Twins have insurance on Nathan (it isn't known whether they do).
This is an interesting idea and something to seriously consider.
Francisco Liriano was devastating as a reliever before being inserted into the starting rotation in 2006 (where he was also just as good as
a starter) before hurting his elbow and requiring Tommy John surgery. Functioning with an adjusted motion, his timing appeared
off when he returned in 2008; he was good, but nowhere near what he was previously; and he was atrocious last season.
The scuttlebutt has been that Liriano's looked like
his old self this spring; that he's primed for a big year as a starter; and will function as the top of the rotation powerhouse
that the Twins lack. I'm not buying it. The only way to know that he's back to form is when he's truly back to form; and given
the way the Twins closer situation is in flux (not catastrophic, but in flux), Liriano could be the answer.
It's not just that he's needed out there more than he is in the starting
rotation, but it might be easier on his surgically repaired elbow to crank it up for 75 innings than it would be for 200.
Closing would free Liriano to cut loose for one inning at a time and not worry about saving himself; and he's a strikeout
machine. Plus, the Twins bullpen is deep enough where it would be extremely rare that he's needed for more than one inning.
I don't know if this was something that
was considered as a last-ditch option (they do have pitchers to rack up the saves in Matt Guerrier and Jon Rauch), or just
thrown out there to gauge the reaction, but I'd consider it very, very strongly. It might be a championship move.
THE JOBA RUINATION, 2010:
Yankee fans are going over-the-top with their frustration
over Joba Chamberlain's horrific start yesterday. It was the second straight spring starting in which Chamberlain got attacked----NY Daily News Story.
Is it cause for concern?
Yes.
Is it worth the maniacal reaction within Yankeedom and what you can pretty much expect from Mike Francesa
today? No.
Chamberlain is a mess right
now. He's been a mess for the better part of two years since he burst onto the scene as the ultimate weapon out the bullpen
in 2007.
And the Yankees are to blame.
In their efforts to shield the gifted righty from
getting hurt and institute The Joba Rules to prevent similar abuse and injury that have befallen other phenoms, the Yankees
have battered him in a far different way. The damage is due to organizational paranoia that if he gets hurt, they'll be the
ones held responsible. Because of that, they don't let him pitch.
Encased as he is in the cage of innings limits/pitch counts/usage guidelines, he's afraid to throw
the ball. Like a reticent overtrained animal, Chamberlain's head is on a swivel every time he walks out to the mound. You
can almost read his thoughts as it's been drilled into his head----DON'T GET HURT!!!
He hasn't gotten hurt.
That part of the "plan" was accomplished. But he's been awful. Last season,
aside from a few starts, he was bad as a starter; then later in the season he wasn't all that good as a reliever either.
The spring training starts are meaningless. Chamberlain
was ill a couple of weeks ago and his timing, strength, command and mechanics are a work-in-progress; but the scrutiny, inflamed
by the Yankees delicate approach to the pitcher, is causing a spiral. He doesn't know which end is up and he needs clarity.
It's enough.
He's a reliever.
Period.
The Yankees, bolstered by the idea of 200 innings being worth more than the 70-80 a reliever provides are trying to smash
a square peg into a round hole. What happens when you do that? Not only are you running the risk of breaking the board, but
you're going to smash the peg. Plus the Yankees don't need Chamberlain in the starting rotation. It's clear that Phil Hughes
belongs in the starting rotation; Chamberlain the bullpen.
Yet they're still clinging to this ideal that Chamberlain's four pitch arsenal makes him a viable
starter; but has it been considered that he mentally cannot do it? That he's been turned in so many circles by the club that
he's a disaster?
It's hard
to believe that they can't see it; can't see what they're doing to a 24-year-old who deserves better. The JOBA RUINATION continues
without any sign of abating----to the detriment of the Yankees and the pitcher.
It's a shame.
A fireable offense in every venue but this one:
This is almost too ridiculous for words.
The Pirates, who inexplicably signed the journeyman infielder Ramon Vazquez to a 2-year, $4 million
contract before the 2009 season, are now considering releasing him----MLB Trade Rumors Story----leaving them on the hook for $2 million.
The Pirates.
Who claim not to
have any money.
Are throwing $2 million
down the tubes.
When they signed Vazquez,
it didn't make any sense; now they're going to compound this error by releasing him outright. I can only shake my head. The smart thing to do now is to keep Vazquez, give him some at bats
early in the season and hope a club in need of a backup will take him and maybe give up a minor leaguer the Pirates might
be able to use for something.
The Pirates
are like the Dr. Nick Riviera of the baseball set----total quacks who haven't the faintest clue what they're doing.
Not in the post-season and I'd rather have someone I can trust in the playoffs than a glossy stat compiler
in the regular season. You should know that. Maybe come up with a stat "Post Season Performance vs Regular Season Stat
Compiling" or something like that. I'm not in the mood to come up with acronyms. Get to work!!!!
Jane Heller at Confessions of a She-Fan writes RE my suggestion of Julio Lugo retiring as a Red Sox:
Julio
Lugo retiring as a Red Sock. That cracked me up.
They're missing the boat
here. They could sell countless jerseys from numerous players from the past: Matt Clement; Wily Mo Pena; Shea Hillenbrand;
Cliff Floyd; Wayne Gomes; Rolando Arrojo; Brian Daubach; Lou Merloni; even Grady Little-----it's a celebration in the Rick
James tradition!!!!
David
writes RE the zombie attack:
I've been reading these links
you post to the Think Factory Website. If I may, I'd like to draw another comparison to them being true zombies. These guys
can't even stay on subject! How does three posts about criticizing you turn into "English Literature" and a thread
about "Napolean Dynamite versus Superbad"? Anyway this reminds me of the video game Left For Dead. If you aren't
there to shoot the zombies or you eventually just run away, they stand around like idiots barfing or hitting trashcans. Same
level of attention seems to be held on these posts. Congrats guys.
I think it's great. The best part is that it happens every time when I'm linked and, from what I've seen, it goes the
same way with everyone:
A) the posting is linked;
B) it's read; C) they attack the author regardless of what it says; and D) they attack each other.
The more they talk, the worse they look as the zombies cement their
own downfall. Their self-destruction and my laser precise blasts of lightning have me winning this fight. Victory shall be
mine!!!!
I had some prime stuff ready to go yesterday
when a surprise zombie attack had to be repelled. But, I'm still in charge; I took 'em out; and my power base is expanding.
I don't think Nathan has ever gotten the attention
he's deserved for being the elite closer (in the regular season anyway) that he's been. Every year he's put up massive strikeout
numbers per innings pitched; posted ERAs under 2; given up very few hits and homers; threw strikes; and racked up the saves.
That trade the Twins made in dumping A.J. Pierzynski
turned out to be one of the best of the past decade as they received Nathan, Francisco Liriano and Boof Bonser from the Giants
for the abrasive catcher. Pierzynski's personality didn't fit in with the Giants and he was dumped after one season.
Nathan was installed as the Twins closer and has been
just a notch below the top tier stoppers Mariano Rivera and Jonathan Papelbon, about on a level with Francisco Rodriguez and
Trevor Hoffman. Of course, he's failed miserably in the post-season; most recently in the 2009 ALDS proved when Alex Rodriguez
took him deep in the bottom of the 9th to tie game 2. The Twins lost in the 11th inning, thereby costing them any small chance
they had at being competitive in the series.
Nathan also gacked up game 2 of the 2004 ALDS against the Yankees, so it wasn't just one bad game or bad series. The difference
between the truly big time closers like Rivera and Papelbon (and you can throw Bobby Jenks in there too because he's done
it in the post-season) is their ability to get the big outs. You can find someone to rack up the saves, but when it gets to
crunch time, you can't sit and worry whether the supposed "ace" in the bullpen is going to fall apart.
All that aside, Nathan's been great during the regular
season and any manager will tell you the less that he has to worry about the better. The decision to bring in Nathan for the
9th inning was never in question and he almost always got the job done. Now, he's got a tear in his elbow that is likely to
require Tommy John surgery and the Twins have to deal with this.
Before the news, they were the trendy pick in the AL Central because of their under-the-radar
acquisitions Orlando Hudson and Jim Thome to join an already formidable lineup; serviceable starting rotation; and deep bullpen.
Now they have to find a closer. Somewhere.
The have a few options. One, they could use Jon Rauch; Two, they could use Matt Guerrier; or three, they could make a trade
for someone now or wait and see what happens at mid-season when names like Heath Bell will be available.
There's been talk that they should use underarming righty Pat Neshek to
close.
This is plain stupid.
Neshek as a set-up man or 6th and 7th inning
arm out of the bullpen----a cog in the machine----is fine; but as the closer, he'd get blasted; he's handled lefties well
enough in his career, but there's something different about pitching the 9th and it wouldn't work. Plus, he didn't pitch last
year!! Neshek was recovering from Tommy John surgery himself; so the idea is to bring him back and stick him into a 1000 degree
oven replacing an All Star for a team with realistic championship aspirations is lunacy.
Please.
The easiest thing to do would be to use Rauch. He's done the job before and handled it. His fastball
isn't what it was (possibly due to overwork with the Nationals when he pitched in 85 games in 2006; and 88 games in 2007),
but he can close; plus he's mean.
Personally,
I'd use Guerrier. He's durable (over 70 games in each of the last three seasons); he throws strikes; handles lefties and righties
about equally; and has been reliable despite giving up too many homers.
As the season moves along, Bell will be available from the Padres; other possibilities will be Kerry
Wood; Octavio Dotel; Chad Qualls; Francisco Cordero; and Matt Capps. The Twins aren't going to be devastated by this news
if Nathan's unable to pitch; and truthfully, if they make the playoffs, Nathan wasn't exactly reliable in October to begin
with. This hurts the club, but isn't half as devastating as it would be if they lost Joe Mauer or Justin Morneau. They'll
be fine.
Jose Reyes's thyroid:
The Mets bashing is reaching
new levels of absurdity. Mining for reasons to unload on the club, people are blowing this whole Jose Reyes thyroid issue
out of proportion. The club has had numerous doctors check Reyes's test results and all seem to be in agreement that it's
real; it's treatable; and isn't a big problem. Much is being made of Reyes saying that he doesn't have anything wrong with
his thyroid----ESPN Story.
Okay.
What Reyes says matters, why?
The Mets get bashed when they seemingly fail to perform their due diligence with
their players; now they're erring on the side of caution with one of their key players and are getting shredded for that as
well.
It's a farce and a non-story.
Reyes is going to be fine and ready to play. What's the issue aside from a weaselly hit squad looking to attack the Mets and/or
writers with no skill or imagination to find something engaging to say.
Nomar Garciaparra retires
as a Red Sox:
So?
My question is whether Julio Lugo will also retire
as a Red Sox.
Who cares?
I find it fascinating that a player who was run out
of town by the club----in a brilliant, gutsy and necessary Theo Epstein move because of the player's poor attitude; physical
breakdown; and performance that was falling off the planet----is receiving a career send-off befitting a key to the club's
two World Series titles.
In a way
he was a key component since the first championship was cemented when they dumped Garciaparra.
Red Sox fans can weep and wave banners to Nomar, but they'd better remember
that it was his departure that was a massive part of what was built.
The Prince vs the Zombies----the aftermath of the latest scrap:
I generally avoid reading the comments on Baseball Think Factory when
something I've written is linked because, as I said yesterday, they generally devolve into a personal attack followed by the
commenters attacking one another. In short, it's not worth getting into a twist.
The ones that come at me on my site(s) are dealt with. Swiftly, brutally and
without remorse.
But I couldn't
resist and looked at the comments following the linked posting and I found something in stark contrast to what usually occurs when they come after me----they were almost (albeit grudgingly)
agreeing with me.
This happened
the last time I was linked as well. (To the best of my recollection it was when I railed against another writer defending
Paul DePodesta's tenure as GM of the Dodgers by claiming that he was "railroaded out of Los Angeles".)
I'm sensing a shift.
And I'm here to tell you I'm willing to accept any and all who are willing
to join my cause of ignoring the pure stat based analysis for intelligence and well-roundedness in seeking a full understanding
of the game.
This fear, evidenced
by the anonymous commenters, is mystifying. Those that agree with me appear to be adding excuses or almost apologizing as
if I'm some deranged lunatic (quiet you!!!) who's almost totally of of control without reason for anything he says and does.
It is not betraying your cult to say what you believe and I'm getting the sense that some want to break free from the shackles
of Moneyball.
There's no reason
to fear.
All are welcome.
Those that think I have some vendetta against Billy
Beane, Michael Lewis, Paul DePodesta need to understand that there's no agenda and it's nothing personal.
It's strictly business.
Join me. And I will complete your training.
Viewer Mail 3.10.2010:
Anonymous writes RE Moneyball:
Very enjoyable article even though I strongly disagree with your basic premise.
Beane prospered when he had the statistical advantage but now the A's have little chance. Teams with both money and stats
are going to beat teams without both. Boston for example did very well recently but only after bringing in Bill James the
absolute king of stat geeks. And the Yankee's ultimately purchased enough talent to win again. Oakland is still fun to watch
because they still find outliers, but since they lack money and because everyone else is now using stats they just can't compete.
That's the true lesson of Moneyball. If everyone can identify talent, only those with money enough to buy it will win.
I almost understand when someone comments anonymously if they're coming after me, but it's baffling
when a clearly intelligent mind comments and doesn't leave a name----any name.
You can't credit Bill James for the Red Sox success. The Red Sox used stats, scouting,
money and balls to build the foundation for their current club. That had nothing to do with Bill James; in fact, if you read
some of James's stuff in recent years, he's appeared increasingly detached and contrary for the sake of looking quirky (his
article on steroids was a prime example of this as it was peppered with silliness).
The wrench in the argument of the financial value of the heretofore unknown
stats being appreciated and therefore no longer being in play for teams like the Athletics lies in the following three words:
The Florida Marlins.
If there wasn't
a team like the Marlins in MLB; if they didn't have the unprecedented success of putting a winning club on the field every
year despite a bargain basement payroll, there'd be no defense for the argument of Beane/Lewis/Moneyball being made obsolete
by the prevalence of stats.
The
Marlins are the wrench in the stat zombie machine and they choose to denigrate them by picking them to lose 90 games every
year; find ways to negate their success by faulty means; or simply ignore them.
The Marlins find players who other organizations didn't appreciate (Dan Uggla);
acquire top tier talent for their own high-priced veterans (Hanley Ramirez; Cameron Maybin; Andrew Miller); scout masterfully
(Chris Coghlan, Josh Johnson); find scrapheap pickups (Dan Meyer; Cody Ross); make astute signings/trades (John Baker; Wes
Helms; Leo Nunez); and go for it when they're contending (they tried to get Roy Halladay and Heath Bell; and did get Nick
Jonhson).
They use their eyes;
their guts and stats to formulate the best run organization in baseball. There's no way for the stat zombies to counteract
this, so they don't, but ignoring it doesn't make it go away.
They don't have an answer
for me and haven't the faintest clue what to do next; this provides endless entertainment----and has me winning this fight.
It must be a comfort to my troops
that the Boss handles this stuff with such vicious and precision efficiency that I laid waste to the attack within such a
brief time and did it singlehandedly.
John Seal (West Coast Spiritual Adviser) writes RE Moneyball and David Forst:
You set me up for a 'may the Forst be with you' joke, but didn't deliver
the punchline! Forst is the presumptive heir apparent, though it's true Billy wasn't best man at his wedding or anything.
John, I saw this comment and literally punched myself in the jaw for missing on the hanger that was
"May the Forst be with you". I might've been a little more spent from the attack and subsequent skirmish than I
realized. It will not happen again.
Some kind soul linked yesterday's posting onto Baseball Think Factory----which always prompts a nice series of explosions. I'm not even going to read the comments there because it generally
degenerates in the following way:
The posting is linked.
People read it.
The comments begin attacking me with very, very few having the nerve to comment to me
directly on my site(s) and being backhanded so severely when they do that they crawl back into their primordial, stat-laden
muck.
Then
they start attacking each other.
Anyone----anyone----wants to have a go at me, they do it on one of my sites.
Period. They'll get far more than they bargained for. Believe me.
We'll do the mail because some did in fact come at me. Sort of.
Viewer Mail 3.9.2010:
Anonymous
writes RE Moneyball:
As the legion of failures in the "stats only" school-of-thought rises,
we're hearing the alterations:
"Moneyball wasn't about on base percentage and new age techniques; it was about
undervalued assets."
What? That's not an "alteration". That's what the book was about, and it was clear in that regard.
OBP
is no longer undervalued; teams use it as a matter of course now, and therefore it's no longer nearly as accessible to teams
lacking funds.
Why you seem to think that OBP becoming a mainstream concept implies that Moneyball was a "lie"
is genuinely beyond me; not only is OBP not what Moneyball was really about, but also to the degree that it was incidentally
about OBP, it has obviously been proven as true.
Am I being trolled here or something? Seriously, this just comes
off as inanity wrapped in a few hundred words.
Well "Anonymous",
since you don't have the balls to identify yourself, I'll be as gentle as possible given your obvious delicacy.
Can you read? The mere fact that the legion of teamwide failures----the
Athletics, Padres, Blue Jays and Dodgers----and the clubs that took to pure stat zombie tenets and abandoned them----the Red
Sox and Cardinals----haven't convinced you that Michael Lewis's book is a farce, then you need only examine the way the "golden
touch" of Billy Beane has turned out to be not-so-golden.
The book was designed----crafted and twisted----to portray Beane and his Ivy League educated brethren as "better"
than the old-school method of trusting evaluation of talent in all ways; it was intended to create a new age in which those
with either an expensive degree from a respected university were replacing those that took aspects other than pure numbers
into account.
It never ends. The excuses come left
and right as the goalposts are moved to maintain this invincibility and viability of the book. But it doesn't work. The simplistic
argument of numbers above all does...not...work...with...human....beings.
Never once have I debated the value of players who get on base; but when club targets a player who
has an on base percentage a shade higher than another player who might add something unquantifiable by a numerical formula,
you see the end result with the way Paul DePodesta demolished the Dodgers within 20 months.
Moneyball was about Lewis sculpting his protagonist, Billy Beane into this perfect
being----his shining light----who combined the talents of a first round draft pick from his playing days into a "genius"
who understood and had the courage to implement the numbers to rule the world.
In many ways, Beane was perfect for the book's end. Well-spoken; handsome; someone who'd actually
played the game and had the guts to try something different to take advantage of that which was unappreciated; and he implemented
the use of numbers and won under a limited payroll.
But the idea was to promote the use of stats into an unassailable monolith. It was wrapped in a glossy, well-written and skillfully
steered package to convince those that didn't know enough about the game to trust their own beliefs and were willing to be
a inducted into the cult.
The point of my posting was
the elucidate the way the "Beane as genius" and Lewis's narrative were absurd.
No. You're not being trolled here, but since you don't want to leave your name, I
have to wonder exactly who you are. If you're so gutsy and intuitive why are you reluctant to identify yourself?
I have to give you credit for one thing, you were able to confine your
inanity to a more concise number of words with double or even triple the amount of said inanity----that my friend,
is finding value.
Anonymous writes RE Moneyball:
Dude:
"Moneyball" has won. Get over it.
I can't argue with such an in-depth statement from a faceless, nameless
person aside from saying the following: Won what?
Greg Andrew
writes RE Moneyball:
You never actually read Moneyball, did you?
And while Beane's
certainly made some mistakes, my guess is that he he'll be the Oakland GM as long as he wants to be. Given the fact that his
family is older and more able to move, and the reality that the Oakland franchise has the worst long-term stadium situation
of any team in the majors (with the possible exception of TB), Beane may finally choose to move on. I'm sure he'll have no
shortage of offers from other clubs, though he'll also have opportunities outside of baseball if he wants to pursue them.
I'm still kind of astonished at how much success Moneyball has had in spreading its message. After decades of inch-by-inch
progress, Moneyball moved mountains.
No. I didn't read it. You've figured it all out. My railing against
the book and the movie...*
*Oh, speaking of which, they're going to start filming (Yah. Right!!!) this summer. How's that going
to look as they film and the Athletics are ten games under .500 and in last place? It'll be somewhat similar to making an
O.J. Simpson biopic and ending it in 1993.
...has nothing to do with disagreeing with book's premise or maybe understanding
that building a winning club can't be based on stats, stats and more stats. Why look at what the Marlins and Twins do
under similar payroll constraints and put the way the Moneyball teams have failed into context when it's easier to simply
say such things as "you didn't read it", or "Moneyball has won"?
There are people who didn't read the book; didn't understand it; and saw their livelihood threatened
by the use of numbers above old-school techniques. They're just as bad as those who would prefer to never see a game played
or look at a player's movement or come to a subjective estimation of his abilities past his on paper numbers.
I am not one of those people.
The A's stadium issue was worse than that of the Marlins?
Really?
The Marlins
who find ways to win every year----despite repeated denigration and caveats provided by those that have neither the desire
nor the understanding to be able to replicate what they do----while functioning with half the payroll and a fraction of the
appreciation that Lewis's love letter provided for Beane?
It's become a case of diminishing returns for Beane in Oakland and I think the remaining Athletics fans have had enough
of simply saying, "well, Billy knows what he's doing" as they watch him trade his stars, fire his managers, still
be accorded the respect befitting a genius----yet fail year-after-year.
If the playoffs are a crapshoot (oh, look a book reference; I must've read that page and that page alone) then why were Art
Howe and Ken Macha to blame for the losses? Why, if Beane was so confident and assisted in moving mountains, did he need to
tell his players to say negative things about Macha and utter the floating and non-specific reason for a dismissal, "it
was a lack of communication"?
When does
he get blamed? Moving mountains is great....until it lands on the person who was moving it and it crushes him.
That's what Moneyball did to Billy Beane. Like most demagogues, his results
have never matched up to the hype and he's being rightfully questioned. He may want to move on because the Athletics and their
fans have had enough.
Timothy Brown writes RE Moneyball:
Paul,
don't have an issue with your thoughts on Beane and Moneyball, but he's an A's co-owner and the only reason I can see him
going away is if he sells. If that happens, it will most likely be because of the A's inability to relocate to the South Bay.
And John Seal (West Coast Spiritual Adviser) writes RE Moneyball:
Prince,
I think Billy has two more years to make it happen. The expectations for this season are pretty darn low out here in O-Town,
but all eyes are on 2011. Even if it doesn't happen then I don't see him changing careers and becoming a soccer GM--remember,
he's a part owner of the team. He's not going to go gently into that good night.
Besides, who would replace him?
Jeremy Brown?
At last. Reasonable people.
My belief in the possibility of him leaving has to do with the aforementioned diminishing returns and
that he's been there so long that he and the club might be better off moving on from one another. I don't know what else he
can do there. He became famous; he made the club better than it was even if the book and the techniques therein weren't the
reason for it; he has nothing more to prove there.
The reason he backed out on the Red Sox in 2002 was said to be because of family considerations; and I believe that----in
part. But I also think that he would've been under more scrutiny and the passion of Red Sox Nation would've expected him to
turn that team into a juggernaut the second he arrived; and if you look in the book (oh, another page I read; what luck!!!)
he intended to:
Sign the shot Edgardo Alfonzo.
Make Manny Ramirez a permanent DH, precluding the signing of David Ortiz (who very likely
would've been a Yankee because George Steinbrenner had told GM Brian Cashman to sign him).
Sign someone named Mark Johnson
to take over at catcher; and trade Jason Varitek.
And Kevin Youkilis was heading to the Athletics as compensation for Beane being let
out of his contract.
Oh, and DePodesta was taking over as A's GM.
That would've been two franchises trashed in one shot. Talk about moving
mountains!!!
Beane was given less than 5% of the club----SFGate article; I checked the value of the Athletics franchise from a year ago (according to Forbes) and it was around $320 million. So, with Beane not having tossed any money into the ring to get the ownership stake, they'd
be able to extricate themselves from one another in an amicable divorce complete with a Golden Parachute and presumably an
agreement that he won't join a club from the division (though none want or need him anyway) for the duration of his contract.
If things really collapse this year, I think they'll split.
That wouldn't stop him from going to the Mets, which I'd bet is the
job he'd want. (As a Mets fan, I say no thanks, but that's neither here nor there.) If I had to guess, I'd say he takes a
year off and waits to see which jobs will open. Someone would hire him. He's still a competent GM; just not a "genius".
Presumably, David Forst would take over. You'd
better hope it's Forst, John; and not DePodesta. Now that would be a nightmare.
Moneyball Special----A 2010 Stories To Watch Addendum
The final act of Moneyball is upon us:
With all the maudlin whimpering emanating from
the stat zombie community of Sandra Bullock's failure to acknowledge Michael Lewis for being the author of the book that the
film for which she won Best Acrtress was based----The Blind Side----I'm stunned they haven't come up with a stat to function
as "objective analysis" for an actor's performance.
Ostensibly to remove the ambiguity from the voting just as they've "removed" similar
variances from the analysis of baseball players (yes, I'm being sarcastic), I could see a way to quantify the way an actor
captures his or her character. Something to the tune of "Convincabiliy in Art to Reality Standard" or CARS; maybe
"Oscar Rating Based In Transience" or ORBIT.
There has to be a way to remove any and all humanity from another enjoyable and elusive diversion like
film and acting.
Speaking of performance
art, what could be the final act in the running saga of the "genius" of Billy Beane is upon us.
Either he's going to recover from the last several years of fruitless
trades; riding the wave of a bestselling and woefully inaccurate portrayal based on a baseball incompetent's agenda-driven
bit of creative non-fiction, or things are going to come apart like a collapsing dictatorship.
I'm betting on the latter.
What stuns me about the way Moneyball has been treated as a still viable way to
run a franchise is the way the remaining holdouts continue to move the goalposts via dissection and dismissal of parts that
don't fit into the neatness of the story.
As the legion of failures in the "stats only" school-of-thought rises, we're hearing the alterations:
"Moneyball wasn't about on base percentage and new age techniques; it was about undervalued assets."
"The book wasn't meant to be taken literally."
"Beane's true genius is in his
personality and willingness to base his decisions on reason, not success or failure on the field."
It sure seemed to me that the book was meant to be taken literally. But maybe my reading comprehension skills are failing
me. Then again, as obtuse and resistant as I can be, I can still remember my freshman year of college when I went to see an
academic adviser as she pointed from one divergent set of numbers to the other while looking at my permanent record
and the first words out of her mouth----in undisguised bewilderment----were:
"Just
one question: How does someone with this reading level have these grades?"
I stared at her blankly. I still don't have an answer.
Had the Athletics won a championship;
had Beane's record of unobstructed "success" maintained itself, there wouldn't be this twisting and turning to keep
the empire intact. They'd be strutting around and pompously singing the praises of the theory that plainly and simply hasn't
worked. If anything is evidence of this, it's the failure of Billy Beane, the Athletics and the desperate bomb he's throwing
this season with a newfound emphasis on defense and pitching that is going to fail miserably.
Understand that this isn't coming from someone who unloaded on the book
at the start with a similar self-preservation in mind.
I bought into it too!!!
For years, I thought the same thing as the many new age unenlightened of the stat zombie set still think----the
man must know what he's doing. There has to be some secret formula to what he's doing. He's the Michael
Corleone of the baseball world. He's a "genius".
But watching as things fail over-and-over; as the subjective analysis of on-field nightmare
rears it's head and demolishes every numerical projection in its path, an awakening occurred. Maybe he didn't have
a plan. Maybe he isn't a genius.
Maybe Billy Beane, having lived for so long on the force of his personality; his overconfidence; and the fallacy of that book
and making a great living at it without consequences----bulletproof as it were----is at fault for a staggering and stumbling
team replete with inexplicable moves. Perhaps the allocation of blame on everyone but himself was a context-switch. Until
now, the club has collapsed around him with no consequences to the architect of the disasters.
As for the conceited and smug hand wave of those that dare to think differently
in the face of numbers, facts and figures; the oft-repeated: "oh you just don't get it", it's the same thing as
saying that those who were against the Iraq war aren't supporting the troops.
It's a simplistic and ridiculous catchphrase to scare those that are thinking
in a similar way from speaking out; and individuals with an investment in the belief of such nonsense are clever enough to
capitalize on that fear and maintain control with people so dumb that they really think it's accurate.
Michael Lewis covers for his lack of baseball knowledge and that the book
was a farce with condescension and power in the publishing industry; with skill at subtly steering the story toward what he
wanted to portray; what would make it look as glossy and sacrosanct as possible.
But the foundation is crumbling beneath Moneyball.
Reporters are still afraid to look at the Athletics of 2010----seven years
after the book was published----for what they are.
They're in a bastard of a division. They're relying on a bunch of players who can field and not hit; hit and not field; a
load of young (and talented) pitching; an oft-injured ace who's being anointed as a guru; and a figurehead of a manager who's
going to be sent flying off the hot air balloon of Beane's ego as ballast in a last-ditch effort for the "genius"
to survive.
It's coming down.
There's no "wait and see". No "give
it a chance". The chances are up. Beane's out of options; out of money; out of capital. Lewis's book----his caveats and
the relentless defenders and final holdouts still defending Beane----are finished. Still crediting the book as truth; still
saying Paul DePodesta, Sandy Alderson actually knew what they were doing as they took Moneyball and stat-based theories to
its logical and ravaged conclusion; and attacking those that disagree with them isn't working anymore.
Could Beane again hit the lottery with the Athletics
of 2010? If Ben Sheets is healthy; if the young pitching matures; if the defense-oriented strategy works; if the Angels stumble;
if the Mariners don't hit or pitch; if the Rangers take a step back on their innocent climb, yes, it's possible that Beane
will once again avoid paying for his complicity in the tale.
But he won't.
It's crashing down.
It's coming apart.
The story to watch isn't whether or
not it's going to happen; the story is how quickly it spirals; and how Beane's exit from Oakland will be orchestrated for
him to save face. A face that is no longer salvageable to those that understand the truth. The truth that the book was a hackneyed
lie whose fate is at hand. It won't be a pretty sight. Nor should it be.
I can watch without flinching.
Can you?
Can they?
Has Scott Boras tried this?
There was an article in yesterday's NY Times about Scientology and a couple's
winding and booby-trap laden road in leaving the church----link.
I'm not venturing any opinion
about this stuff one way or the other. I doubt they'd want anything to do with me anyway. A brief story about my one brush
with Scientologists was when I was in the seaside town of Brighton, England a few years ago. I was wandering around the town
center and a young woman holding a clipboard stopped me and asked if she could ask me a few questions.
Why not?
After the perfunctory bit, she asked me if I was unhappy or if there was anything about myself
I'd like to change. I thought about it for a minute and said, "Well, I kinda think I'm pretty much perfect the way I
am."
She stared at me.
When she didn't say anything I walked away. I
don't think they'd know what to do with me.
Anyway, the snippet in the article that caught my eye was the following:
They
signed a contract for a billion years — in keeping with the church’s belief that Scientologists are immortal.
While it sounds insane, think about it. What
could Scott Boras do with something like this?
You think a 10-year-contract is enough to get Alex Rodriguez? 8-years for Mark Teixeira? 7-years for Matt Holliday? Whatever
he demanded for Johnny Damon? How about this: "My client is a Scientologist and he wants a billion-year contract."
Man, I'd love to write that. Just once: BLANK signed
a billion-year contract.
He'd have a book of accomplishments; a list of reasons why it was in a club's best interest to agree to such terms as they'll
be paying him for his services slightly longer than his shelf-life would dictate.
Is it really that far-fetched? Famously, the late football star Reggie White said
that God told him to sign with the Green Bay Packers. Why wouldn't someone like Boras take it further and use it to his advantage
for his clients? And believe me when I tell you, they'd convert to Scientology for a billion year contract. In a second.
When you said the Jays needed a new manager, I was sure
you were about to suggest Bobby Valentine. But then I read the word "young." Guess that rules him out.
Now that you mention it, Valentine would be a good fit for the Blue Jays but the Rays can be scotch-taped
together much faster for a playoff run with the right manager who's going to get things in line over there. I was stunned
that Valentine was even interested in the rebuilding projects in Washington and Cleveland, but he desperately wants to manage,
so it looks like he'll consider anything.
The first time I ever heard Waldman do a broadcast I
made an emergency visit to my ears, nose & throat doc cuz I thought my ears were bleeding from every angle.
Therefore,
all that comes out of her mouth is like poison to me. I disregard it.
"It didn't affect me none at all in
any somesuch way of any infigh adsndna cbass,v mff,... 1##WAFSFASSFAS22@@ 4q3rn..... "
I have about 5 ex-girlfriends
who say the same thing about me.
This is an invitation to the greatest link ever of
Suzyn Waldman. I am of course referring to the Roger Clemens bloviation from 2007. It...does....not....get....any....better....than....THIS:
Regarding the women stuff, I can only say:
"Can't live with 'em----they all wanna kill me".
And what makes it worse is that it's not because of anything I do intentionally. It just is.
I only heard snippets of Suzyn Waldman's appearance
on Mike Francesa's radio show the other day (it was more than enough; more than I could stand) but there were a few themes
they touched upon, sharing their usual brand of non-existent baseball expertise that is consistent only in that they're always
wrong.
Here's the brilliance (paraphrased
from memory):
The idol worship of Roy Halladay:
They would not shut up about Halladay. His work ethic; his influence; his old-school ways; how the Phillies younger
pitchers like Kyle Kendrick are following him around like baby ducks----all are important; all will help----but to think that
you can take a Kyle Kendrick and turn him into a Roy Halladay by mimicking everything Halladay does is ignoring the limits
of a person's physical ability.
You can't turn sausage filler into Chateaubriand.
That's not to imply that sausage filler doesn't have use, but it is what it is and won't ever be anything more than
that regardless of the recipe or genius of the master chef doing the teaching. The veteran counterman at your local deli is
never going to be Gordon Ramsay.
I have
the greatest respect for Halladay. The way he carries himself as the quiet gunslinger is something that pitchers should aspire
to, but the Francesa/Waldman yammering was so far over the top; the credit and defense of the Phillies stupid decision to
trade Cliff Lee to get Halladay (that Francesa and Sweeny Murti babbled about as well) was missing a couple of important factors.
One, in all his years with the Blue
Jays, doesn't it make sense that Halladay was functioning in a similar way with his teammates? That he was teaching and preaching
and trying to get them to follow his lead?
How'd that work out? Aside from one season, was A.J. Burnett ever able to partially copy Halladay's classic durability
and greatness? What about the youngsters like Shaun Marcum, Dustin McGowan and Jesse Litsch? All three got hurt. Then you
look at the list of pitchers the Blue Jays plugged into their rotation behind Halladay; names like Mark Hendrickson; Kelvim
Escobar; Doug Davis; Cory Lidle; Josh Towers; Ted Lilly; Miguel Batista----and you say, maybe he influenced them, but they
weren't able to exceed what it was that they could be, what they could do.
If you look at the Blue Jays during the Halladay years, they were never, ever anything more than an
also-ran. Not once did they realistically contend for a playoff spot. Part of that is due to being in a division with the
Yankees and Red Sox; but part of it is due to the club not having the talent to be legitimate playoff team. Sure, some of
their records were glossier on the surface than what they really were. An 87-75 record and second place finish and being within
striking distance of a Wild Card spot doesn't signify realistic contention.
If anything defined the Blue Jays during the Halladay era, it was that. Aside from
the years in which they were the essence of mediocrity at 78-82 wins, they never contended. They'd stumble along at or around
.500 for much of the season, get hot late in the year and end with a respectable record making the "experts" think
they were a team to watch----and they'd do the same thing again the next year. Halladay or not, they were what they were.
In a similar vein, greatness is
what it is. You can't teach it; you can't mold it; you can't create it in a laboratory. The maximization of skills with a
tweak here and there or even a complete remastering can reform something that was being misused and fashion that entity to
its full potential; but if that potential isn't much better than a back-of-the-rotation starter/long-reliever/Triple A filler,
then what?
To believe that
Halladay influencing the likes of Kendrick will make the useful but limited pitcher into Roy Halladay is nonsense.
Roy Halladay is Roy Halladay.
Kyle Kendrick is Kyle Kendrick.
There's a reason for this.
It's called ability. You can't teach it. Either you have it or you don't.
"The Blue Jays are gonna lose 100 games":
The
Blue Jays are not going to lose 100 games.
They're rebuilding; they're starting anew without Halladay and without J.P. Ricciardi; they're going to trade
the last veteran, movable remnants of the Ricciardi era (Lyle Overbay); but they're not going to lose 100 games.
They have such a cache of young starting pitching
and an offense that is limited, but okay; and their bullpen isn't so bad that they're going to be Padres/Pirates horrific.
The Blue Jays do need to bring in a
younger manager; they need to give their young bats like Travis Snider a chance to play. If Edwin Encarnacion doesn't continue
to be a dunderhead and hits; if Adam Lind and Aaron Hill come close to their 2009 production, the Blue Jays will score enough
to prevent falling to 100-loss depths. They might not even lose 90 games.
"The AL East has three
90-win teams":
Where?
The geniuses (and not just Waldman and Francesa) said the same thing last year.
What happened? Ah, muck beasts, will you never learn?
The idea that the Yankees, Red Sox and Rays are all going to win 90 games is simple ignorance,
a lack of foresight and intuitiveness combined with talking out of their asses because they haven't looked at the circumstances
surrounding the Red Sox and Rays.
The
Red Sox do not have enough hitting to compete with the Yankees. Period. I'm not sold on John Lackey as the solution to their
rotation issues; Daisuke Matsuzaka is degenerating into a nightmare; and Tim Wakefield can't be counted on physically. Not
only are they going to have to worry about finding a bat, but they might need a starting pitcher too.
The AL West is a torture chamber; the Central has two teams battling
it out for the division in the Twins and White Sox and both are better than the Red Sox. If the Red Sox were balking at Padres
GM Jed Hoyer's demands for Adrian Gonzlaez in the winter, they'd better be ready for what he's going to want in July because
it's going to be worse. Much worse.
The Rays, despite the way their front office is being
referred to as "brilliant" are in slight disarray. They too need a managerial change; and they're going to trade
Carl Crawford. Where are they winning 90 games? If they have another bolt from the blue in which everything they do works
as happened in 2008, then okay; but right now? There are more questions than answers in Tampa; and in a vicious division and
brutal league, that doesn't add up to 90 wins. Sorry.
Suzyn Waldman is a fool. Plain and simple. She knows
nothing about baseball and embarrasses herself on a daily basis with her arrogant clownishness.
Mike Francesa portrays himself as an insider expert who just "knows"
things that others don't. Well, he doesn't. During the Olympics, he openly admitted that he knows nothing about hockey. If
we can somehow, some way get him to come to the same realization about baseball, we'll be getting somewhere.
It's not happening. All we can do is remember the
stupid statements recounted above and point them out as things come apart on their predictions. They'll find a way to justify
them, but you'll know the truth then if you didn't know it already.
Suddenly the Mets farm system doesn't look all that bad:
With Ike Davis doing a more powerful imitation of John Olerud (their swings
are remarkably similar from the quiet way in which Davis waits for the pitch to his follow through and top hand coming off
the bat); with Jenrry Mejia looking devastating; with Ruben Tejada hitting, running and fielding all over the place; and Fernando
Martinez stinging the ball after superlative winter league season, could it be that the "decimated and destitute"
Mets system isn't so bad after all?
There are a couple of other names to note like Reese Havens and Josh Thole.
All of this is lending credence to the thought that the Mets did have the chips to get Halladay
if they wanted to follow the Phillies lead and gut the system to do it.
It was highly unlikely because Halladay had his heart set on Philly and the Mets weren't going to pay
another pitcher the money it would've cost to get him especially with Cliff Lee going free agent after 2010. (GM Omar Minaya
is in love with Cliff Lee; he tried to get him over-and-over again before the Mets had become the media punching bag that
they've been for the past couple of years.)
All this does is shine a light on how stupid the Phillies really were in banking on a Double A closer, Philippe Aumont,
as the centerpiece of maintaining a "healthy" minor league system. Their farm system is demolished and they made
a lateral move with Halladay for Lee.
After the trade with the Indians for Lee----in which they gave up a lot, don't listen to garbage from the likes of
Keith Law----and the trade of Lee to get Halladay and Aumont, the Phillies are going to be in trouble by 2011. Big
trouble.
Don't tell me how smart they've
been because they did a dual pronged bit of stupid in the Halladay/Lee mess. In addition to the other ridiculous things they
did in contract extensions and signings, they've sown the seeds to their own downfall.
We'll see which front office was truly "inept" a year from now.
Or sooner.
Revisting the Elliot Johnson-Francisco Cervelli collision from 2008:
After Francisco Cervelli got hit in the helmet by
a fastball from Blue Jays righty Zech Zinicola (he's got a concussion, but will be okay), the discussion on Twitter turned
into how rotten Cervelli's spring training luck is.*
*I got popped in the head a few times
when I was playing. Twice without a helmet. It didn't affect me none at all in any somesuch way of any infigh adsndna cbass,v
mff,...1##WAFSFASSFAS22@@ 4q3rn.....
Two years ago, he had his wrist broken
in a home plate collision with Rays rookie Elliot Johnson. The consensus, led by Yankees manager Joe Girardi, has been that
it was a cheap shot on the part of Johnson, unnecessary in spring training.
I said then and now that it was a clean hit.
It was clean.
It was a hard baseball play. But it was clean.
Was it necessary in spring training? Was it a legal cheap shot? Was it something for the Yankees manager
to cause such a stir over? And was the Yankees over the top reaction as direct result of their manager's complaining?
As for the propriety, put it this way, had it been
Jorge Posada catching and Carl Crawford coming around the bases, there would've been no collision because Posada would've
moved and Crawford would've either slowed or run around Posada. Neither had anything to prove and weren't trying to make an
impression on anyone. For Cervelli, he had to show that he wasn't afraid of the occasionally necessary contact that happens
to a catcher; Johnson was trying to make the Rays roster.
They were playing a game. It was a bang-bang play that wasn't out of order; and there are veteran players
that would've done the same thing as Johnson and been heralded for their intensity. If it were Pete Rose, no one would say
a word. They'd credit him for his all out, all the time play.
Girardi's explosion appeared
to be the overreaction of a young manager trying to feel his way through his new job and show his dubious veteran players
that he was going to defend them and stand up for them rightly or wrongly. He didn't know what to do, so he freaked out; as
hard nosed a player as Girardi was, I can't believe that he truly thought it was a cheap shot. Had Cervelli not gotten hurt
and required surgery, no one would've said anything.
In fact, Girardi made things worse because the desire for "retaliation" caused a bench clearing brawl between
the Rays and Yankees when Shelley Duncan did exercise a cheap shot on Rays second baseman Akinori Iwamura with a
filthy, spikes-high slide on a double play designed to start a fight. And a fight started. All of that was due to Girardi's
overreaction and another marginal big leaguer like Duncan trying to prove something to his manager and teammates.
They're lucky no one got hurt in the fight; and
in retrospect it was even more idiotic because it galvanized the Rays and sent the message to the rest of the league that
the young Rays weren't going to put up with the Yankees and Red Sox bullying anymore. They won the pennant that year in large
part because of the team-wide bonding that can come from a fight.
The Johnson play was hard; it was rough; and Cervelli got hut. But it was clean. Period.
I keep churning out the sequels from my mill of
schlock:
The stories
never end!!! It's a shame the mainstream writers can't combine finding them and writing about them interestingly. Never fear.
I'm here.
Jose Reyes's thyroid:
From what's popping out
of Mets camp and the medical community's reaction to the news that Jose Reyes possibly has an overactive thyroid, it doesn't
sound too serious----NY Times Story----but the club is being extra-cautious; the fans are panicking; and the cheap shot artists are wading even further into
the depths of revulsion than I thought possible.
Given the disaster/train wreck/nightmare of 2009, the Mets aren't taking any chances with their players. Any and all
medical issues will be treated as conservatively as possible. This will only be a negative if the paranoia leads them to overdoing
it and yanking a player for a paper-cut; aside from that, it's spring training and even if Reyes misses a week or two, he'll
be ready to start the season. He's not a pitcher; the only things a regular player works on in spring training are his timing
at the plate and being in game shape and Reyes has been exercising with a trainer for months; he's in game shape already.
With the laughter that's emanating from
the fan bases of opposing clubs, while it's on a lower level given the severity of other off-field happenings, this is in
the same ballpark of finding humor in Jon Lester's cancer or Cory Lidle's plane crash. Reyes has a medical issue that for
all they know might be career or even life threatening, but they revel in it anyway.
When the news first came out of a concern about blood tests, who knew what
it was or how serious it could be? But it didn't prevent any ridicule; the newfound ammunition to attack the Mets.
You have to seriously consider the mentality of someone
who feels it's appropriate to laugh at a person's health problems. This isn't a hamstring pull; it's something else; and those
that feel it's more of a reason to indulge in over-the-top hilarity are playing with fire because the ludicrous way in which
things came apart for the Mets in 2009 can happen to them and their clubs just as quickly.
Will they be laughing then? Jumping for joy? Probably not, but then
I'm assuming they're bright enough to make the connection to begin with, which is a drastic fault in my premise for which
there's no repair.
Youngsters, hype and managerial factors:
Jason Heyward is being greeted with star stricken awe at the mere sight of his power displays in batting practice. There's a lot to love
about the Braves young right fielder and many reasons for the club to shut their eyes and let him start the season as a big
leaguer.
That said, he's only 20
and the pressure on him to be the one basher the club needed this winter----and didn't get----will be enormous. No one will
know whether Heyward could handle said pressure except in retrospect; but there's been a history of overreaction over prospects
in Atlanta and a penchant for rushing them to the big leagues when they still had holes in their game.
Jeff Francoeur's rise and fall with the Braves has
been well-documented here. Francoeur was brought to the big leagues at 21 as the homegrown savior. He played well----but not
as well as he could've had the club reined him in slightly from his go-go-go attitude of wanting to swing the bat from the
dugout while the pitcher was still warming up to start the inning.
Would Francoeur be a better player today had they disciplined him just a bit so he wasn't overaggressive
to his detriment? Absolutely. And this is before even getting to the way the club and fans soured on him as his inevitable
struggles began.
Jordan Schafer
got off to a hot start at the plate; hit 2 homers in his first week and was being treated as a burgeoning star; but was quickly
overmatched as it became clear that he couldn't catch up to even an above-average fastball. Watching Schafer, I don't know
what can be done about that. He simply doesn't have the bat speed to be more than a fourth or fifth outfielder or Triple A
filler.
They did get use from Andruw Jones in the 1996 World Series when the 19-year-old homered in his first two at bats; but he struggled overall in his formative
big league seasons; and it wasn't slumps or an absence of physicality----it was that he wasn't ready. If you examine his play,
you see mistakes that were due more to being polished and prepared than his talent being great enough that he could compete.
He struck out too much; he was
impatient at the plate; and a real gauge of his intuitive baseball skills----caught stealing----show that he was wanting in
readiness. He did become a star and MVP candidate, but he might've been better, faster had he been allowed to develop in the
minors rather than rushed to the majors.
Those Braves teams were able to make mistakes in advancing their youngsters too soon because the All Stars in the lineup and
especially the three Hall of Famers on the mound (Tom Glavine, John Smoltz and Greg Maddux) covered for a multitude of developmental
sins and crafted an image of "genius" in the front office where none existed. It's easy to cover mistakes with a
great team.
Such is no longer the case
for the Braves.
That margin for error
is gone because the current club needs Heyward to be a mid-lineup terror; and it's not fair. He might be able to
handle it; to stand up to it; to produce. He's far more talented that Schafer and Francoeur; but he's still only 20 and the
lust he's engendering from a few spring training games and hype isn't going to help. In fact, it might hurt.
Another important aspect in the promotion of youngsters is the agenda of the club and the manager.
Braves manager Bobby Cox appears to be pushing hard for Heyward to be with the big league club to start the season. In Mets
camp, manager Jerry Manuel sung the praises of 20-year-old righty Jenrry Mejia yesterday making it sound as if he not only wants him on the big league roster at the start of the season, but is willing
to use him as a set-up man for Francisco Rodriguez.
I have concerns about managers who are retiring (Cox) or know their jobs are on the line based on how well their club
gets out of the gate (Manuel). The Braves made a short-sighted and desperation trade in 2007 as John Schuerholz was moving
from the GM chair to the club presidency. In sending a giant package of prospects including Elvis Andrus; Neftali Feliz; Matt
Harrison and Jarrod Saltalamacchia to the Rangers for Mark Teixeira and Ron Mahay to win another title and cement Schuerholz's
"genius", they gave up a chunk of talent. I have to wonder whether Schuerholz's last two months as GM factored into
the decision to go for it in such a way.
It didn't work as the Braves stumbled down the stretch and were an also-ran and if they had that deal to do over again, I'm
sure they'd hesitate and probably not do it.
With Heyward, if he's ready, he's ready. Let him play. With Mejia, I have no problem with a club incorporating a youngster
into the majors out of the bullpen (Mejia's seen as a starter, long term). It's a great strategy to get a young pitcher accustomed
to the majors and learn how to escape jams under short pressure. That's what the Cardinals do; but the Cardinals have an entrenched
manager/pitching coach combination with Tony La Russa and Dave Duncan and don't have the history of abusing their relievers
as Manuel does.
I wouldn't let
Mejia get anywhere near the big leagues as anything other than a secret weapon late in the season if the Mets are contending.
Aside from that, he's in the minors as a starter. Period.
The Phillies might be prepared to rush the centerpiece to the stupid trade of Cliff Lee to the Mariners----Philippe Aumont----to the majors not only because they'll want to prove that they didn't make a mistake, but because their bullpen might
be so awful that they'll need Aumont.
And it'll be a mistake.
Managers and executives who might be trying to win one last time; save their jobs; or justify something they've done have
to have their agendas questioned and possibly overruled for the long-term future of the club.
Barry Zito picks up the spare:
Giants pitcher Barry Zito hit Prince Fielder with a pitch in the first
inning of the game between the Giants and Brewers on Thursday in retaliation for Fielder's over-the-line celebration of a
game-winning homer on September 6th of last season----Article.
This was a non-story for a few
reasons.
Could Barry Zito hitting
someone with his 86 mph "fastball" be considered as retaliation? Prince Fielder shrugged it off because he didn't
even feel it; because it created as much of an impact on Fielder's well-cushioned body as a butterfly landing on his shoulder;
and because I think even Fielder realized that his game-winning homer and teammates' "bowling pin" reaction wasn't
just bush league, it was little league and beyond over-the-top in celebration.
Bottom line: had it been Tim Lincecum drilling Fielder with a 98-mph fastball that
could've actually done some damage, he might not have shrugged it off as easily; in fact, he would've charged the mound and
used Lincecum as a toothpick. At this point, Zito's "fastball" can't break through a piece of wet toilet paper.
That's not that hard to dismiss by Fielder because Fielder was barely aware that he got hit to begin with.
In the end, Zito got his "revenge" which was more for pubic
consumption and to save face with his teammates than any legit retaliation. Retaliation only works if it achieves a desired
effect; and presumably Zito's teammates approve of what he did and respect him for it and Zito feels better about himself.
But I can tell you that if it was
Lincecum, Matt Cain or Brian Wilson on the mound, the exchange would've been something like the following:
Fielder
(pointing his bat at the mound): "What the fuck?!? You throw at me, you better knock me out, motherfucker!!"
Pitcher with an actual fastball: "What's the problem? I'm pickin' up
the spare you fuckin' cocksucker!"
Then, my guess is there would've been a fight. Just a guess.
Good move by Joe with that EOW. Sounded plausible to
me.
Agreed. In case anyone missed it, I was almost sent into a blind rage
with the following Twitter tweet from Joe regarding Friedman's ascent to the top of the pops:
The stat 'EOW', efficiency over wins, gives him a 96.2 on a scale of 100.
I must admit, I didn't think he had it in him. There's hope that I can still rehabilitate him from
the stat zombie infection.
I don't want to get into ranking them from 1-30 because there are so many factors that go into such
an arbitrary list that it's a waste of time. Once you get past the top 10 or so, it's negligible as to what's "right"
and "wrong".
Just like
Ruben Amaro Jr, Omar Minaya, and Jon Daniels----who all have black marks against them heading into the season----the only
way Beane will be judged is if his moves work or not. If the defense-oriented shift he made; the signing of Ben Sheets; and
the reliance on young pitchers is a success, he'll be seen as "smart"; if they don't pan out (and they won't), the
luster will be diminished even more in the post-Moneyball sobering up that's taking far too long. We'll know by mid-May at
the latest.
It's a fleeting assessment
that relies on factors that are too hard to quantify, especially coming from a stat zombie.
I Introduce You To Baseball's....Um.....Best GM(?)
Not only is it hard to quantify, but it's wrong:
I love it when stat zombies try to escape their
numerically oriented and narrow worlds to venture off into the unknown to quantify the unquantifiables and only serve to provide
more reasons why they should stay in their little worlds immersed in reams and reams of papers; surrounded by calculators;
Bill James posters; drenched copies of Moneyball; and no human contact whatsoever.
Such a venture is documented as Sports Illustrated's Tim Marchman ranks
the 30 MLB General Managers from best to worst in this article.
I'm not getting into a critique/argument
of who should be 6th, 15th, 18th, etc. It's a worthless endeavor that many times has as much to do with luck and money as
it does with evaluative skills. There are good GMs in bad situations; there are bad GMs in good situations; there are GMs
with positive and negative attributes that make them hard to judge accurately. But when you do as Marchman does and anoint
one GM as the "best" based on nothing, it has to be addressed.
According the Marchman, the "best" GM in baseball is...Rays GM Andrew Friedman.
Um.
Okay...
By way
of reasoning, Marchman writes the following:
For as much praise as the Rays have received over the
last few years, they've probably deserved even more. Over the last three years they've spent just a million dollars per marginal
win, the sort of thing that gets baseball wonks to draw hearts around pictures of Friedman. Maybe the best example of their
method is the preposterous contract to which they signed Evan Longoria during his first days as a major leaguer
-- if the Rays exercise all the options in the contract, they could end up paying him less than $50 million through his age
30 season, which makes him the single most valuable commodity in baseball. Friedman has also won a pennant and maintains one
of the game's best farm systems. It may seem absurd to say of a 32-year-old whom few people had heard of a year and a half
ago, but he and his braintrust are the best in baseball.
Ugh.
Okay. Let's dissect this.
Here's the reality of Andrew Friedman as the Rays GM. When he first took over
the club he and the neophyte ownership didn't have the faintest clue what they were doing. A rotisserie baseball fanatic who
came from the banking industry, Friedman was the latest in a long line of fans who were thrust into the spotlight to run a
club because a friend purchased a club and it was a fun thing for them to do. He was a stat geek who'd actually played baseball
at Tulane and was immersed in numbers to the point that it was somehow a qualification to run a team.
When the new Rays braintrust took over, Friedman was seemingly afraid
to make a mistake and did little to nothing to improve the club after he took over for former GM Chuck LaMar in late 2005.
Friedman showed little capacity for handling the player personnel; but what was worse was that he was unable to deal with
the players as people in a way that was best for the organization.
It was a free-for-all. The Rays had drug addicts (Josh Hamilton); players with anger issues (Elijah
Dukes); a coach that was busted for DUI (Jim Hickey); and a former top draft pick who flung a bat at an umpire in anger (Delmon
Young).
They did absolutely nothing
to address these issues in the proper fashion. And that proper fashion was to tell these people straight out that if they
were unable to behave in an appropriate manner with a baseline code of conduct imperative to an organization, then they'd
be gone. Period. It's vital for an organization to tell their employees that if they don't want to be part of that organization,
then they'll be accommodated; and that includes behavior on and off the field.
Was Friedman able to handle the big league player? The highly-priced bonus baby?
The coach who did something stupid?
Clearly not at first.
The team was atrocious
on the field (they lost 101 games in 2006; 96 games in 2007); and in utter disarray off the field. Then the magical season
of 2008 happened.
Let's take a
look at the way the players from that club were acquired, whether it was brilliance, luck or circumstance that created the
dramatic turnaround from a laughable organization into the American League Champions and, a year-and-a-half later, the anointing
of Friedman as the "best" GM in baseball.
Smart moves by Friedman:
He acquired Dioner Navarro in a trade with the Dodgers for Julio Lugo; J.P. Howell in a deal for Joey Gathright; and
Jason Bartlett and Matt Garza for Delmon Young and Jason Pridie.
He drafted Evan Longoria and David Price.
He acquired Ben Zobrist from the Astros for Aubrey Huff.
Navarro
was a prospect who'd been traded twice. The Yankees sent him to the Diamondbacks in the Randy Johnson deal; the Diamondbacks
sent him to the Dodgers for Shawn Green; getting anything of use for Lugo was a great move.
The Bartlett/Garza move was excellent in two ways. One, it shored up the
defense (and no one----no one----could've expected Bartlett to put up the offensive numbers he did at age 29 in 2009). Garza's main problem in Minnesota was a temper that he's still yet to fully control, but there
was never denying his ability. Two, it got Young----immature and insubordinate----out of town.
The drafting of Longoria could be seen as lucky, but he's turned out to
be a star and credit has to go to the person doing the drafting.
The trade for Zobrist was a stat move. Zobrist's numbers in the minors were absurdly good and despite
not performing adequately as a big leaguer until 2008 and developing into a star in 2009, his acquisition also has to be recognized.
Baseline discipline moves:
It was easy to rip the way the Rays gave Josh Hamilton
away, but what were they supposed to do? He hadn't played a full season since he'd been a pro; there was no indication that
he was ever going to clean up and even if he did, who knew whether the years of self-abuse had robbed him of his prodigious
skills that made him the top pick in the draft in 1999? As a matter of discipline and saving the roster space, Hamilton had
to go.
Elijah Dukes has MVP-talent;
but he was violent; he was threatening; and he was unstable. They couldn't keep him around especially with a weak manager
like Joe Maddon running the club on the field.
The aforementioned Young was another high draft pick whose behaviors might have been bridled at some point, but getting Bartlett
and Garza while weeding the organization of a potential problem was necessary.
Lucky moves
by Friedman:
Carlos Pena is a stat zombie's dream. He hits a lot of homers and walks
a lot and was a journeyman's journeyman before joining the Rays on a minor league contract in 2007. He'd bounced from the
Rangers to the Athletics to the Tigers to the Red Sox to the Yankees. He'd played regularly on occasion; hit his homers; put
up his high on base numbers and was expendable.
In 2007, the Rays were ready to release him at the end of spring training, changed their minds and got 46 homers, 121
RBI and a .411 on base.
Was this
any foresight on the part of the front office? If it was, it was a remarkable bit of gazing into crystal ball; so remarkable
that it's ridiculous to believe it was anything more than hitting the lottery.
Gabe Gross had never been able to hit. Always solid defensively, but known more for having been a college quarterback at Auburn
than for his baseball skills, Gross was acquired from the Brewers early in the 2008 season...and started hitting home runs.
He hit 13 homers during the Rays run, many of them clutch. This was a dart thrown while wearing a blindfold.
Grant Balfour is an Aussie with a power fastball and no clue where the ball was going. The Rays signed
him, stuck him in the bullpen and he learned to throw strikes having a fantastic year in 2008 before reverting to what he
was in his Twins/Brewers days in 2009.
Eric Hinske is an on-base/power bench player who's
always going to have a job because he can hit the ball out of the park, but signing him was a flier that turned out well.
Were these moves lucky or smart? Did it take any intuitive baseball abilities to find these players
and have them work as well as they did? Is luck a justifiable reason to consider someone the "best" at what they
do?
The foundation:
People are quick to credit
Friedman and co. for what the Rays have supposedly become; but what was there when they arrived? No one thought much of former
GM Chuck LaMar or owner Vince Naimoli, but there were, um. some pretty good pieces in place when the new crew arrived.
Here's the list:
Carl Crawford
(2nd round, 1999) B.J. Upton (1st round, 2nd pick, 2002) James Shields (16th round, 2000) Scott Kazmir (acquired
from NY Mets for Victor Zambrano, 2004) Andy Sonnanstine (13th round, 2004) Reid Brignac (2nd round, 2004) Jeff Niemann (1st round, 4th pick, 2004)
Would the Rays have improved so quickly without Crawford?
Upton? Shields? Kazmir?
What did
Friedman do in these cases?
Nothing.
Stupid moves by Friedman:
It may not seem like much, but they dumped Jorge Cantu
and Joe Beimel for nothing; and traded Edwin Jackson for Matt Joyce after 2008. Jackson was a horse for the Tigers that the
Rays could've used; and Joyce was a disaster.
To sit there and declare Friedman as the best GM in baseball is offensive on so many levels that in
a similar fashion to the bewildered countenance I exhibit every time another zombie emerges from the crypt to defend Paul
DePodesta's time as Dodgers GM (complete with the unanswerable and apoplectic: "Are you really gonna sit there
and defend this guy?!?"), I didn't know how to respond at first.
Ruminating created the above evisceration of Marchman's try at quantifying such
a thing as the "best" not because it's stat zombie-ing, but because it's stupid. To make it worse, he's wrong!!!
In a world
with Larry Beinfest doing the job he does as Marlins baseball boss, how dare he name Friedman as the top guy. Friedman's
developed into a smart and gutsy executive (evidenced by the trade of Scott Kazmir late last season); but to say he's the
number one guy? Based on what? Based on nothing. That's what. And it's a farce.
Pushing the Prince's button highly effectively:
When this ranking list first popped up, I was openly wondering what Marchman
was thinking in a different----albeit reactionary way----on Twitter. Joe at Statistician Magician came up with a clever and slick way to send me *teetering* on the edge of a total meltdown with the following:
The stat 'EOW', efficiency over wins, gives him
a 96.2 on a scale of 100.
My eyes bulged.
My hands shook.
My teeth clenched.
My blood boiled.
I started strangling
my laptop...until Joe let me know that it was something he made up.
But doesn't the EOW sound like something they'd come up with? Doesn't it?
Well played.
Viewer Mail 3.5.2010:
Larry writes RE Me:
Hey Prince, you may be waaaaay over the top at night on Twitter (and during the day too) but this baseball
blog of yours is sensible, interesting and readable. I'll be reading. Take care @HeartyLarry
PS: Tell anyone I
had something nice to say and I'll deny it.
BWAAA-HAHAHAHAHAHAH
Larry may be a habitual line-stepper, but he's essentially harmless.
All kidding aside, thanks for the compliment. I think that the borderline explosiveness----the
duality as it were----helps me in both venues. One aspect of a person's personality doesn't supersede the other. They can
exist simultaneously. If I lost the "over the top" Prince, the cogent, organized and sensible Prince would be compromised.
Plus it's entertaining. Not on purpose. It just is.
Jeff (Street Boss) at Red State Blue State writes RE Teddy Ruxpin and Fantasy Baseball:
The
worst thing about Ruxpin, let us not forget, is where ya have to insert the tape.
As for fantasy, I play it --
a lot and well... meaning, I make $$$ doing it, and it's fun for me -- but I realize the most boring thing in the world is
listening to some jagoff talk about his fantasy team. Therefore, I keep mine to myself.
But I will say this: the
good fantasy players have known who Kyle Blanks is for some time and he is definitely getting drafted in the late round roto
leagues. Believe that.
I was too old when Teddy Ruxpin came
out to ask for one without looking like a total loser. I wanted it anyway.
I briefly considered Fantasy Baseball a couple of times before deciding that
I enjoyed my own fantasies more. And they got nothin' to do with baseball. (Don't ask.)
John Seal (Prospective West Coast Spiritual Advisor
for The Family) writes RE Teddy Ruxpin and Fantasy Baseball:
I recently quit one of
my two fantasy leagues. It's time consuming, so unless you're super dedicated, it's not really worth playing.
That
said, I'll bid $2 for Teddy Ruxpin. Is Rainbow Brite still available?
I might have to start considering Fantasy Baseball now. It's be a powder keg, but it'd be hysterical
in a deadly sort of way. The best comedy comes from potential for destruction; that's why I'm on this earth I'm afraid.
They
reference Rainbow Brite frequently on Robot Chicken. I was more a Mego Super-Heroes man myself----at least until a couple
years ago. Yes. I know. I'm 38. I like my superhero toys.
I'm entertaining myself endlessly with this stuff.
Let's have a look at more 2010 Stories To Watch.
Managerial common sense:
I'm not talking strategy.
Here's something I don't get: if a club is rebuilding and knows----knows----that their current manager isn't going
to be at the helm when they turn the corner, then why keep him on?
After the way the Blue Jays collapsed last season and appeared to quit, I would've either fired or
requested a resignation from manager Cito Gaston. I've said before I can take a team that plays poorly if their talent level
is substandard or has outside issues that are negatively affecting their results; but for a team to pack it in as the Blue
Jays did was totally unacceptable.
Ignoring that, the Blue Jays are moving forward into a new era without Roy Halladay; without dispatched GM J.P. Ricciaridi;
they've imported a load of new players and young pitching in addition to what they already had. Gaston, age 66, is not going
to be managing the club when they turn the corner----nor should he be. His contract is up at the end of the season and he's
not going to be back unless the Blue Jays contend. Suffice it to say that such an event would only be achieved by some miracle
or baseball-wide plague rendering most of the players from the Yankees, Red Sox, et al incapacitated. In other words, forget
it.
So, with all those marks against
him, why bring him back?
New GM Alex
Anthopolous had to trade Roy Halladay, which was far more of a traumatic break than firing the manager would be. The Blue
Jays fans are presumably happy that Ricciardi's gone. The re-hiring of Gaston was done to try and create some goodwill with
the fan base for whom Gaston was still quite popular after managing the team to back-to-back World Series wins in 1992-1993.
Would they revolt if he was replaced? It seems as if they were revolted enough by the repeated controversies fostered and
expanded exponentially by Ricciardi; what difference would it make to them if the club hired a new manager?
What I would do in the case of the Blue Jays, the
Nationals, the Orioles and the Padres is to find a younger manager who could grow with the players as they learn to do things
correctly and win. It's organic. It can't be forced when nurturing an evolving group. Building trust between the manager and
players is important in the formative years of a club that's essentially starting from the ground up. To have a lame duck
66-year old running things makes no sense whatsoever.
Don't forget that Gaston couldn't keep the Blue Jays from bagging the season in August and September
in 2009. As if that wasn't unforgivable enough, they needed to bring in someone younger. And they didn't.
What
are the Tigers?
It's is a very bizarre conglomeration in Detroit. The combination of hideous
contracts; declining and mentally shot veterans; a semi-punchless lineup; youngsters being incorporated; and a manager who
wants to win immediately lead to the question: what's the endgame?
They've signed Johnny Damon to provide some veteran stability and leadership along with his production;
they're going with a rookie second baseman and two young starters in the rotation with Rick Porcello and Max Scherzer; they're
functioning with black holes in the lineup at shortstop and catcher; and they have no idea whatsoever what they're going to
get from center fielder Austin Jackson.
At his age (65), Jim Leyland has neither the patience nor the lung capacity for the cigarettes he'll need to handle the growing
pains of the youngsters nor to witness the freefall of his veterans.
At the very least with a rebuilding team like the Padres or Blue Jays, you know
what you're getting. With a team like the Tigers there appears to be an attempt to be all things to all people at all times.
They have enough talent to hover around .500, but can't compete in a rough division. They're not bad enough to do a teardown----a
teardown against which the manager would loudly protest----but not good enough to expect to contend.
They're inserting youngsters; signing veterans; dealing movable contracts;
and hoping that they can cobble together something viable and that's really hard to do.
In retrospect, the club might've been better off last season had they
collapsed completely as many expected them to. They didn't make the playoffs going for it and riding Justin Verlander and
Edwin Jackson hard; and they're faced with this current pile of stuff.
Sometimes what "is" is better than what "if". Ambiguity is an enemy in the long
run.
The Mets:
There are two ways things are going to go for the
Mets this season and their future will be known relatively quickly. Either they're going to galvanize into an "us against
the world" philosophy, have a little better luck and try to shove it to the cheap-shot artists for whom they've been
a convenient punching bag since September 2007; or they're going to stumble to the depths of mediocrity and worse.
With the cautious optimism in spring training so far;
the personality of Jeff Francoeur; the return of Jose Reyes; and the way the pitching has looked; along with the signing of
Jason Bay, it's looked like they're on the way to a positive season.
The paranoia still exists after the way everything went wrong last season; and they're inviting themselves
to certain jokes that are irresistible even to me (Prevention and Recovery?); but the laughter isn't as primal as it was in
the winter especially at the time the Carlos Beltran-surgery controversy blew up and the organization was shunned by Bengie
Molina.
Now, there seems to be
a conscious tamping down of the ludicrous "Mets as a laughingstock" rhetoric that was prevalent going back to last
summer. The reluctance among opponents and opposing fans stems from the talent in camp and the quiet enthusiasm that's palpable.
As long as nothing catastrophic happens to tumble the house of cards that this good vibe has created, the Mets will play well
and shut a lot of people's mouths.
Roto-baseball
and the Prince don't mix:
I was talking to a friend about rotisserie baseball and fantasy baseball and all that stat zombie crap and it became clear
that I'm incapable of thinking in such a way to have any success at the game whatsoever.
It's boring to me anyway; I have no interest; but it's funny how the way
I think publicly in my attacking of Moneyball and stat zombies is so entrenched in my psyche that I can't move to stat zombie-ing
even for a second.
My questioning seemed
commonsensical; my argument logical. It centered around the Padres. Everyone wants Adrian Gonzalez because he's a player that's
a fantasy sports player's dream because of his production; and he can actually play in reality. But with his potential for
being traded sometime this season at about the Ivory Soap pure percentage of 99 44/100%, I thought it would be a good idea
to pick up Kyle Blanks; the argument being that he'll be moved to first base when Gonzalez is dealt and it'll be a neat transition
and a smart pickup.
Evidently, my logic
doesn't translate into any kind of stat zombie-ing because Blanks is listed as an outfielder and will be gettable via free
agency, cheaply, as a bench player/outfielder. Once he's actually a first baseman, he'll be listed as a first baseman.
I don't get it.
I don't wanna get it.
Because if I get it, I won't be able to un-get it.
And I don't wanna get it.
Best to steer clear and stay in my own World of Wonder with Teddy Ruxpin.
Most sequels get worse as they repeatedly focus
on the same theme with rehashed ideas, but like The Empire Strikes Back, my sequels with the 2010 Stories To Watch are getting
better and better.
How relieved are the Rangers now that the talks with Josh Hamilton about
a long-term contract extension last spring went nowhere?
Combined with his injuries and that he needs an almost 24-hour babysitter, and that his sobriety is always going to
be a question, the club would've been insane----and I said this a year ago----to give a player like Hamilton, with all his
baggage, a long-term deal.
The injuries
are one thing, but I have a problem with the "I'm cured because of Jesus" stuff. That's not an indictment; it's
not a judgment; it's simply a cold, hard fact that as long as there's an escape hatch, he's vulnerable to relapse. Leaning
on an institution such as the church or the Bible in which anything and everything can be justified and forgiven is a get
out of jail free card; there's always the chance of slippage and begging for forgiveness.
And Hamilton did slip over a year ago when he was caught drinking and
partying in a bar.
It might've been
easier to swallow if he'd played as well as he did in the first half of 2008 when he was an MVP candidate and became a cause
célèbre, receiving accolades; writing books; and was held up as an "inspiration".
To me, it was all an invitation to disaster.
He receded to more normal production in the second half of 2008 with
only 35 more RBI after having 95 at the break. In fairness to Hamilton, he was playing in the Texas heat; he must've been
exhausted emotionally especially after his performance in the home run hitting contest at the All Star Game; and he'd never
played a full professional season.
None
of that is an explanation for falling off the wagon in the winter of 2008-2009. There's nothing wrong with slipping up, but
if you're going to be preaching as Hamilton was; if you're going to be taking part in all the stories of "triumph over
adversity and addiction", you'd better stay straight. This is one of the main reasons that it was premature to start
canonizing the guy for staying clean for what amounted to a brief time.
In 2009, he had numerous injury problems that sabotaged his season. From his rib to his groin to his
abdominals to his back, he missed almost half the season and his numbers dove to a fraction of what they were with 10 homers
and 54 RBI. Now, he's bruised his left shoulder after diving for a pop up in a spring drill and is "out indefinitely"----ESPN Story.
It was lunacy for the Rangers
to even entertain the notion of giving Hamilton a long-term contract if they really even considered it to begin with; now,
with all the injuries, 2010 will be a clear window into what can be expected from the player moving forward. He's 29 now;
he's had his addictions; he's come back to baseball; he's risen and fallen; it's time to move past all that and look at the
player as an entity unto himself; and if he's continuously hurt, he's not much use to anyone regardless of how much talent
he has.
The Stephen Strasburg watch:
The pressure on the Nationals
to bring Stephen Strasburg up to the big leagues is going to be enormous; the pressure on the pitcher is going to be absurd;
and I think he'll be much better off getting the full year at Double or Triple A to have an uninterrupted professional year
under his belt before coming to the big leagues. The Nationals are not going to be good; nor are they going to be much improved
from what they were last season. By matter of course, they'll be better because it's hard to be much worse. Bringing him up
into a circumstance where he might experience shellshock along with all the pressure is a mistake.
Barring anything miraculous happening in Washington (and I ain't talking
governmental), I've said a couple of times that I'd keep him in Double A for the whole season ; the more I think about it,
the better it will probably be for Strasburg to spend the year at Triple A Syracuse.
The players in Triple A aren't prospects anymore; more often than not,
they're journeymen and insurance to function as the 23rd to 25th man on the big league roster. Since Triple A has become a
moneymaker, there are almost all veteran players on the rosters from the ages of 25-33. It would be a good opportunity for
Strasburg to pitch to experienced players who wouldn't be starstruck at the phenom; in fact, they'd want to bash him to get
themselves some attention. A little adversity wouldn't hurt Strasburg and it's better for him to get it at Triple A than in
the big leagues.
We'll see what the
Nationals do.
Ken Macha's job status:
He
wins. He gets the most out of the talent on his roster. He makes the correct strategic moves. And he's always seemingly on
the verge of getting fired.
Billy
Beane in Oakland didn't seem all that bothered about letting Macha walk when his manager was asking for too much money after
the 2005 season. They broke off negotiations; Beane interviewed a few other candidates before he and Macha reconciled and
agreed to a 3-year contract.
In
2006, The Athletics made it further than they ever had before under Beane as they advanced to the ALCS and got swept by the
Tigers...then Beane fired Macha citing the ephemeral and oft-repeated reason for a change, "lack of communication"----whatever
that means.
Macha was hired
to replace Brewers interim manager Dale Sveum after 2008 and got as much as could reasonably be expected from the flawed Brewers
roster as they ended at 80-82; but his job was in jeopardy after the season before he was kept on in what was a lukewarm retention.
His contract is up at the end of the season (the Brewers hold an option for 2011) and there's a manager in waiting in bench
coach Willie Randolph.
It could
be that Macha's not the yes man that many insecure GMs prefer; it might be that the players don't like being told the truth
from the manager. Not that Randolph is any kind of a yes man either, but he may be better able to relate to the players than
Macha.
Under no circumstances is Randolph
positioning himself behind Macha to push him over the cliff; but the club would be better off with Randolph managing the team
and if they get off to a bad start, Macha's getting fired.
I have no personal affection for Zito or the Giants,
but I hope Zito has a good season and redeems himself. You're right - the contract was what it was.
I can understand Zito's frustration with the way Bruce Bochy yanks him immediately if he gets into
trouble; but the team and the manager had no margin for error. Maybe with the offense improved----albeit slightly----he'll
be given a bit more rope. And was he supposed to turn down the contract? Give some money back?
I dunno what people want from the guy. His quirkiness does sometimes
seem to be crafted for public consumption, but so what? If he pitches well, no one will care. Just like before, it'll be "colorful"
instead of "annoying".
Excellent piece on Zito. Well put. I think a lot of
people lose sight of how that contract came to be (including myself). Considering the facts, I still refuse to stop bashing
Zito (for now). His failure is my gain... and I am a sick, sick man. Hahahahahaha!
In case anyone missed it, Zito blocked Jeff on Twitter, which in and of itself is hysterical. Getting blocked is pretty funny; it's happened to me and in some cases, I still dunno
why. (Then again, this is me we're talking about, so the odds are I did something to invite it, just by being me.)
Jeff,
send me the link to that posting of when he blocked you.
Gabriel (Capo) writes RE Barry Zito:
And
after all, if you get anything more than that from Barry Zito it'd be a bonus.
There's no reason at all that he can't be a 200-inning guy; win 16-18 games based on hanging around and getting a little
lucky; and being seen as "rejuvenated" and "regaining his form" when he's probably not going to be pitching
much better or worse than he always has. It's all got to be put into context. In today's game, the big name pitchers are getting
over a million bucks per win, so if he gets offensive support and wins those 16 games, his contract won't be seen as "terrible"
anymore.
John
Seal writes RE the Giants:
Okay, I'm out of hibernation. As you may recall, Prince,
I'm a hardcore Giants-hater, so when I saw you assert that they are 'loaded with prospects' I almost choked on my Billy Beane
Geniusburger. Okay, Posey and Bumgarner are special...but what's after that? An exonerated Angel Villalona? Thomas 'Slowfoot'
Neal? Okay, maybe Zach Wheeler...but he's pretty far away, and Sabean'll probably flip him for Gary Matthews (senior, not
junior).
The...Billy...Beane....Geniusburger?!?!
That made me burst out laughing. I understand there's lots of bread and
condiments, but not enough beef.
John, I need you on Twitter as the Prince of New York Family West Coast Spiritual Adviser. I'm thisclose to
running the whole place (possibly into a ditch, but whatever).
Pablo Sandoval's still a kid; and you mentioned Madison Bumgarner and Buster Posey, who look like All
Stars----if a team has developed three All Stars in the majors (Sandoval; Tim Lincecum; and Matt Cain) and two more on the
way, they're looking loaded to me
As for the others, I'm going by my research of the system and stats, so take it with a grain of salt; but from my that research
I saw great numbers from: Brock Bond; Joe Paterson; Dan Runzler; Brandon Crawford; and Scott Barnes and a couple of others.
A's fan or not;
Giants hater or not, considering where they were----with a roster that would've won 125 games in 2002, but was ready for pasture
in 2006----you have to give GM Brian Sabean credit for re-stocking as quickly as he did. Even if none of these kids make it,
the five I mentioned earlier is a pretty good place to start in referencing homegrown talent.
All the title of this posting
is reminding me of is the A-Team and George Peppard as John Hannibal Smith, and his catchphrase: "I love it when a plan
comes together"; which in turn reminds me of the Family Guy episode when the crew decided to go around "helping"
people as the A-Team.
But I digress...
There's a new bit of zombie-ing going around in recent
days. It's called: "Let's take a second look at Barry Zito".
Whereas he was the epitome of evil amongst pitchers and overly paid free agents who declined almost
immediately upon getting their massive contract ($126 million for 7-years), suddenly, Zito's 200 innings and serviceable performance
isn't all that bad anymore. They're now saying that he's actually "solid"; that his contract is irrelevant to what
he brings to the table once you get past the contract (and it's taken them three years
to come to this conclusion).
Here's
Rob Neyer's blog posting on this subject; it also links Craig Calcaterra:
Barry Zito is not worth his contract and given that the guy will make $20M+ in 2013, he never will be. And with Tim Lincecum -- and Matt Cain! -- around he will never be the Giants' number one guy.
But there's every reason to think that he can be a useful
part of the Giants rotation for the next several years. He's durable, reliable and if last year is any indication, he's showing
that he can learn to pitch without his young man stuff. Indeed, he even flashed some genuine brilliance in a couple of starts
against the Rockies late in the season. Plus, seeing he's lefthanded, there's every reason to think that Zito could chug along
for many, many more years and wind up with well north of 200 wins.
That doesn't make him an ace or anything, but
the mere fact that Brian Sabean decided to grossly over pay him doesn't render him a punchline.
I was thinking exactly the same thing just the
other day.
Look, the contract has been a train wreck, and will continue to be a train wreck. The train wreck's
not been as ugly lately, but Zito's never going to be worth $20 million and that's what he's going to earn through 2013 (in
2014, the Giants can pay him $18 million to pitch or $7 million to go away).
He's not worthless, though. Before
Zito, the last contract that looked so awful after a couple of years was Mike Hampton's eight-year, $121 million deal. While they were eventually able to trade Hampton for some useful players, they essentially
wound up spending $52 million for one decent (14-13, 5.41 ERA) season and one lousy (7-15, 6.15) season. Zito's already given
the Giants two seasons better than Hampton's best, and for less money per season (not to mention inflation).
It's
fair to bring up Zito's salary when discussing the Giants' finances, because his contract presumably does prevent the organization
from doing some other things. But Zito's good enough to pitch (and start) for most teams in the majors. There's little reason
to bring up his $126 million contract after every bad start. The joke just isn't funny anymore.
Neyer's right about the true hideousness of a contract and it's something the stat zombies usually
ignore. The only reason to rip on a contract given to a certain player----regardless of how good or bad he is----is if it
prevents the club from doing something else they need to do. If a team like the Cardinals pays Matt Holliday $120 million,
but they're still able to ante up cash to fill other holes, then who cares if they "overpaid" on Holliday?
What difference----aside from one-upsmanship;
the "we're smarter than you because we paid less" nonsense; or implications of getting value for money----does it
make to them how much money a player gets?
They never have an answer.
So,
is Zito going to be worth that money? Will he be a pitcher you'd pay $18-20 million a year for through 2014? Of course not.
But it's done. There's nothing that the Giants----aside from Zito getting hurt a la Mo Vaughn and the club being able to collect
insurance money----that can be done to change it.
You want the real
lowdown on Barry Zito and the Giants?
Here's the real lowdown on Barry Zito and the Giants.
In the winter of 2006-2007, the Giants were faced with an uncertain future of "Life after Barry" as in Bonds.
Bonds was entering the final year of his contract and there was no way, no how, no chance of the club re-signing him no matter
what. The Giants were aging and declining; saddled with contracts for veterans that were essentially unmovable. The biggest
name on the market was Barry Zito----2006-2007 MLB Free Agent List. So the Giants, needing to move forward with a new face of the franchise as the sun set on the Bonds era, jumped in and grabbed
at the top name from across the San Francisco Bay.
Zito was coming off a very good 2006 season with the Athletics (16-10; 3.83 ERA; 221 innings; 211 hits; his usual 99
walks; 151 strikeouts); plus he outdueled Johan Santana in game one of the ALDS before getting shelled by the Tigers in the
ALCS. He was the big name----the only name----on the market that had the star power and familiarity with the Bay Area to make
the prospect of Bonds's final season more palatable to a fan base for whom the besieged slugger could still do no wrong.
Giants GM Brian Sabean is not stupid. In fact, he's
quite smart. For years, the Giants were called "geriatric" and ripped for bringing in one veteran after another
to surround the still all-world Bonds with players from whom they'd know what to expect to try and win immediately. Knowing
that some of the contracts for the likes of Dave Roberts, Ray Durham, Mike Matheny, et al were unlikely to be fruitful by
their conclusion, they signed the players anyway knowing that they had to surround Bonds with veterans.
As controversy surrounded Bonds and his time as the
Giants centerpiece was drawing to a close, they had a choice: move forward and wait for Bonds to depart and hope that they
could replace him with a glossy name; or jump in, grab a player with a quirky enough personality to make him interesting and
on-field ability to place him at the forefront. With the 2007-2008 list of free agents looking even worse than the year before, they grabbed Zito and they paid him a lot of money.
He was up-and-down in 2007, but pitched okay; he looked terrible in 2008
as his velocity was down to the low 80s (if that) and his sharp breaking curve was gone. In 2009, he pitched better, but was
similar to what he'd been in 2007. His velocity crept back up to the upper 80s; and his curve regained some semblance of its
sharpness. Even as his record was nothing to brag about (10-13), his ancillary numbers were quite solid (4.03 ERA; 192 innings;
179 hits; 81 walks; 154 strikeouts). If the Giants were a better hitting club, Zito would've won 16 games easily.
What also has to be taken into account is how Zito
is utilized by manager Bruce Bochy.
An ace pitcher is given leeway to work his way out of trouble. Zito has lost that cachet with his manager. Because his command
is poor and he racks up high pitch counts; because his stuff has become so pedestrian; because he blows up at a second's notice
and gives up a hit, a walk and a 3-run homer before a reliever can even get his warmup jacket off, Zito is not accorded the
rope that Tim Lincecum and Matt Cain are.
By the fifth inning, even if he's rolling along with a 2-hit shutout, Bochy already has it in mind how much longer he's going
to be able to go with his starter. The Giants popgun offense made this a necessity to win games. They couldn't afford to see
a 3-spot go up on the board in the sixth inning, so concessions were made and a seeming lack of respect for a pitcher with
Zito's resume; with his salary; and with a Cy Young Award in order to achieve that ultimate end----winning.
It wasn't personal. Zito didn't like seeing his manager ambling out to
the mound in the fifth and sixth innings, motioning to the bullpen and taking the ball when he'd give up little more than
a single and a walk, but it was the right thing to do. Neither Zito nor his manager had any margin for error because of Zito's
stuff is still good enough to get hitters out; but not good enough to give him "one more batter" that the Johan
Santanas are going to get.
So what is
Barry Zito now? Is he "solid"? Is he a "sunk cost"?
No.
He's a serviceable
third starter from whom the club knows what to expect; they've come up with a plan for utilizing him whether he likes it or
not. If he were pitching for the Yankees, Red Sox or Angels, he'd win 18 games simply because of the lineups and bullpens.
But he's pitching for the Giants, who didn't have the offense to pick him up when he got yanked after 5 innings and 100 pitches.
He's still capable of pitching a great game; but he's always on the hair trigger to seeing things explode. The manager knows
this; and while it's a something of a slap in the face to Zito, the Giants are using him correctly.
In retrospect, you see how smart Sabean and the Giants actually were.
They ran the club according to circumstances. With Bonds, they went for it; post-Bonds, they brought in Zito to give them
that recognizable name as they restructured the organization. Look at them now. Even though their offense is still lacking
that one big basher, they have enough pitching to counteract that problem and contend; in addition to that, the farm system
is loaded with prospects both on the mound and at the plate.
There was no agenda; no template of "this is how we do things" a la Billy Beane and Sandy
Alderson; no one treating the strategy as an end rather than a means to getting the job in creating a winning club. Post-Bonds
could've been an organizational apocalypse; it could conceivably have taken the Giants 8-10 years to recover from the wreckage.
It took three.
The Giants are poised to jump back into the post-season in part because
the signing of Zito gave them time to build again. And they have.
As time passes, the terrible contract will fade into memory if the Giants win. And they will. Zito
can be a part of that even if he's not the centerpiece. He'll never be the Cy Young contender he once was, but a a mid-rotation
starter, he's a useful component to a contending team. If that happens, who really cares about his contract?
I forgot one under the radar bust out yesterday:
Whoops. My mind lapses sometimes.
Only sometimes.
Okay. All the time.
Anyway. Here's one name that I intended to mention as an under the radar player to watch for 2010.
Some things are worth waiting for even if they don't
come until August.
I love his
stuff and I'm waiting on him.
The Dodgers
need a back-of-the-rotation starter and he's going to get a shot at taking the job, but he has to find some command. I saw
McDonald for the first time when he was a surprise addition to the 2008 playoff roster and he came into game 2 of the NLCS.
After a few pitches and seeing his 94 mph fastball and off-speed overhand curve, I said, "Where'd this guy come
from?!?"
He's tall and thin;
his motion's a little herky-jerky with an awkward way of getting his arm into position to come as far over the top as he does;
this can contribute to his lack of control; but he's proven everything he can prove in the minors; he showed flashes (aside from his control problems) in the majors; and at age 25, it's time to make his mark. There's a
dominating starter in there and he has to put it all together to prove it.
The Dodgers might have to stick him in the rotation and leave him there to figure things out,
which is risky in a tough division; but as a fifth starter at the beginning of the season, they can do it and hope he'll get
his groove on by the dog days.
Some names you may not be familiar with----but will
be:
There's been
talk in recent days about players who might be ready to break out and zoom into stardom. Well, here are my picks for potential
bust-out stars. Some you may or may not be familiar with. If you aren't you will be.
The 24-year-old lefty pitched well for the Blue Jays
in 11 starts last season (2-4 record; 3.67 ERA; 51 hits in 61 innings; 30 walks; 60 strikeouts; 7 homers allowed) after zipping
through the minors. Motion-wise, he reminds me of Mark Mulder when Mulder first arrived in the big leagues----nice, free, easy and repeatable.
Rzepczynski needs to trust his stuff and pound the strike zone to lower his pitch counts; he tended to rack up 100+ pitches
by the sixth inning.
My big problem with
him is I'm having trouble remembering how to spell his name!
Considering the year he had, it's hard to say that
no one knows who Span is, but he's not mentioned prominently yet. Only 26, Span was footnoted in Moneyball as a player out
of high school at whom the "genius" Billy Beane was enraged because Span wanted a $2.6 million signing bonus and
the demand was causing him to slide in the draft, thereby blocking Beane from getting players he did want.*
*Note to Billy Beane AKA Einstein: You might've, in retrospect, been better off going after Span (or Prince Fielder for that matter) rather than some of the
players your brilliant mind fixated on such as Jeremy Brown or John McCurdy. Beane drafted Nick Swisher before Span, but also
on the board were James Loney; Cole Hamels; and Matt Cain.
Be that as it may, Span
batted .311 with a .392 on base; had 16 doubles; 10 triples; and 8 homers. He also stole 23 bases. He walks a lot and doesn't
strike out much. I'd bat him leadoff and let him wreak havoc.
There are no excuses left for Wood. He's going to
get a chance to play now; to win the third base job outright and if he doesn't do it now, he's going to have to go somewhere
other than Anaheim to make it in the big leagues. The Angels will give him the opportunity, but they're not going to wait
forever for him to figure it out.
He's faltered in every brief chance he's gotten to play in the majors after trashing the place in the minors. Third base is less taxing defensively than shortstop; the Angels have enough offense from other avenues that the pressure
on Wood won't be great; he's got to do it now at age 25 or they're going to move on.
He makes Bobby Cox and the veterans nuts with his temper tantrums, but
there's nothing he can't do. He gets on base; hits for power and average; is a Gold Glove caliber fielder; and has a howitzer
for an arm. The 27-year-old's power numbers have increased from 5 homers as a rookie; to 10 in his second year; to 14 in 2009;
he'll hit 20 this year and the Braves popgun offense needs him to produce.
He's missed chunks of the last two seasons with shoulder problems, but
he has vicious stuff and a deceptively free and easy motion. Maine racks up high pitch counts with lack of command and a lot
of foul balls because of his high fastball; but he's proven he can be efficient with his 15-10, 191 inning performance in
2007. If Maine's healthy and pitching well, he slides right behind Johan Santana as the Mets number 2 starter and could make
the All Star team.
But one thing people failed to notice last season was that Dukes behaved himself
(that we know of) on and off the field last season. He can hit 35 homers and get on base frequently if he bridles his temper
and his game. At age 26, he's got to take the next step.
Under the tutelage of Rick Peterson (it's early in
Peterson's tenure so his stories and in-your-face pedantry won't have caused his pitchers to tune him out----yet) and if the
Brewers take off the shackles, Gallardo should contend for the NL Cy Young Award. With a power fastball and great curve, there's
nothing stopping Gallardo from superstardom.
I saw this kid run out a triple and that was it for
me. He's going to be a mega-star. I'm talking 200 hits; 20 doubles; 20 triples; 20 homers; and 50 stolen bases. He's only
23 and is going to explode.
Another pitcher for whom the rules of overprotection
are about to be removed. I've said this recently but have to say it again: he's only 22 and we're talking about 20-win potential
with 300 strikeouts.
The 24-year-old has already been traded twice in blockbusters.
First from the Diamondbacks to the Athletics in the Dan Haren trade; then from the Athletics to the Rockies for Matt Holliday.
He's got power, speed and on-base ability. He didn't play frequently against lefties last season, but handled them well enough
to show that he deserves a chance to play every day.
He's a giant (6'6", 285) and has 45 homer potential.
He's playing the outfield because the Padres kinda have a first baseman now named Adrian Gonzalez, but Gonzalez is going to
get traded and Blanks will be able to move back to first base.
He wasn't considered a great prospect, but he looks
like a player. He lacks range at shortstop and may eventually have to move to second base where the Padres have a hole and
little help on the horizon at the position. Cabrera's a switch hitter and he's small (5'10" 175), but I think he'll eventually
have 10-15 homer power; and he can run.
Viewer Mail 3.1.2010:
Jeff (Street Boss) at Red State Blue State writes RE Pirates president Frank Coonelly:
Frank Coonelly is funny. Funny like a clown.
Maybe I should pay him a visit...
Sometimes just letting someone unravel on their own
is sufficient. Plus, who cares about the Pirates anymore?
I wonder what qualifications you need to be an ESPN
analyst these days. Maybe just a pulse?
The worst part about ESPN is that they hire people
whom you'd think would be interesting----and would be interesting----if they let them go and be themselves rather than utter
the plotted, scripted and unbelievable nonsense that they come up with. You'll see in the coming weeks as they make their
"predictions" for the upcoming season; each and every one of the "analysts" sitting around the desk is
going to have a different team winning every division. What are the odds?
J.P. Ricciardi might be good because he doesn't listen to what people tell him, so I'm holding
out hope for the guy.
ESPN allowed Steve "man-slut" Phillips to
step all over Joe Morgan on Sunday nights like gum on the sidewalk. I could see ESPN letting J.P. be free (as long as no sexual
harassment is involved). If he says anything at all, it would be twice as much as John Hart is offering on MLB Network. There
is tact and linguistic skill GMs must have as you alluded to. With Hart you see his lips moving but I'm getting zero out of
it. At least a good snow job I can appreciate.
Why does everyone hate
Lumbergh AKA Steve Phillips?
I
thought he was a good broadcaster, but then after listening to Joe Morgan for so long, maybe I've been institutionalized.
(Don't say it!!!) Anyone correcting Morgan's thrice-sentence contradictions is all right with me; although Morgan is entertaining
because he says stuff that sounds like it's coming from Neptune.
I can't sit through the MLB Network broadcasts long enough to be able to offer anything more than a
baseline critique, but then I guess that in and of itself is a critique.
Gabriel (Capo) writes RE the Pirates:
Maybe
we need to go to the Pirates' office and offer our services.
To clear out the
current "management"; to fix the place; or both?
I'd genuinely love to get my grubby mitts on a franchise that is so screwed up and try to fix it. At
least I'm not delusional/deranged----not in baseball matters anyway.
by releasing him outright. I can only shake my head. The smart thing to do now is to keep Vazquez, give him some at bats
early in the season and hope a club in need of a backup will take him and maybe give up a minor leaguer the Pirates might
be able to use for something. 
