• Rays 11-Royals 1:

    It has to be put into perspective that the blazing start of the Rays has been predominately bolstered by running into bad and/or struggling teams. That's not their fault----they don't make the schedule; and as I've said repeatedly, teams that make the playoffs aren't those that beat their rivals; teams that make the playoffs are teams that batter the subpar teams they're supposed to batter.

    The Rays 17-5 start was accumulated against the bad Orioles and Royals; the mediocre Athletics; the rebuilding Blue Jays; the slumping Red Sox and White Sox; and they lost 2 of 3 when they played the Yankees and were almost no-hit by C.C. Sabathia (or what would've been a combination of C.C. Sabathia and Sergio Mitre, severely dampening the aesthetic; but I digress).

    They're doing what they need to do----no more, no less.

    They still have question marks in the bullpen; I will not trust Rafael Soriano to close a big game in September/October until he does it; but the way they're playing, they might not have to worry about a playoff spot by then. The starting pitching has been fantastic and the scariest thing about their lineup is that they've accrued this record with little-to-no offensive production from the catcher's spot (at least until John Jaso arrived) or DH. 

    It's only been a few games with Jaso, but if he keeps hitting like this, Dioner Navarro's not getting his job back.

    Two-out rallies have carried the Rays along with the starting pitching and they're looking tough. They needed to get off to a good start to cleanse their collective palates of the poor taste from the 2009 expectations and subsequent collapse. And they have.

    Aside from a 3 game set in Anaheim with the Angels on May 10-12, they'll be able to build up an even more impressive record as they play the Royals, Mariners, Athletics and Indians until they get to New York to play the Yankees on May 19th. Judging from how they've taken advantage of the favorable schedule, their lead in the division may be substantial and a playoff spot could be almost cemented by June. 

• Talented and struggling:

    I don't pay as close attention to players that are doing well as I do the players doing poorly.

    Specifically, I mean talented athletes who aren't getting the results for one reason or another. One such player is former Royals number one pick in the draft (first pick overall) Luke Hochevar.

    Hochevar got shelled by the Rays last night for 11 hits and 9 earned runs in 2.2 innings. It's a recurring theme with him. Despite the ability that made Hochevar a first round draft pick of the Dodgers in 2005; and again the next year by the Royals, his results have been awful.

    He's still only 26, so there's plenty of time for him to figure it out; but if anyone can use a breakdown and rebuilding of mechanics/mental approach, it's Hochevar; and I question whether anyone with the Royals has the capacity and courage to begin such an undertaking with a player whose pedigree and draft status make any drastic changes rife for ridicule and an even greater implication of ineptitude.

    There was a pitcher a few years ago who had been a first round pick and borderline washout. Like Hochevar, he's from Denver, Colorado; like Hochevar, he got rocked around the ballpark because he didn't have a feel for pitching even with his massive ability; like Hochevar, he's a pitching prototype----tall and strong. It took a gutty and intuitive pitching coach and organization willing to gamble on the required changes to maximize their investment and ignore the risk.

    That pitcher's name is Roy Halladay.

    Halladay was a conventional over the top power pitcher when he arrived in the majors and was hit-or-miss with his results; in fact, in 2000, the season before Blue Jays instructor Mel Queen altered Halladay's mechanics to the streamlined, machine-like thing of functional beauty it is now, Halladay was awful----2000 Gamelogs. 

    It's almost impossible to reconcile what Halladay was into what he is; but it might never have happened had the Blue Jays not recognized that he was never going to fulfill his potential as he was, and had the guts to make the alterations.

    The same thing can happen with Hochevar.

    Do the Royals have the courage? Will they trade him? Or is it safer and easier to remain stagnant; leave things as they are in a self-destructive status quo and not have any chance of reaping the benefits from the ability that Hochevar clearly has?

    Given the Royals history of organizational cannibalism, the answer is crystal clear unless Hochevar demands something be done to help him. What he's doing now isn't working and it's time for a change, be it a change of approach, or (preferably for the player) a change of scenery.

• What will the Padres do with Adrian Gonzalez?

    The Padres surprising start, obvious talent and rapid development is leaving an open question of what they're going to do with Adrian Gonzalez (and to a lesser extent, Heath Bell) when the summer comes.

    If they're still hanging around contention, will they keep Gonzalez and try to win?

    Before the season started (and for most of the past couple of years) Gonzalez has been a negotiable commodity. Steep demands for one of the best players in baseball have prevented a trade from being completed; but it's been an open secret that certain teams' lust for the first baseman have led them to pursue him avidly. The Red Sox and Mariners want him desperately.

    But the Padres are off to a great start (14-8) and it may be time to start taking them a little more seriously than a club who's gotten off to a good start and will slowly decline into what everyone expected them to be; what they've been for the past two years.

    They have a strong and deep bullpen (Bell, Luke Gregerson, Mike Adams); impressive arms in the rotation (Clayton Richard; Mat Latos, Kevin Correia); power bats (Gonzalez, Kyle Blanks, Chase Headley); and feisty winners (David Eckstein, Yorvit Torrealba; Jon Garland). With the way the Dodgers have been playing; the injury issues of the Rockies; and the way the rest of the National League is hot and cold, it's not silly to think that the Padres can hang around and win 85 or so games----a win total that could get them the Wild Card.

    As much as I've criticized him for his mistakes and bizarre decisions from 2007-2009, manager Bud Black has done a fine job with his young team so far in 2010. New GM Jed Hoyer has done nothing so far in his brief time running the show aside from trading Kevin Kouzmanoff in a (wise) salary dump; collected Hairstons (Scott and Jerry); and signed Garland and Torrealba.

    Will owner Jeff Moorad consider letting Hoyer add payroll rather than slash it by June/July?

    It's only 23 games, but the National League is wide open and the Padres are playing hard, opportunistically and well.

    They might be for real.

• Viewer Mail 4.30.2010:

Jeff (Acting Boss) at Red State Blue State writes RE the Braves and the Dodgers:

Glaus -- the good Glaus we know from back in the day -- was a product of PEDs... just like the Paul Lo Ducas of the world. Take him off the extra boost and he ain't shit.

And your take on the Kemp/Colletti thing is an interesting way to see it, but I think that's the sort of thing that should be kept out of the public eye. No need to bash your go-to guy in the media. That was low in my opinion.

This whole thing just proves what we already know: the Dodgers are a mess.

    I've been giving Glaus the benefit of the doubt for his appearance on the list of PED users; he's a huge guy, he should be able to hit the ball out of the park anyway. The one thing I can't forgive is the absence of hustle. There's no excuse. 

    I'm not ready to write off the Dodgers. Joe Torre's history of calmly getting things back on track is too extensive to get crazy after a rotten start.

• Paul Lebowitz's 2010 Baseball Guide:

    Paul Lebowitz's 2010 Baseball Guide is available on Amazon, I-Universe and Barnes and Noble.com. It's available for download as an E-book here.

    I have a podcast appearance scheduled today with Sal at SportsFanBuzz. It should be...entertaining. To say the least. It always is.    

• It's too early for the Dodgers to panic:

    Yesterday, after the Dodgers 7-3 loss to the Mets, I got an email from Bern a friend on Twitter regarding the controversy swirling around the staggering Dodgers and whether it was appropriate for GM Ned Colletti to call out Matt Kemp and Chad Billingsley for, respectively, perceived laziness (Kemp); and just being bad overall (Billingsley).

    I tend to think there's more at play than a GM losing his cool with a couple of players who aren't doing what's expected of them. Obviously, Colletti is aggravated by the way the Dodgers have played; but if you look at manager Joe Torre's Yankees teams, especially the ones from late in his tenure, they got off to slow starts on an annual basis and turned it on as the warm weather arrived. Torre's not going to panic and the calm which has always been Torre's main strength as a manager will permeate the club and prevent a full-blown explosion. 

    Torre and Colletti still wanted to get a message out to the players and with the frustration exhibited in Colletti's questioning Kemp's commitment due to the perceived comfort with his first lucrative contract, it's very possible that this is a good cop/bad cop routine from Torre/Colletti than a straight reaction by the GM.

    The truth with Kemp is that he's never been the type to adhere to the "baseball player code". From his rookie year, he had in-house issues with the veteran members of the club. One such veteran, notably, was Jeff Kent, Mr. Charm who had a well-publicized dustup himself with Mets veterans for refusing to partake in a rookie initiation prank and was hated for it; his aloof nature was loathed everywhere he went. Because of Kemp's personality and rising fame, no one should have expected him to keep quiet when called out by his GM.

    Kemp has MVP talent and he'll let you know it. Being compared to Dave Winfield will cause a player to be impressed with himself no matter his personality. With Kemp, presumably it's gotten worse as he's developed into a star player and gotten his first big contract (he avoided arbitration by agreeing to a 2-year, $10.95 million deal through 2011). Interestingly, Kemp's agent is former star pitcher Dave Stewart, never one to shy away from confrontation on or off the field.

    With Kemp, you're talking about a burgeoning star; playing in Hollywood; and dating pop star Rihanna. It's easily forgotten how young he is. Having been in the majors since he was 21 and still only 25, he's got some growing up to do. Sending this message to him is a combination of Colletti and Torre having seen and heard enough of the excuses and lack of hustle not just from Kemp, but from Russell Martin. It would've been unbecoming for Torre himself to lay into Kemp publicly; and I'm sure Kemp's been spoken to by Torre and coaches Larry Bowa and Don Mattingly about this.

    Another aspect of Colletti's aggravation has to be the way the divorce between the McCourts has affected his attempts to improve the team. The Dodgers needed starting pitching help and given his aggressiveness, there's no doubt he would've liked to have jumped into the Roy Halladay sweepstakes last winter; and would like to upgrade the rotation now with a Zach Duke or Roy Oswalt. No one knows how deeply the divorce proceedings have infected the day-to-day business of the club.

    On-field, the Dodgers will be fine. The starting rotation is seen as shaky, but Torre's other Dodgers playoff teams have never had a super-strong starting rotation to begin with; the big failure thus far has been the bullpen.

    Since joining the Yankees, Torre's bullpen was paramount in his success/failure. The Dodgers bullpen has been absolutely hideous. With George Sherrill getting rocked and having trouble throwing strikes; Ramon Troncoso up-and-down; Ronald Belisario struggling; and Jeff Weaver on the disabled list, the strength has been the biggest weakness. They haven't been able to hand games over to closer Jonathan Broxton.

    The team's been hitting; the starting pitching's been good enough to win. It's the bullpen that's the problem. And that will straighten itself out of the histories of the personnel are to be believed.

    Clubhouse and in-house disagreements happen far more often than is publicized and many times there's far  more occurring behind the scenes than is disclosed. A little controversy and fire can help spur something positive. It's an energy and isn't necessarily a bad thing. The only way to see if it worked is in retrospect. If Kemp goes on a tear; if Billingsley starts pitching as he did two years ago, then Colletti's comments will be seen as the spark; if not, it didn't work. 

    It's not time to freak out in Los Angeles...yet. Torre has earned the benefit of the doubt in steering a ship through any and all storms. This one is no different. 

• Cardinals 6-Braves 0:

    I can handle a teamwide slump----no one's hitting----but it's the absence of passion with the Braves that would upset me more than anything. They don't hustle and it looks like they don't care.

    Chipper Jones gets a pass for not running as hard as he possibly can on a grounder to second base; his multitude of injuries and rampant fragility makes it self-defeating for him to break the tape and only be out by one step rather than two.

    But does Troy Glaus get that same leeway? Yunel Escobar? Melky Cabrera?

    It's been 21 games for Glaus and he'd done nothing to dissuade me from thinking he's shot. If he was ripping line drives that are getting caught; if he was just missing pitches that he should hit because of timing as David Ortiz was early last year, it would be a reason to say give him time; but his bat is slow; defensively he's a statue; and he doesn't look to be playing hard. 

    Escobar's frequent mental gaffes are one thing, but I'd think that because of that inexcusable screw-up on Saturday in not tagging up from third on a fly out in which the Mets were conceding a run; a mistake that ran the Braves out of a potential big inning, he'd be playing like a madman for at least the next few games; instead, he's jogging at 80% speed on ground balls and displaying a similar ambivalence to Glaus.

    And Melky Cabrera?

    He's been awful offensively and defensively and not only deserves to be benched, but may need to be demoted.

    I mentioned all of this on Monday, but it's gotten worse, not better. That environment is poisoned not just for a team that has the pitching to be a playoff contender, but for a 20-year-old megastar talent in Jason Heyward who can't help but be affected by the way they're playing and behaving. A message is going to have to be sent by someone with the Braves be it GM Frank Wren or manager Bobby Cox, because they look atrocious in every aspect and it has to be stopped. Soon.

• Paul Lebowitz's 2010 Baseball Guide:

    I'm being told that it's very useful for fantasy players and that the writing's pretty good.

    Hey, I'm just the messenger...and the writer....and the judge...and the jury....and the executioner...

    Paul Lebowitz's 2010 Baseball Guide is available on Amazon, I-Universe and Barnes and Noble.com. It's available for download as an E-book here.

• Mets 4-Dodgers 0; Mets 10-Dodgers 5:

    It's inexplicable how far the Mets have climbed from the clueless bunch they were as they limped home from St. Louis 10 days ago. With a record of 4-8; panic within the fan base and calls for manager Jerry Manuel's head (strongly from yours truly); and the world crumbling around them at the prospect of a front office blowout and on-field housecleaning, they suddenly and without warning have won 8 of 9 on this current homestand and vaulted from last place into first place.

    Of course this has to be taken into context.

    The Cubs walked into Citi Field in similar disarray; the Braves are shambolic (and the Mets got a gift from the heavens in a 5+ inning rainout win on Sunday); and the Dodgers can't get out of their own way.

    Much like the schedule; the weather; and freak injuries, there's not much that can be done about it. Just as it can be taken as an excuse when a team plays poorly due to circumstance; so too should they receive credit for doing what must be done and taking advantage of that which has been bestowed. In years past, the Mets have been derelict in one of the main tenets of being a winning team----beating up on wounded and subpar teams.

    In a psychological sense, it could be said that the same "niceness" that permeates the Mets organization (as exemplified by the wishy-washy firing of Willie Randolph two years ago) seeped onto the field as they took it easy and allowed self-congratulations and arrogance to combine with the misplaced kindness to deprive them of playoff spots in both 2007 and 2008.

    Other teams----winning teams like the Red Sox, Yankees, Phillies and Cardinals----want no part of being gentle with their opponents; they're arrogant and smug only after they've accomplished their goals rather than before and it shows in their records of success.

    It's called taking care of business and the Mets have done that in the past week-and-a-half.

    It's easily lost what can be accomplished when simply doing what should be second nature by now for big league players. Throwing the ball; catching the ball; hitting the ball; running out grounders; being in the right place at the right time; taking advantage of opposing teams' mistakes.

    Sound easy? You'd be stunned at home many teams can't do the small things properly. It shouldn't have to be continually hammered into their heads; but if you look at the way the Braves and Dodgers have played in their forays to Citi Field over the past five days, it clearly does need to be addressed.

    Much bewilderment has surrounded the Twins in recent years as to how they've maintained a playoff contender while losing stars such as Johan Santana and getting little in return; but the Twins way is taught from the bottom of the organization all the way to the top. Their pitchers throw strikes; their players catch the ball; they hit situationally; they're organized; and there's accountability----if you don't do things the "Twins Way" you don't play. Period. This was how the Orioles functioned under Earl Weaver.

    It's amazing how many games can be won when performing rudimentary fundamentals correctly.

    While it's too soon to get excited about the Mets string of good play and good luck, it was clearly too soon to hit the panic button in the first week (of which I am just as guilty as anyone). With that, it's not time to declare this work-in-progress as a true contender. As I said in my book (still available), they're either going to galvanize and shove it to the naysayers; or collapse completely. In the first month of the season, they've done both.

    This is the same organization that blew a 7 game lead with 17 games to play in 2007, so anything is possible; and a beaten down and weary fan base is still straddling the line between excitement and suicide.

    "Can we start getting enthusiastic yet?" is a familiar refrain.

    Like the person desperately looking for their soulmate, thinking they've found it and having their dreams crushed repeatedly, there's a hardening of the heart that has little to do with coldness and more to do with a desire to avoid the pain that's been all too constant in the club history.

    This weekend's series in Philadelphia will speak volumes as to where the Mets are. 

    It's understandable to smile in looking at the standings on April 28th, 2010 with the Mets sitting at the top.

    So too is it acceptable to pause, look at the situation with the still fresh memories and scars of 2006-2009----both physical and mental----and wait, just to see what happens.

• This is laughable:

    Um, so now Jason Bay's defense wasn't so bad after all?

    MLBTradeRumors linked this Boston Herald article about a tweaking of the way in which Ultimate Zone Rating (UZR) is calculated. UZR is supposed to be a more accurate way to gauge a fielder's range and value.

    "Supposed to be" is the key phrase.

    Were the Red Sox aware of the glitch in UZR when they used it as one of the justifications for letting Bay leave without so much as a serious attempt to re-sign him? Or was it propped up as an excuse to go with another stat zombie tenet of "run prevention"; to save a few bucks; and "prove" how smart they are? Again?

    Unsatisfied with their record of success over the past seven years, so too has it been a hallmark of the Red Sox under Theo Epstein and John Henry to slam players on the way out the door under the guise of statistics and physical questions.

    Bay's defense was poor; his MRI and physical examinations indicated that he was a candidate for a breakdown due to issues with his shoulders and knees. It was a sound business decision on and off the field to let him go.

    Was it?

    This is the fundamental problem with using these newfound statistics and final arbiter in whether or not a player should stay or go. As convenient as it is to utilize "verifiable" numbers to explain a player's "true" value, they will never, ever replace the contribution an experienced observer----yes, with subjective analysis. 

    Having watched Bay regularly over the first month of the season, it's clear that the smear campaign coming out of Boston wasn't just inaccurate, but it's wrong. Bay was never bad as an outfielder and with the Mets, he's been quite good. (He made a nifty diving catch yesterday.) He's faster than expected; and he's made a bunch of good plays.

    Is he ever going to be an in-his-prime and lean Barry Bonds or Kevin McReynolds in terms of left field defense? No. Is he a statue out there who's going cost his team games? No.

    The Red Sox gloss over their own faults to proffer this arrogant and pompous condescension of knowing better than everyone else. It's fueled their success; it's also crafted their failures.

    The stat zombie method of analysis is not analysis. Crunching numbers and knowing formulas (that are still in the process of being "perfected") doesn't replace experience in understanding the nuance of what goes on during a game.

    This new ideal of "run prevention" was profiled by Will Leitch in last week's New York Magazine----link; I emailed Leitch to point out how faulty the premise is, he didn't respond, which was disappointing. He answered me previously when I expressed my displeasure at his suggestion of Billy Beane taking over as Mets GM last year.

    It's a shame that debate is muzzled with shouting down and ignoring the protests to that which is contextualized and outright wrong.

    Much like the daily changes of the PECOTA "projections" (and everyone seemed to be finishing at or close to 81-81 in said "projections"----link), we're going to continue to see the alterations of the irresponsibly created formulas to bolster decisions that could just as easily be explained away with the statement, "we didn't want to pay him; we wanted to try something else". Instead, teams like the Red Sox do what they do; willing and able to take the credit, but shielding themselves from the responsibility with propaganda.

    It's a foolproof way to maintain a veneer of genius. But I know the truth; and said truth is leaking out day-by-day as the numbers are increasingly "perfected" by way of changing their story.

• Take the message and put aside the messenger:
  

    Had it been someone else that gave the withering critique of struggling Yankees pitcher Javier Vazquez, it may have been accepted as the analysis of a former player who understands the breadth of Vazquez's battle against himself and the perception of his unsuitability to pitch in New York.

    Instead, since it was the polarizing Curt Schilling, it's dismissed as the ramblings of an obnoxious and narcissistic man who loves nothing better than to listen to his own voice; see it in print; and revels in the attention he receives. 

    But what about when he says something that makes sense?

    It happens more often than you realize that Schilling's self-serving rants are peppered with kernels of truth and intelligent analysis. Yankee fans loathe him because he was a Red Sox and because he's Schilling (which has a definition unto itself); because of that, they're ignoring the message behind what he said----the possible accuracy in his assessment of Javier Vazquez's prospects for succeeding in his second go-round in New York. 

    The entire context is available here----ESPN Story and it's almost verbatim what I said when the Vazquez re-acquisition was consummated. 

    Here are the relevant quotes: 

"It is easier to pitch and be successful in the National League than it is the American League," Schilling said on 1050's ESPNewYork.com show with Seth Everett. "If anyone thinks that Javier Vazquez is going to be different the second time around than he was the first time I think they are fooling themselves."

"Here's the thing about Javy and I tried to preface this, but the negative always drowns out the positive," Schilling said. "I love the kid. He has phenomenal stuff. I thought he was a superstar when he was in Montreal, but I think you are kidding yourself if you think the second time in New York will be different than the first time. I'm not sure why that would be."

    As controversial as Schilling is, there's no way to pigeonhole him. The same quote that Catfish Hunter uttered about Reggie Jackson can be applied to Schilling:

"He'd give you the shirt off his back. Of course he'd call a press conference to announce it."

    Yankee fans reacted with rage at Schilling's statements regarding Vazquez in what was more of a reflexive response rather than fervent disagreement with what he said. Even the most hard-core Yankee fan and positive thinker is probably echoing the Schilling sentiments in their minds, though they're loathe to admit the fear; and even more repulsed by the idea of agreeing with Curt Schilling about anything.

    It's there though; and as talented as Vazquez is, until he starts pitching up to snuff, the questions will be asked if it's nothing more than New York that's the problem.

• Viewer Mail 4.28.2010:

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

I guess the signing of Howard will now trigger a discussion of Werth and whether the Phillies will let him go for budgetary reasons. Seems like he'd have market value.

    Jayson Werth is going to have many, many suitors in the off-season and I don't see how the Phillies will be able to afford him now unless they backload the deal very heavily until after Brad Lidge and a couple of others are off the books; and Werth is not going to give the Phillies a discount. He wants to get paid, and someone's going to pay him. 

Jeff (Acting Boss) at Red State Blue State writes RE Ryan Howard and Albert Pujols:

This makes life for Cardinals fans very, very difficult.

Now I officially hate Ruben Amaro.

    I would dearly have loved to have seen and heard the reaction to this in the Cardinals executive offices. They have no choice but to pay Pujols, but now the dollar amount presumably will have to double what the Phillies gave to Howard. That's not the responsibility of the Phillies, but I have to believe that they heard from the commissioner's office about this.

• Paul Lebowitz's 2010 Baseball Guide:

    Paul Lebowitz's 2010 Baseball Guide is available on Amazon, I-Universe and Barnes and Noble.com. It's available for download as an E-book here.

    Read what I wrote about Javier Vazquez and a bunch of others stuff before the fact.

    It's creepily accurate.  

• A lotta money:

    It's official.

    The maneuvers the Phillies are making aren't just haphazard and bewildering on the field, but financially, they're bordering on long-term lunacy. 

    Yesterday it was announced that first baseman Ryan Howard agreed to a contract extension worth a guaranteed $125 million from 2012 through 2016. There's a $23 million option for 2017 with a $10 million buyout. With the $19 million he's making this season and the $20 million for next year, Howard will receive at least $163 million from the Phillies for the duration of his deals. He has a limited no-trade clause.

    To put this in perspective, the Phillies will be paying the 30-year-old Howard a lot of money until he's 36. 

    This is not to denigrate Howard in any way, but to be blunt, have the Phillies lost their collective minds?

    I've been dubious about GM Ruben Amaro Jr since he signed Jamie Moyer to a 2-year extension in the heady afterglow of the 2008 World Series win; then my jaundiced view became even more pronounced as he rode a second straight pennant into some context-switching justification for the questionable trades and contract extensions he's executed.

    Amarao said all the right things----stuff right out of the "executive's book of quotations" that are on a level with the ballplayer cliches laid out like something out Bull Durham----ESPN Story.

"We just felt it was good timing for us..."

(Blah, blah, blah.)

"We felt No. 1, he's one of the elite offensive players in the game..."

(Blah, blah, blah.)

We could have waited another year and a half or so and dealt with it later on..."

(Blah, blah, blah.)

...but the fact of the matter is we decided he is that important to our organization and to our club and to our future."

(Blah, blah, blah.)

"The numbers don't lie. He's also one of the most durable players we have. Ryan's basically ready to play 162 games. I think that means a lot...."

(Blah, blah, blah.)

    Given the type of person Howard is, there's little-to-no chance of him turning into Mo Vaughn and expanding to the width of a parade float. Nor are there going to be off-field issues that will make the Phillies rue the day they agreed to this contract.

    But that doesn't mean this is a good idea.

    In pure practical terms, it's on a level with the ubiquitous ACME products to which Wile E. Coyote is so blindly dedicated in his futile hunt for the Road Runner.

    With the Howard contract, the Phillies are locked in with almost every core player from their championship teams aside from Jayson Werth and Jimmy Rollins; and given what they've done in terms of a long-term view, clearly they're going to come to an agreement with Rollins (a free agent after 2011) at some point.

    Is this smart?

    Let's wind the clocks forward to 2013.

    The Phillies roster will consist of the guarantees to:

Ryan Howard, age 32----$20 million

Roy Halladay, age 36----$20 million

Chase Utley, age 34----$15 million

    Then there are the departing or possibly departing players from 2012 (Shane Victorino; Placido Polanco; Cole Hamels; Joe Blanton; and Carlos Ruiz); plus Brad Lidge is receiving big money through 2011. As stated earlier, one would assume they're going to sign Rollins.

    What's that team going to look like?

    I had no intention of mentioning in the given name of the Stone Cold Killer, currently set to make his return to the mound for the Mariners; the same pitcher they traded for prospects in the convoluted trade to get Roy Halladay while gutting the farm system almost completely; the same Stone Cold Killer who in 2011 may very well be plying his trade with his icy ruthlessness 90 miles up the interstate in a Mets uniform.

    I'm of course talking about Cliff Lee.

    I wasn't going to mention said Stone Cold Killer, Lee, but the Phillies attempts to maintain their excellence while putting forth the myth of keeping some semblance of a farm system intact is an irresolute strategy of indecision and a foundation built for collapse from top-to-bottom and requires mentioning Lee as a major part of that faulty scheme.

    Apart from Domonic Brown and Phillippe Aumont (acquired in the Lee trade and now starting in Double A), the farm system has been stripped of most legit prospects. They're hard-pressed to ante up the cash it's going to take to keep Jayson Werth and will be top-heavy to nightmare proportions by 2012-2013 without the young players to replace the departing veterans. It was the home-grown talent that formed the basis to the Phillies National League dominance in the past two years.  

    The Phillies didn't have the money to keep Lee to team with the devastating and sublime Roy Halladay to form the most frightening 1-2 punch in baseball, but they have the money to throw at Ryan Howard? When he's a year-and-a-half away from free agency? When he's looking like a player it wouldn't be absurd to bench or for whom to pinch hit against left-handed pitchers because he's grown so inept hitting against them? 

    Howard's never going to be Keith Hernandez defensively; but nor is he Dr. Strangeglove, Dick Stuart. He's quicker than you realize; is a good guy; and clutch bat. This doesn't mask the holes in his game such as strikeouts and embarrassing failure against lefties.

    Had the Phillies looked at this with a long-term goal in mind rather than some misplaced idea of doing the "right" thing; had they gauged accurately what the landscape would be as Howard tested the market, they would've realized that he would've accepted the same deal (and possibly far less) when free agency came calling in the winter of 2011-2012.

    Which team would: A) have the money to lure Howard away from the Phillies; and B) have the hole at first base or DH to sign Howard?

    The Yankees? They have a first baseman by the name of Mark Teixeira (he's pretty good); and aren't going to pay that money for an aging, big name DH.

    The Red Sox? They're not signing a one-dimensional player to a contract that lucrative. If they pay that amount of cash to a free agent, it'll be Adrian Gonzalez; and they're not going down that David Ortiz-road for a DH again.

    The Orioles? They have the cash, but Andy MacPhail doesn't like spending money that way; it's easier and smarter to carve it up and fill numerous holes than spend it on an aging and limited player.

    The Angels? They spend their money on pitching and if they wouldn't go that high to keep Teixeira, they're not giving it to Howard.

    The Mariners? They presumably have the money, but GM Jack Zduriencik isn't spending it on Howard.

    The Mets? They have a young first baseman, but even if they didn't, they won't import a former Phillie unless his name is Utley or Lee. They're also going to have to worry about keeping Jose Reyes and David Wright. 

    The Nationals? They made a massive offer for Teixeira, but would Howard want to leave a ballpark tailored to him with a contending team to go to the Nationals? Stephen Strasburg or no Stephen Strasburg. 

    The Cardinals? Bill DeWitt and John Mozeliak would probably like nothing better than to get five minutes alone in a room with Amaro and Phillies owner David Montgomery because after the Howard deal, you can forget about Albert Pujols giving a hometown discount to the Cardinals as his own free agency beckons. Howard is also from St. Louis, but he's not Pujols; he's not one of the top two hitters in baseball; he's not a Gold Glove-caliber fielder. 

    The Cubs? With the contracts----Alfonso Soriano and Carlos Zambrano----they currently have on the books? No chance.

    The Dodgers? Who knows what their finances and payroll are going to look like after the McCourts complete their divorce? They're not paying Ryan Howard when they're going to have to keep Matt Kemp, Andre Ethier, Jonathan Broxton and Clayton Kershaw.

    Where was Howard going? With the better player in Gonzalez coming up on free agency and basically the same player (4 1/2 years younger) Prince Fielder also going to be available, who was going to dole out that guaranteed cash for Howard?

    No one. That's who.

     A preemptive signing to head-off free agency is a smart move for certain players, but if the Phillies were going to pay someone on their roster that kind of money to make sure he stayed long term, that player should've been Chase Utley, not Howard.

    Utley has a short swing resistant to slumps; plays a Gold Glove-caliber defense at second base----a more difficult to replace position; and has a the lithe build to maintain his excellence over the long term. 

    Amid all the mistakes Amaro and the Phillies have made in trying to retain their lofty position, this one is going to cost them the most in the pocket and on the field.

    What a colossal blunder by the Phillies. Again.

• Staying in-state and on topic:

    Combine a writer who doesn't know what she's talking about and an executive who doesn't know what he's doing and you get the Molly Knight piece in ESPN the Magazine. (I can't find a link online.) 

    Entitled "Buried Treasure", Pirates GM Neal Huntington tries to justify the Pirates plans to build....whatever it is they're building. I dunno what. 

    Claiming to be taking risks by stockpiling former number one draft picks who've fallen out of favor or failed miserably, Huntington lays out his case. Selfishly and weakly explaining away ineptitude after-the-fact is always endlessly entertaining. The packages the Pirates received in trades of Nate McLouth; Jason Bay; Xavier Nady; Damaso Marte; Nyjer Morgan; Jack Wilson; and Freddy Sanchez all have one thing in common----they're replete with former number one draft picks.

    The status of the number one draft pick is treated as if it's an end unto itself; equated to a guarantee of aptitude and potential for success.

    To the statement, "he's a former number one pick", I say: Yeah? So?  

    Collecting former number one draft picks for no reason other than the fact that they're former number one draft picks is just as much a vapid enterprise; a failed plan than using statistics as the end-all be-all of existence. When assessing prospects, one has to have an eye on what it is exactly that makes a successful player; and such a skill only evolves from an experienced eye. 

    Listed as they are in the article, one can only wonder if anyone with the Pirates analyzed the acquired players aside from their status as a former top pick to bolster the reasoning behind their acquisition in the first place. 

    Bobby Crosby? Can't hit anymore.

    Bryan Morris? 23-years-old and still in high A ball in the minors.

    Lastings Milledge? A player I happen to like, but who isn't hitting and is with his third organization at age 25.

    Craig Hanson? Horrible mechanics and worse results.

    Tim Alderson? From the numbers, he's currently getting hit hard in Double A.

    Jeff Clement? He's been shifted from behind the plate to first base, will be 27 in August and isn't hitting either.

    The capricious decision to accept players who are somehow validated by their lofty status as high draft picks is ignoring any and all scouting acumen in finding players (if the Pirates have any).

    What people need to understand about the draft----regardless of the methods employed by the clubs, be it stat or scouting based----is that in the end, for the average player money is the main reason they're kept around and given chance after chance.

    Whereas a player of similar talent who was drafted later is going to be more disposable, the top draft picks are going to get one chance after another even if their performance make clear that they're not going to make it. It's face-saving more than talent recognition and maximization. "Unlocking a player's talent" would be better described as "getting something from the money we spent". 

    Moneyball tried to insist that Billy Beane and the stat zombies had found a way to "card count" in a casino to get players that were able to play baseball and weren't walking testimony to "tools". It didn't work any better than the teams who rely on scouting and, in many cases, was worse. Teams don't give away number one draft picks unless they're remarkably desperate and stupid (the Mets with Scott Kazmir); or they find a team that's hypnotized by the mystical and ephemeral status of said players as number one draft picks----as the Pirates clearly are.

    It's a cannibalistic process perpetarted by an organization that has neither the personnel, the intelligence nor the courage to run their club properly. This collecting of players based on draft status is another example of why the phrase "only the Pirates" is uttered so regularly and with such contempt.

• Big Z out of the pen:

    I savaged the Cubs last week for their decision to move Carlos Zambrano to the bullpen, but money aside and the non-existent hopes the Cubs presumably have to get Zambrano's contract off their books, he pitched in relief last night and looked like a different pitcher.

    He threw strikes; threw hard; was so fired up that he was pumping his fist after striking out Wil Nieves to end the eighth inning of a tie game with two runners on base, and retired the Nationals in order in the ninth. The Cubs won the game in the tenth. 

    Ignoring that he's being paid nearly $18 million this year and has been banished to the bullpen, if he pitches the way he did last night, the decision might actually work.

• Paul Lebowitz's 2010 Baseball Guide:

     Paul Lebowitz's 2010 Baseball Guide is available on Amazon, I-Universe and Barnes and Noble.com. It's available for download as an E-book here.

    Love me or hate me (there's no in between) I bring the party with me.  

• Mets 1-Braves 0 (5+ innings):

    There was endless debate and questions (mostly directed at Ken Davidoff) on Twitter about whether Mike Pelfrey was going to be credited with a complete game and *asterisk* marked shutout because of the Mets' rain shortened 1-0 win.

    Regarding baseball's longstanding rules for governing weather-shortened games, it's time to suspend such shortened games rather than declare them over and in the books after they're official. It's unfair to the losing team to possibly be deprived of a chance for a playoff spot because of circumstances and rules over which they have no control. It wouldn't hurt anyone to finish the games at a later date and it would be more fair.

    As to the game itself, the Braves are slumping terribly; despite all that great starting pitching they have, there are numerous issues that have to be addressed if they want to be legitimate contenders----something they would've been had they done the one thing they needed to do in the winter and gotten a legitimate basher for the middle of the lineup.

    Because of financial constraints, the Braves rushed to make the Javier Vazquez trade for Melky Cabrera with an eye on getting a serviceable outfielder for the present (Cabrera), and a golden arm for the future (Arodys Vizcaino, 19 and currently struggling a bit at class A Rome in the Sally League). Time will tell with Vizcaino; but Cabrera has been a train wreck----looking too comfortable in his position; slow; fat and, most glaringly and disturbing, lazy.

    Troy Glaus is moving with the speed of the walking undead and appears surprised when he manages to range far enough to his right or left at first base to snare anything in his general vicinity; and his bat has been slow and weak. Worse yet for Glaus is his own lack of hustle. He's not even making the pretense of running hard----in fact, when running the bases, he's moving slower than the aforementioned walking undead and with less determination; at least zombies avidly pursue their goals of eating brains or infecting the general population with the rage virus and/or killing them completely.

    Glaus looks like he doesn't even care.

    Short of benching (or if it goes on for another month, outright releasing him), I don't know what you can do with Glaus.

    Cabrera is another matter.

    Going back to 2008, Cabrera----who was considered a 4th outfielder at best when he broke in----let success get to his head and forgot what it was that got him to the big leagues and allowed his emergence as a semi-regular player, clutch hitter and Yankee-fan favorite in 2006-2007. He maximized his abilities back then, but got too comfortable in his status and let it get to his head; this culminated in a profound lack of aggressiveness and commitment in 2008 and a trip back to the minor leagues.

    In 2009, Cabrera had a fine season with numerous big hits; he was an integral part of the Yankees championship. Traded to the Braves as part of the Vazquez deal and making big money for the first time ($3.1 million), he's again let it get to his head.

    Psychologically, Cabrera appears to be a player who becomes ensconced in a belief that his spot in the lineup----and the big leagues----is guaranteed and it's shown in his play. He's lost his fear of demotion and is clearly a player who needs to be teetering on the precipice of losing his job to maximize his talents. It's one thing to slump, but if said slump (both offensively and defensively) is a direct result of being out of shape and disinterested, something has to be done. First, I'd bench Cabrera; better yet, I might even send him to the minors for a drastic wake-up call.

    It reflects poorly on the player that each and every time he feels as though his roster spot is assured, he drops into comfortable mediocrity and worse. Cabrera needs a slap figuratively and maybe even literally; but do the Braves have a Derek Jeter, Jorge Posada or Joe Girardi to provide the tough love?

    It's one thing to be slow afoot and to have declining quickness of reflexes as has happened with Glaus; but to run at 3/4 speed on a ground ball double play is an egregious act that is a reflection of the player and tantamount to spitting in the face of the Hall of Fame manager, Bobby Cox. Cabrera's been awful in every respect.

    This behavior is a malignant growth that must be excised, but the question is whether there's anyone in the Braves clubhouse to do it. Chipper Jones is the leader of the team along with Brian McCann and Tim Hudson; but it's hard to confront a veteran in Glaus. To compound matters, this attitude can permeate to the youngsters----Tommy Hanson and Jason Heyward----and cause an even greater mess. 

    Thus exacerbates the drastic error the Braves have made in declaring that 2010 is Bobby Cox's last year as manager. Jones, McCann and Hudson are going to listen to Cox----they're not going to challenge nor embarrass their longtime manager out of loyalty; but Glaus and Cabrera don't have similar allegiance and they're acting as if they're playing for their grandpa as he screams at them to get out of the shed; it's, "yeah, whatever old man" with a half-assed trot to first base replacing the dismissive wave and continuation of bad behavior.

    They should never have openly said that this was Cox's last season. He's under contract as a consultant for an extended period; all they had to do was give him a managerial contract for 2011 with it silently stated between the parties that this was going to be his last season on the field and he was going to step aside.

    Farewell tours work for players, not for managers.

    The Braves were a self-sustaining unit during the glory years of the 90s and early 2000s where a lack of effort would've been dealt with by Greg Maddux, Tom Glavine, John Smoltz, Fred McGriff, Jones, et al. Now is not the case as divergent personalities are poisoning the clubhouse. It doesn't help that the solid relationship Cox had with team president John Schuerholz when Schuerholz as GM has been replaced with the clumsily hidden contempt between Cox and GM Frank Wren.

    The rift is well-known and part of it had to do with the GM's treatment of Jeff Francoeur as Francoeur's star faded in Atlanta and resulted in a stupid trade with a division rival (the Mets) for a non-entity who's no longer with the team and was benched by Cox (Ryan Church). It goes even further than that and is a large factor in Cox's decision to step down even if they refuse to admit it. I don't think Cox wants to retire as manager; by the third week of spring training next season, Cox will already be tired of "consulting" and won't know what to do with himself.

    The fundamental mistakes are a symptom. I can't give Yunel Escobar too hard a time for his mental mistakes; that's the type of player he is----strangleworthy with MVP talent. Nor can I be an after-the-fact hypocrite and rip the non-tendering of Kelly Johnson because Johnson's gotten off to a hot start (7 homers) with the Diamondbacks. Johnson was awful last year. Not re-signing Adam LaRoche in favor of Glaus and making the desperation trade of Vazquez are the major gaffes that fall squarely at the feet of Frank Wren.

    The personnel mistakes should be the focus.  

    Unless this is dealt with, it's going to get bad in Atlanta.

    If Jones and McCann aren't providing the veteran leadership the club needs, don't forget that Billy Wagner is in that clubhouse. Wagner's not shy about voicing his opinion and calling out teammates; a few more days of this and he's going to pop off.

    Once the in-fighting starts, things could spiral and explode. Fast. 

    Then we get to the Mets.

    Is this a legitimate hot streak for a team that was playing far beneath its capabilities? Are they self-correcting to their talent level? Or is it nothing more than a string of good play as they exhibited in late August 2005 to briefly vault them into playoff contention before fading as quickly as they rose?

    It was an extraordinary bit of luck that struck the Mets like lightning during those heady few weeks of 2005. Non-prospect Mike Jacobs turned a pinch hit cameo into a big league career; they hammered the Diamondbacks in a 4-game sweep; came within inches of acquiring Manny Ramirez in a blockbuster trade (a trade that was so close to completion that Yankees GM Brian Cashman reportedly called his Mets counterpart Omar Minaya to thank him for getting Manny out of Boston); and crawled within 4 games of first place Atlanta, setting off a flurry of optimism before falling to earth in September.

    They weren't that good then.

    What are they now?

    The Mets pitching has been terrific from top-to-bottom; the lineup has cut a wide swath of streakiness and underachievement----specifically David Wright, who looks lost----but they've taken advantage of the staggering Cubs and Braves on this homestand. A clearer indication of what the Mets are will be seen over the next seven days as they play the Dodgers at Citi Field and then travel to Philadelphia to face the wounded Phillies.

    A week from now, will they be viewed in the increasingly positive (or less hate/agenda-fueled) light of today? Or will it return to the savage attacks that weren't fair last season; and were conveniently aimed at a wounded animal in the last six months? 

• The blazing Rays:

    It's not their own lack of success with the conscious decision to shy away from power; nor is it the growing panic in their fan base that should be concerning the Red Sox. The Yankees are so much better and deeper than the Red Sox that anyone other than the stat zombies and Theo Epstein-worshippers could see what was coming; but it's the Rays blazing start that should be causing the greater consternation in the Red Sox front office; in fact, as we speak, they may be preparing to call in the nuclear codes and do something drastic to wake their slumbering, slumping and desperate club.

    They know they were lucky to get out of the Rangers and Orioles series with 2 wins, let alone 4; and what should be most worrisome is the Rays.

    It's not the Yankees that have to be striking fear into the Red Sox, but the Rays are a club that should be fostering the fear of "we don't have an answer for these guys" in Boston.

    The Rays starting pitching has been superlative in their 14-5 start. Matt Garza and David Price have been devastating. Their bullpen is a question mark----I still don't trust Rafael Soriano; but the lineup has hit when it's counted and what should be the most terrifying aspect about them is that they've amassed that record with Dioner Navarro batting .136; and almost no contribution whatsoever from the DH spot. 

    If and when the Red Sox hit the panic button, it won't be because of the Yankees; it'll be because of the Rays.

• Paul Lebowitz's 2010 Baseball Guide:

    I'm kicking at the door; and it's coming down sooner rather than later. Join the wave. It's unavoidable.

    Paul Lebowitz's 2010 Baseball Guide is available on Amazon, I-Universe and Barnes and Noble.com. It's available for download as an E-book here.    

• How about Gary Allenson to replace Dave Trembley?

    The Orioles are going to have to make a managerial change soon.

    It's unavoidable.

    Born out of some misplaced and overly sentimental sense of loyalty, the wrongheaded decision to make all the moves they made this past winter and move forward with Dave Trembley must be rectified; they can't continue on their current course losing, losing and losing some more in the endless cacophony of creative ways that they have so far. 

    It's 18 games into the season for the Orioles.

    They've lost 16 of those games.

    This isn't to blame Trembley for the way they've lost. He didn't pick the players. he's using the troops he has; they're not hitting; and the bullpen has been catastrophic. Many times, the only reason a manager is fired is because it's the easiest course of action to make a bold move. They're certainly not going to make any huge trades now. If they do start dealing the marketable players they have----Kevin Millwood, Luke Scott, Ty Wigginton----it won't be until the beginning of June at the earliest. 

    The quickest and cheapest alternative is to chop off the infected limb to save the body; and that limb is manager Trembley. He's on the last year of his contract and it's a widely known non-secret that he was on thin ice to start with.

    Loyalty is one thing, but delusion is another.

    Team architect Andy MacPhail is notoriously patient, sometimes to a fault; but Trembley is not Tom Kelly----a fantastic manager who was MacPhail's field boss with the Twins; he's not Dusty Baker; MacPhail's manager with the Cubs, who had a resume of success. Based on his record since taking over, Trembley shouldn't have been brought back for 2010 to start with; now there's no excuse for not doing something. 

    Assuming the liquidation of the manager is completed, where can the Orioles go?

    In recent weeks, I've suggested that a respected and feisty coach the likes of Joey Cora----Ozzie Guillen's bench coach; or Pete Mackanin----Charlie Manuel's bench coach----would be solid selections. Others have suggested Bobby Valentine.

    With Valentine in mind, it occurred to me that I can't remember the last time a coach from another club was hired away mid-season to take over as a flailing club's manager. I may be wrong about that. In 1985, Valentine was hired away from his job as Mets third base coach on Davey Johnson's staff to take over the sinking Texas Rangers. That Rangers team was so awful that the hiring of Valentine didn't pay dividends until 1986 when he took a very young team into contention and to 87 wins. 

    Valentine is not the right choice for the Orioles now.

    At his age (60), he is not going to want to play wet-nurse to a bunch of kids and patch together a team that's in a division with the Yankees, Rays and Red Sox for what would be a futile effort over the next two years at least.

    Bearing in mind the rarity nowadays of a club plundering another team's coaching staff for a manager, the Orioles have one choice and one choice only to take over as manager----their manager at Triple A Norfolk, Gary Allenson.

    Allenson is the epitome of the "baseball-lifer" who's always been respected for his intelligence and acumen as a backup catcher to Carlton Fisk with the Red Sox in the late 70s, early 80s; and as a minor league manager. He's been in the Orioles organization since 2006 and knows the young players he'd be handling in the majors.

    It's making things worse to hire a manager who has no experience whatsoever in doing the job despite a winning pedigree; and while a sound, impressive resume doesn't necessarily mean that it would work in the big leagues, the Orioles have few options. Royals manager Trey Hillman is a prime example of a great choice in every conceivable way, but one who has failed. That shouldn't dissuade the Orioles from giving Allenson the job.

    Since the Orioles don't have anyone on their current staff to take over, they have one option----Allenson. He deserves a chance to manage in the big leagues and the Orioles circumstances are so dire that they have to make a change; keeping it in the organization with someone who knows the team and the players is the wisest course of action.

    This is nothing personal against Trembley. I admire the man. His rise to big league manager was similar to the way a football coach makes his way up to the big time. High school coaching; college coaching; working his way up through the bushes, riding buses clawing his way to the show; but it's not working; and such a rise is hard to replicate in baseball in which players have guaranteed contracts and can look at a manager like Trembley and say, "Who are you to be saying anything to me? You never played pro ball." 

    It's not his fault, but he's not the solution either.

    Unless MacPhail is hiding at Dick Cheney's undisclosed location, waiting things out, he has to do something and soon.

    This is the move he should make, and it may happen as early as tomorrow regardless of the designated replacement, Allenson or someone else.

• The Frozen Bomb:

    You've heard of a "frozen rope" line drive.

    You've heard of a "bomb" of a home run.

    Well, last night in the Phillies 3-2 win over the Diamondbacks, if you saw Jayson Werth's first of his two homers, you saw a "frozen bomb".

    Werth's homer was hit so hard; on such a line off of Diamondbacks starter Ian Kennedy that it could've injured someone severely like a missile if it hit them squarely. 

    It was a frozen....bomb.

    As for the game itself, I have no idea who that Diamondbacks pitcher was, but what's he done with the Ian Kennedy we've come to know and about whom we've come to shake our heads? 

    He threw strikes; looked confident and poised; was doing instead of yapping; and he was efficient. Whether he can continue this work is the question. I'm dubious.

    Naturally, the Diamondbacks bullpen blew the game in the ninth as Juan Gutierrez allowed Werth's second homer (also a rocket) to give the Phillies the lead and the game.

    The Phillies have struggled offensively without Jimmy Rollins. Rollins had gotten off to a hot start and without him, they've looked off kilter. They didn't hit Kris Benson on Friday; Kennedy last night; and are facing Rodrigo Lopez today. They should've put up big numbers against those pitchers, but didn't. 

• Speaking of missing bats...

    Did the Brewers leave their bats in Pittsburgh? 

    Some were looking on in star-stricken awe at the offensive firepower of the Brewers as they scored: 11, 8, 8, and 20 runs in four straight games. To put those massive numbers into proper context, they were facing: Jason Marquis in the first game; and the Pirates in the subsequent three games. They've scored 2 runs in the last two games at home against the Cubs and were stymied by the useful Ryan Dempster and Ted Lilly. 

    As with most teams that are reliant on the home run, the Brewers can be nullified by good pitching; pitching that throws strikes and keeps them off the bases so that when they do hit the ball out of the park, they're all solos. 

    Speaking of Ted Lilly, if the Cubs fall out of contention and Lilly shows himself to be healthy, they're going to get some good stuff for him in a trade. He's a respected veteran; he's a competitor; has experience in pennant races; and is a free agent at the end of the year. He'll be in heavy demand at the trading deadline for any and all contenders and would be a good, possibly playoff-implication-level pick-up.

• Viewer Mail 4.25.2010:

Jane Heller at Confessions of a She-Fan writes RE ARod and home plate collisions:

Well, A-Rod certainly does generate blog comments and good material. We have to give him that. As for Elliot Johnson/Cervelli, that was in spring training, talk about unwritten rules of baseball.

    In a way, ARod is like the stat zombies----what would I do without him?!?

    I honestly don't understand the controversy over the Elliot Johnson-Francisco Cervelli collision. Had Cervelli not gotten hurt, it would've been seen as a clean, hard play; and the games in spring training are games. I love how Joe Girardi came out with the gem (paraphrasing): "It's when you don't go hard that you get hurt." 

    Seriously? 

    And it was in the same spring training of 2008 that Shelley Duncan went into Rays second baseman Akinori Iwamura, leading with his spikes, with the intent to injure another player in retaliation for the Johnson hit. There's a difference between playing hard and sending a message cleanly and trying to hurt someone. The home plate crashes were a combination of said messages and playing hard; the Duncan move was filthy. No one would've said a word had Duncan slid in hard and knocked Iwamura into the next county; but the spikes? Absurd.

    And it was in a "meaningless" spring training game.

    On a far lower scale, it's the fog of war.

Jeff (Acting Boss) at Red State Blue State writes RE Mark Teixeira:

Teixeira and Keith Hernandez are a lot alike, especially on defense. My dad and I argue over who's the better defensive 1st baseman ad nauseum.

    The only defensive comparable to Keith Hernandez that I've seen was Don Mattingly. Teixeira's not in their class. Hernandez was the best I've ever seen, pure and simple. Great range; classic instincts; strong, accurate arm; plus the glove. He was a weapon over there, especially against the bunt.

John Seal (West Coast Spiritual Advisor) writes RE the Athletics:

Just realized I referred to Jack Cust being at 'triple-AAA'. If ever there were a 'triple-AAA' hitter, though, it's Big Jack.

    Maybe he learned to be a mechanic or roadside assistant during his trek from one organization to another finding his way in the world like Caine from Kung-Fu; in that case, you'd have been right with the designation.

    There are worse bats being used as regulars or semi-regulars in the big leagues today. At least with Cust, you know what you're getting. The A's have been kind of cruel to him I think, for no reason other than that they could. Neither Jake Fox nor Eric Chavez have done anything at all to justify being in the lineup; it's another error in management for Billy Beane for reasons only he knows, assuming there are reasons.

• Paul Lebowitz's 2010 Baseball Guide:

    There's absolutely no reason that I can think of for you to not have purchased my book yet, but I'm slightly biased.

    Paul Lebowitz's 2010 Baseball Guide is available on Amazon, I-Universe and Barnes and Noble.com. It's available for download as an E-book here.    

• Playing hard, serious and clean:

    The distaste engendered throughout baseball by Yankees' third baseman Alex Rodriguez is, symbolically and fittingly, mitigated by his counterpart across the Yankees diamond, first baseman Mark Teixeira.

    Whereas ARod is simultaneously respected for his baseball skills and despised for his antics and attitude, Teixeira is admired and feared because of his serious nature and hard play straight out of the old school. 

    Baseball is pockmarked with fraternization; the reluctance to take players out with necessary physicality; and the "brotherhood" that's morphed from a respect and agreement----unwritten and unsaid----that "I won't try to end your career if you don't try to end mine" to a "buddy-buddy" atmosphere that's diminishing the game.

    When you hear the crusty, jealous and miserable lamenting the way the game is played today (Bob Feller), it's easy to ignore as "old man stuff"; when you hear the players' players from not all that long ago like Keith Hernandez and Nolan Ryan shaking their heads at the prevalence of communal life, it should be taken more seriously.

    Player movement has bred familiarity and overdoing of the "friends" bit. In the Mets-Nationals series, Hernandez was bewildered at Adam Dunn venturing over to second base to chat with David Wright while a pitching change was being made. Hernandez was loquacious as a player; when playing first base, it's part of the landscape to casually make small talk with the baserunners, the umpire and the first base coach; but this has seeped into on-field play.

    "He's my friend; I don't want to hurt him."

    There aren't many players who genuinely wanted to "hurt" any of their opponents without reason. (There were some, of course.) But to consciously and intentionally keep oneself from doing what needs to be done----friend or not----is a disservice to the employer; to the cause.

    Mark Teixeira has no such qualms.

    He's a businessman; there to do a job and that can be just as important as his substantial playing skills.

    Last night, Teixeira was hit on the elbow by an Ervin Santana pitch; he didn't glare at the pitcher; didn't shout; didn't pull a Kevin Youkilis and intimidate through glaring and staring. He simply walked to first base...and got his own back when he tried to score and nailed catcher Bobby Wilson with a crushing and classic home plate collision. That Wilson didn't even have the ball was irrelevant; he was in close proximity to the plate and while Teixeira might have been able to score without the crash, he was making sure he scored the run and sending a message that he was there to win, not to make friends. What's even more impressive about Teixeira's seriousness is that he's a former Angels player.

    Much was made of the cold-blooded way in which Teixeira chose the Yankees over his other prominent suitors in free agency, the Angels and Red Sox. The Angels were angry that they thought they'd reached the numbers demanded by Teixeira's agent Scott Boras and he shopped the deal around to extract more money from the Red Sox and Yankees. It was so egregious in the eyes of the Angels that they want nothing more to do with Boras clients. The Red Sox also thought they were the only remaining club willing to ante up the cash for Teixeira until the Yankees swooped in at the last second to snatch him from their grasp.

    It wasn't personal; just like the hit on Wilson----which gave the catcher a concussion and an ankle injury----wasn't personal. People were taken aback as Teixeira didn't go and check on Wilson as he was writhing in the ground and had a cartoon-like facial expression of seeing birds flying around his head. All Teixeira did was make sure he touched the plate and return to his dugout.

    Angels manager Mike Scioscia was the king of the home plate collision in his heyday as a defensive minded Dodgers catcher. He relished them as his trademark and he was recognized throughout baseball for his willingness to block the plate. His most memorable home plate mano-a-mano was in 1985 with Cardinals first baseman Jack Clark. Scioscia was knocked into next week; Clark was staggered; but Scioscia held onto the ball and recorded the out.

    Scioscia himself wasn't bothered by Teixeira's hard, clean play.

    He knows Teixeira and knows how he conducts himself. 

    Much was said about Teixeira's seriousness when he signed with the Yankees; that he turned off his cellphone when he entered the clubhouse; that the was there to work and work alone like a determined and focused businessman. Every team can use such a player and leader.

    Last night was part of Teixeira's all-around game on and off the field. He was concerned about Wilson, his former teammate, but didn't let that take precedence over his job.

    Other players should take heed.

    Oh, and so too should speak volumes my silence regarding the hypocrisy of Yankees manager Joe Girardi in defending the (clean) Teixeira hit while savaging Elliot Johnson ad nauseam for his (also clean) hit on Francisco Cervelli in March of 2008. 

    They were both clean hits.

    Clean.

    You all knew I'd go there.

• Royals release Juan Cruz:

    This move makes no sense whatsoever.

    Cruz did not pitch well last season; but he's been pretty good this year and he's better than the alternatives the Royals have---they called up Bruce Chen and Brad Thompson to replace Cruz and Luis Mendoza, who was also released.

    In a similarly bewildering decision to the Cubs shifting Carlos Zambrano to the bullpen, the release of Cruz isn't just an on-field mistake; but they're swallowing the money on Cruz's contract ($3.75 million for 2010-2011) and giving away a player they could've used to pitch or traded for something later in the season.

    Everyone is going to be looking for bullpen help in July and August and if Cruz's velocity is normal and he's pitching serviceably, they probably could've gotten at least a mid-level prospect with some useful talent----a good glove; a power fastball; speed.

    Why release him in April?

    Why? 

    Cruz will land on his feet. Someone will sign him to bolster their bullpen----the Phillies; the Mets; or my bet, Cruz's former team, the Diamondbacks----and he might have use; plus they don't have to pay him anything more than the minimum.

    The Royals are paying him.

    Because they released him.

    This inexplicable decision is the latest in a long line of haplessness from the Dayton Moore-led Royals, all dressed up and going nowhere.

• Viewer Mail 4.24.2010:

    A bit of inter-Family squabbling----nothing major----has broken out among my top lieutenants regarding the Dallas Braden-Alex Rodriguez territorial infringement debate.

    I'm the Boss of this Family. I'll keep the peace.

Jane Heller at Confessions of a She-Fan writes: 

Oh, please. Braden's reaction to A-Rod's Gran Torino act was like a 2 year old having a tantrum. Sure, he can yell something, but stomping around and throwing stuff and talking about retribution? Now that's bush.

Gabriel (Capo) writes:

I think it's the typical reaction from a nerd when the bully does something you expect he would respect. I agree with the Boss in that it's part of A-Rod personality, but as such, I agree with Jane in that Braden should know better than throwing cups around in his dugout. I'd have retaliated against the Yankees' next batter.

Jeff (Acting Boss) at Red State Blue State writes:

Sorry, Jane, I gotta side with the Prince here. Why? Because A-Rod's track record is FULL of bush league shenanigans. Full of 'em!

Oh, that AND he's a stone cold liar. Remember the blue sweater?

Of course we do.

    Braden's screaming at ARod was justified. He had to do it for the reasons I stated yesterday.

    That said, Jane's right in the criticism of Braden's reaction after the fact in the dugout and with his comments.

    It appeared that Braden was going over-the-top to show everyone, everywhere what he was doing; to make sure it was known. The throwing things in the dugout and especially the comments about retribution were laughable.

    Retribution?

    Anyone with half a brain knows that you don't place yourself square in the spotlight announcing what you're going to do.

    The proper way to retaliate is to nod silently with pursed lips; smile and note what happened; keep quiet about it and, when the opportunity arises, drill ARod in the ribs. Or, to make it even more of a message and cause a problem in the Yankees clubhouse, drill Derek Jeter, Jorge Posada or Teixeira.

    Hitting ARod doesn't do much, but hitting one of his teammates because of something ARod did? There's a message. The bruise on ARod's ribs would heal, but the rift his actions continually create with his teammates from his gamesmanship/bullying might not be so easily repaired.

    I guarantee you none of the aforementioned Yankee players would've run across the mound.

    Disagreement settled.

    We're all in this for a greater cause.

John Seal (West Coast Spiritual Advisor) also writes RE ARod-Braden:

Went to the first two A's-Yankees tilts, but sadly missed l'affair A-Rod. Can I just say I love Dallas Braden? I've always loved him, actually (how can you NOT love a guy who can still pitch effectively when he only has sensation in eight toes), but now my hardcore man-crush is on. I guess now that Jack Cust is at triple-AAA, I had to transfer my affections elsewhere.

I'll just add that A-Rod's dismissive hand gesture and 'handful of wins' sneer were both the very definition of 'bush league'.

    Man-crush on Jack Cust? Dallas Braden?

    John, need I remind you of a little player named Coco Crisp? Currently on the DL, but fitting right into the pitching and defense mantra that's gained such steam in stat zombie circles and is (so far) failing miserably when put into context, Crisp is the stuff of man-crush heaven.

    Seriously, with ARod, there's nothing he says and does that doesn't have some reasoning behind it. The running across the mound was a typical ARod shot against a young player in an effort to exert his will and show his dominance; at worst he wanted to rattle the young pitcher and help his team with the game.

    It didn't work in either case.

    The "handful of wins" stuff was an after-the-fact attempt at letting Braden know his place in the ARod universe. This is what ARod is; this is what he does. Sometimes it even works; but credit goes to Braden (even with his overdoing it later) for standing up to ARod.

The Brooklyn Trolley Blogger writes RE Jerry Manuel:

Manuel ~ There's a reason Bobby Parnell led our staff in appearances last year and isn't on the team to start this season. Nieve? You pegged it. My pet is Jenrry...send him down now for his own protection from Manuel. He's a starter. He also isn't Joba and we aren't the Yanks. Get him out of our bullpen and away from Manuel. Get him back in AA or AAA. Get him stretched out and starting again. We'll need him hopefully, in July and after. Desperate managing and bullpens are not good bed fellows.
I've waisted enough breath on A-Rod over the years. No Mas.

    Manuel has abused Fernando Nieve and it's going to cost them unless the pitcher is superhuman. You'd think that the Mets front office would try to steer Manuel into the direction of taking it easy with the likes of Nieve, but if they have, he's not listening. 

    One thing I'll disagree with regarding Jenrry Mejia is that it seems that Manuel has been cautious and judicious in his use. I don't have a problem with a pitcher being utilized as a reliever to get accustomed to the majors; learn to pitch out of jams from the stretch position; and be used in moderate pressure situations and handle failure. Earl Weaver used to do that with his young starters. Tony La Russa has done that for years with young pitchers, the latest being Adam Wainwright. Mejia and Chamberlain are two different beings. I don't think anyone sees Mejia as a long-term reliever. Everyone agrees that he's going to get a chance to start; best case scenario, it's next year.

• Paul Lebowitz's 2010 Baseball Guide:
  

• ARod's latest act is a symbol of ARod being ARod:

    The most glaring aspect of the latest Alex Rodriguez controversy----dutifully created by ARod himself----is that he maintains the veneer of innocence and "who me?" countenance in clear opposition to an act that a student of the game like ARod knew would generate a negative reaction.

    In case anyone missed it, Alex Rodriguez committed an on-field breach of etiquette when, in yesterday's Athletics 4-2 win over the Yankees, he ran over the pitcher's mound returning to first base after a foul ball----ESPN Story. Athletics pitcher Dallas Braden took it as an affront because it was intended as such. 

    With Braden pitching well and the Yankees trailing, ARod was obviously trying a little bit of subtle gamesmanship to rattle the young pitcher. Contrary to popular belief, there are players in baseball who can be intimidated or taken off their game by such an act. If Braden got angry enough, there was every possibility of him trying to throw the next pitch through the wall behind home plate, grooving a fastball and getting a Yankees rally started.

    Players are constantly testing the manhood of other players in a symbolic fraternity initiation to see how far they can push; it happens with teammates and opponents. Sometimes it even works. Braden got angry, but it didn't help matters for the Yankees as they lost anyway; with another pitcher, it might've had the desired effect. 

    ARod is a bully. He tries these little maneuvers with players who are either young or so far down the food chain from him that he feels he can do it with impunity; an attitude of: "How dare you challenge me? I'm ARod!!"

    We've seen ARod pull stuff like this before. The "HA!" incident against the Blue Jays resulting in a dropped pop-up and subsequent beanball war; the slapping the ball out of Bronson Arroyo's glove in the 2004 ALCS are two of the most prominent acts.

    This is what ARod does.

    This is how ARod is. 

    When debating whether or not this was a simple act of not thinking it was a big deal or some mental game, you have to ask yourself one question: If it was Josh Beckett on the mound, would ARod have done something similar?

    Of course not. Beckett has the stature that would prevent ARod from pulling such a bush league act. Plus, Beckett would've attacked him. 

    Pitchers consider the mound their office and you simply don't do what ARod did. It's infringing on their territory and with the way athletes are emotional, reactionary and primal----especially in the heat of sports-related combat----of course Braden was going to respond. Had he not, his teammates would've questioned his toughness and the word would've filtered to the rest of the league that Braden can be intimidated; that they could force their will on him like some jailhouse test of fortitude.

    If that implication of weakness isn't nipped in the bud, it spreads like a plague. Braden was right to react in the way that he did, not because the physical act itself was so outrageous, but because of the way Braden would've been perceived throughout baseball. He needed to do what he did. 

    ARod learned his lessons well from Madonna. The reason for the attention one receives is secondary to the attention itself. 

    While it's unseemly and gauche to his teammates----especially the more serious-minded ones like Derek Jeter and Mark Teixeira (I doubt Nick Swisher cares)----he does these things because he's ARod and masks it with his boyish grin and faux humility that's been present since he broke into the big leagues and played the "I'm just part of the team" and "I'm just happy to be here" card. ARod knows he's one of the most gifted talents in the history of the game; the other players know it too. It's part of his shtick and it's done intentionally.

• Battering the bullpen, Jerry Manuel-style:

    Fernando Nieve is the Flushing version of Scott Proctor.

    Former Yankees reliever Scott Proctor was Joe Torre's designated pitcher for, well, for every conceivable situation and he blew his arm out because of it. Jerry Manuel is doing a similar job of burning out a useful arm with Fernando Nieve.

    Nieve has pitched in 11 of the 16 games the Mets have played. He's shown great potential as a reliever. He throws strikes; throws hard and has a strikeout slider; but he can't be overused like this and have the club expect him to maintain effectiveness throughout the season; plus he's never going to refuse the opportunity to pitch even if he's tired or achy and that's only going to make things worse.

    One thing Tony La Russa----unfairly blamed as the architect of bullpen overuse----has always done is dole out the workload for his pitchers evenly to keep them fresh throughout the season. He pays attention to their innings; their pitch counts; and, most importantly, the number of times they warm up.

    Warming up to come into a game doesn't simply take a physical toll, it's mentally draining to be getting ready to come into a game with runners on base; get fired up; get the adrenaline pumping...then have to shut it down and possibly do it again an inning later.

    Manuel also used Francisco Rodriguez for a 5-out save last night. K-Rod got the job done, but this type of panic-stricken, playoff-type machination was part of the reason the Mets blew their playoff spot in 2008. While the blame for the fade was Billy Wagner's injury, it was also due in part to Manuel's (and former manager Willie Randolph's) over-taxing of the bullpen with excessive warm-ups and desperate pitching changes.

    Eventually, you have to trust your players even if it costs a game.

    While it worked and the Mets won last night's game, are K-Rod and Nieve available tonight? They're playing the Braves this weekend----a divisional foe----and are going to need their closer; he's either going to be unavailable tonight or run the risk of injury pitching when he probably shouldn't be and that's the responsibility of the manager.

    On another subject, Jose Reyes is going to bat third tonight. 

    I love this move.

    I was prepared to write that the time for vacillation and cajoling was over with Reyes. Manuel has wanted to bat Reyes third since last year and he, as the manager, is in the position to do what he feels is best for the team irrespective of what the player wants. This is not a communal, "everyone agrees" situation where there has to be consensus on where the players bat, pitch or whatever.

    The entire point of being in power is mitigated if said power is left unused. What's the point of having it if you don't use it? If Manuel wants to bat Reyes third, he should bat Reyes third even if the player doesn't like it. Perhaps the irritation or reticence Reyes has to the shift will light a fire under him to get him on a blazing hot streak. If it doesn't work, he can always be moved back to leadoff and, as I've said repeatedly, Reyes's combination of speed and pop can be better deployed in the middle of the lineup.

• Viewer Mail 4.23.2010:

Jeff (Acting Boss) at Red State Blue State writes RE the Cubs:

"The Chicago Flubs"

I love the fact that you used this under appreciated moniker.

Their Zambrano decision IS suicide...

...and of course, I'm lovin' it.

    I don't think they know what to do. I've read some suggestions that it's a short-term attempt at a wake-up call. I still think it's a mistake. He hasn't pitched badly enough for a demotion. What the Cubs should've done is gone with a six-man rotation for a couple of cycles to account for Ted Lilly's return. Plus, you can't use Zambrano out of the bullpen for another reason----you can't trust him to throw strikes!

The Brooklyn Trolley Blogger writes RE Adam Rubin's reporting:

Adam Rubin? I'm finding the majority of his content on espnNY.com complete garbage. I'm not trying to be derisive. But most of his stuff is really bad.
Him and Ian O'Connor (although not as bad) are killin me. Ian is offering up a lot of trash too which surprises me because I remember all his coverage of the 1994 Stanley Cup which was very good.

    Part of the reason I don't want to be a conventional reporter is the need to access sources that may or may not be accurate. There's no pretense of an attempt to be creative in finding things to write about when there's nothing obvious going on. Oh, Oswalt might be available? The Mets have no shot. Never mind that the market for him is unknown; that the number of teams who might be willing to pay him is limited; just forget the Mets as a matter of course.

    After the way the Mets were relentlessly slammed for having a weak farm system, it's not looking so bad now, is it? Ike Davis; Jenrry Mejia; Ruben Tejada? Not that bad after all. 

    With O'Connor and other reporters? It's easy to bash the Mets; they're the designated punching bag after the way things have degenerated from 2007 onward. Once they're no longer good sport, the lazy, bottom-feeders will move onto something else.

Issac (Force Sensitive Acolyte, training in the Dark Side) writes RE Carlos Zambrano:

Are you sure the cubs would be so reluctant to trade Zambrano within the division?. I mean, I understand that trading him to the cardinals might seriously reduce their chances to go to the playoffs, but trading him to the Brewers could be a wise move for them, if the brewers have the money, which I doubt. But, assuming they do, the Cubs could get rid of Zambrano's contract and could be able to pursue a free agent like cliff lee next offseason. I also think that if the white sox are willing to take his contract, they should make the trade. They are not even in the same league, and not making that trade would be harming the team just for pride or rivalry.

    It doesn't appear that the Cubs are going to have to worry about their chances to make the playoffs this year since those chances are looking increasingly non-existent.

    You're right, the Cubs would put rivalry aside----with clenched teeth----and trade Zambrano to the Cardinals if the Cardinals wanted him; but that's the problem. As much work as Dave Duncan could do to straighten out Zambrano, the Cardinals are not taking that contract. 

    The Cubs would absolutely send Zambrano to the Brewers, but they're not taking the money either; and if it was to the point where the Cubs were willing to kick in some money or take comparably bad contracts back, they'd be able to find a taker in the American League or send him to the Dodgers or Mets. The White Sox have struggled, but they don't need Zambrano; the rotation isn't their problem, they're not hitting.

    If the Cubs do start clearing contracts, they're not going after Cliff Lee; they're looking at a retooling project with a new GM and a new manager as they try to rid themselves of as much money as possible.

    The Stone Cold Killer, Cliff Lee, is vengeful. If the Mets ante up the cash, he's going there to get paid and try to stick it to the Phillies. 

• Paul Lebowitz's 2010 Baseball Guide: 

• Zambrano to the bullpen is cannibalistic:
  

    The Cubs have themselves a very expensive set-up man/long-man/I dunno what-man as they've moved Carlos Zambrano to the bullpen.

    In what might be the early-season's first and most glaring maneuver of self-destruction and short-sightedness, the flailing Cubs have made a ghastly mistake for the team and for the player.

    The "logic" behind the move kinda, sorta makes sense if you look at it on the surface; but when peeling away the layers, you realize that it's not only stupid in the short-term, but it's borderline organizational suicide in the long-term.

    With a bullpen that's been horrific; Ted Lilly returning to the starting rotation; none of the other starters having pitched worse than Zambrano; and a breather possibly helping the big righty, it isn't a ridiculous idea to use Zambrano out of the bullpen to help everyone involved. Based on performance alone, he's the obvious choice to be sent to the bullpen; and in the short term, he will help them as a reliever simply due to the fact that their current relief corps is in tatters and has been so rotten that I think I could do a better job, bone chips in my elbow and all. 

    But to move him to the pen and for manager Lou Piniella imply that it may not be a short-term solution? If they needed a closer and were contemplating Zambrano in the role, then maybe; but as a set-up man?

    Carlos Zambrano's overall numbers for 2010 are terrible, but the majority of that stems from his opening day start against the Braves when he was rocked for 8 earned runs in 1 1/3 innings. After that, he was good vs the Reds (7 innings; 3 runs); mediocre vs the Brewers (5 innings; 4 runs); and good two nights ago against the Mets (6 innings; 2 runs; 9 strikeouts). If it were a lesser pitcher; one with more limited ability, it could be seen as a simple numbers game and Zambrano drawing the short straw; but the implications of this maneuver are reaching further than simple numerical calculations.

    This is a mistake because Zambrano is very highly paid; he's still a marketable talent in a trade; the Cubs may be teetering on a full-scale housecleaning by mid-season; and he's not a reliever.

    Carlos Zambrano's contract has a guaranteed $53 million through 2012 with a vesting option for $19.25 million in 2013; and a full no-trade clause. At this point, the no-trade is irrelevant because I think he'd accept a trade to Iraq to get away from the Cubs. The money? Not so irrelevant.

    The only way the Cubs are going to move that contract is if Zambrano strings together a few starts in a row to make it appear as if he's salvageable; they're certainly not going to get top tier prospects for him, but to get him and his money out of their sight would be more than enough at this point; and the only way to do that is if he looks useful as a starter. No one's paying that kind of salary to a reliever. While it's possible the Cubs would get rid of him if they picked up some of the money, isn't it better to get rid of all the money if possible? The only way to do that is if he's showing use as a starter.

    As aggravating as he is, Zambrano still has 18-win stuff. He's big, he's durable, and he's mean. The epitome of a pitcher who needs a change-of-scenery/guru pitching coach----money aside----there are a load of teams that would take a chance on him. The problem for the Cubs is that every alternate location that can swallow the money and has the pitching coach who might be able to nurse Zambrano is not ideal for the Cubs. 

    The Cardinals with Dave Duncan would be perfect...but the Cubs aren't trading with their arch-rivals.

    The Brewers with Rick Peterson could help...but they're not taking that contract and the Cubs aren't trading him within the division.

    The White Sox with Don Cooper and Zambrano's Venezuelan countryman as manager---Ozzie Guillen----might be able to do something with him, but the Cubs are not going to trade him across town.

    The Red Sox don't really need him; the Phillies couldn't afford to keep Cliff Lee, they're certainly not taking that contract due to the admission it would be of making a mistake with Lee, although they could use him if he's right.

    The Mets? They're not taking the contract unless the Cubs take Luis Castillo and Oliver Perez for him.

    The Braves? Maybe the Cubs could trade him for Derek Lowe.  

    There's nowhere for him to go right now. And as a reliever? Forget it.  

    In fairness to the Cubs and Piniella, Zambrano is a guy who managers and pitching coaches want to strangle; but the shift to the bullpen strikes as desperation. It's doling of blame on the player when there's more than enough responsibility to spread among all participants in his unraveling.

    With all the talent in the world----the ability to dominate----this is a pitcher in need of a mental refurbishment and mechanical adjustment rather than a demotion to the bullpen disguised as a method to help the team and the player. 

    This is the latest in the long line of gaffes that have torn the Cubs apart. It seems so long ago that in 2008 they were rolling through the National League and on the way to a possible World Series. The wheels are coming off and this decision isn't just an aspect of that destruction based on circumstance; it's the Cubs unscrewing the lugnuts to exacerbate the process.

    It's a mistake in every possible connotation. 

    That historical trend of the Cubs continues unabated.

• Media absurdity:

    Will they never learn?

    Adam Rubin of ESPN New York wrote the following about Roy Oswalt:

A source familiar with the Houston Astros' thinking doesn't believe right-hander Roy Oswalt will end up with the Mets, assuming he does get traded.

"They may sniff, but have no chance," the source said regarding the Mets.

Oswalt, 32, has a no-trade clause and has never shown an affinity for New York. He's earning $15 million this season, $16 million next year and has a 2012 option with a $2 million buyout.

The three-time All-Star is 1-2 with a 2.37 ERA in three starts this season.

    It's no guarantee that the Mets are going to be in the position to chase Roy Oswalt. The money he's earning would make it senseless for the Mets to trade for him in any case unless they're either getting money from the Astros; the Astros take the aforementioned Castillo or Perez for him; or the Mets are giving up low level prospects to get him. 

    That said, how can anyone say with such certainty "they may sniff, but they have no chance" (which is something of a repulsive image to begin with) before the Astros have even placed Oswalt on the market?

    Similar things were said in the Mets pursuit of Johan Santana. It was seen as ridiculous and futile. The Red Sox, Yankees, Angels and others were after Santana; all had deeper farm systems; the money to pay the player; and the incentive to keep him away from their bitter rivals.

    But the Twins had to trade Santana and both the Yankees and Red Sox pulled out.

    That left the Mets as the last man standing; and the Twins got almost nothing in terms of players for him.

    The same thing could happen with Oswalt.

    As for Oswalt having no interest in New York, you have to shrug. Worst case scenario, it's better than Houston and he clearly wants out. I'm not suggesting the Mets do it; I'd have to think about whether or not it would make sense; but GM Omar Minaya has pursued Oswalt before and if the pitcher is sufficiently frustrated by the situation in Houston, he'd be willing to go to New York.

    To dismiss the thought now while leaving the wiggle room to prevent oneself from looking foolish is typical of reporters/columnists nowadays.

   It's premature and stupid to make such definitive statements before the act begins to play itself out.

• Paul Lebowitz's 2010 Baseball Guide:

    Check out and purchase my book in paperback or E-book. It's good for a thrill or ten.

    Paul Lebowitz's 2010 Baseball Guide is still available on Amazon, I-Universe and Barnes and Noble.com. It's available for download as an E-book here.  

• Braves 4-Phillies 3:

    It's not the tools, it's the carpenter.

    I don't know who said that first, but I remember that noted philosopher/agitator Charles Barkley saying it in an interview. 

    Obviously, you can't squeeze water out of a rock; there has to be some potential there to start with in order to maximize it; but intelligence; calmness under fire; and a flair for the dramatic certainly help in the growth process or fulfilling massive ability.

    I saw such a thing last night with the Braves exciting rookie Jason Heyward. 

    After all the worshipful accolades in the spring (he was ridiculously compared to Hank Aaron; Willie Mays; Mickey Mantle; etc.) and the homer in his first big league at bat, Heyward was living up to the hype. As the first month of the season has moved along, Heyward's handled with aplomb the pressure that came with such risky and stupid allusions to his future greatness. At 20-years-old and playing in his home state while dealing with that pressure has shown a maturity that will carry him through even when he struggles.

    Because of his talent, Heyward would've been at least serviceable in his rookie year; but it's the intestinal fortitude that is going to vault him to superstar status. Baseball sense is hard to teach and Heyward has it.

    In last night's come-from-behind win for the Braves, Heyward did more than hit a game-tying homer in the bottom of the ninth inning, he saw the situation and adjusted his game to account for it. 

    After Troy Glaus's 2 out, 2-run homer off of Phillies closer Ryan Madson cut the deficit to 3-2, Heyward stepped in and appeared to be trying to hit a game-tying homer. Most hitters, when the try to hit a homer only manage to strike out; pop up or ground out meekly. Heyward, down a strike, seemed to consciously use his long reach to fully extend and get the barrel of the bat on Madson's outside fastball to whip it over the right-center field wall to tie the game.

    The clip is available here although you'll have to pause it at around 20 seconds and endure the irritating, over-the-top ESPN voice-over to see exactly what Heyward did.

    To have that presence of mind; the ability to accomplish his goal; and do it under that stress amid all the craziness that has surrounded the start of his big league career are attributes that can't be taught; can't be prepared for; and it takes a mentally tough and physically capable player to respond as Heyward did. 

    The Braves clearly didn't learn their lessons from the way they overhyped Jeff Francoeur and subsequently blamed and dumped him for his shortcomings. Heyward----with far more natural ability than Francoeur----is looking like the real deal.

    As for Madson and the Phillies, what can you do? He's not the guy I'd want as my closer for a team with championship aspirations, which is again going to leave the Phillies placing the pot of gold on the mentally fragile and physically questionable Brad Lidge. In the regular season, if they're forced to use Madson, he'll convert most of his save chances with a game like last night sprinkled in.

    When manager Charlie Manuel called on Jose Contreras in the tenth, I'm sure everyone in the ballpark----including the Phillies----had a feeling as to what was going to happen, and did as Nate McLouth homered to win it.

    Contreras has pitched well up to last night----dominant in fact----but you can't put him in a game-losing situation because he simply cannot handle it mentally.

    Using Contreras in the fifth and sixth innings? Okay.

    Using him in the tenth inning? Not okay.

• Mets 4-Cubs 0:

    Are the Cubs this bad?

    Few managers----Tony La Russa; Joe Torre; Mike Scioscia----would be absolved of blame and safe given the way the Cubs have played over the past year. Cubs manager Lou Piniella is another such manager.

    If it was any pedestrian manager without Piniella's personality and resume, there would be a "manager watch" going on on the North Side of Chicago.

    Instead, it's only a matter of time before there's a "GM watch" with Jim Hendry in the cross-hairs.

    The Cubs don't just look bad, they look like they've accepted their fate and are waiting for the inevitable end with a full-scale housecleaning. It only makes sense with a new ownership in place and the window clearly closed for this veteran group.

    I've said it before, the Cubs blew their chance in 2008 for one reason and one reason only: Piniella made a huge mistake in starting Ryan Dempster in game one of the NLDS. The Dodgers rocked Dempster; it set the tone for the whole series; and the fiery and unflappable Ted Lilly never got into a game in the series because the Cubs got swept before they knew what hit them.

    Now things are crumbling. They have unmovable contracts like Alfonso Soriano and Carlos Zambrano; and are going to need to be aggressive in clearing the likes of Derrek Lee, Dempster, Lilly (when and if he's healthy), and Aramis Ramirez.

    Will the new owners----the Ricketts family----let Hendry be the one to make such important calls with implications that could extend for years? 

    It's early; but it's not the talent on the Cubs roster that's the issue----they have plenty; it's the overwhelming attitude surrounding them. When they fall behind, they bail. This is one of the reasons they shouldn't have traded Mark DeRosa last year because he was one of the players who functioned as a conduit from Piniella to the rest of the team. Now, there's Lee and few others to serve that purpose.

    This could get bad. Fast.

    With the Mets, an interesting dilemma would've been presented to manager Jerry Manuel had Mike Pelfrey held his no-hitter into the late innings.

    What would Manuel have done?

    This is one of those cases in which it would've been right to yank his pitcher in the middle of a no-hitter.

    While on a lesser scale, it would've been similar to Joe Torre pulling David Cone from the game in his return from aneurysm surgery in 1996 while Cone had a no-hitter intact after seven innings; he had to do it. Pelfrey is big and strong and can throw 125 pitches if necessary; he doesn't over-exert himself on the mound and there's no reason to baby him; but he pitched in relief on Saturday getting the save in the Mets win over the Cardinals in that 20-inning marathon; he's a linchpin to any hopes the Mets have to contend this year and cannot be risked for the sake of history.

    Because of that, it was a different circumstance to the one that faced Yankees manager Joe Girardi as he ridiculously and selfishly insisted that he was going to pull C.C. Sabathia during his no-hit bid against the Rays; and as Rockies manager Jim Tracy correctly left Ubaldo Jimenez to complete his no-hitter against the Braves even as he threw 128 pitches.

    Again, this is called managing. I don't know what Manuel would've done, but pulling Pelfrey would've been the right thing to do had the no-hitter continued.

• The Padres could be turning a corner:

    It's always straddling the line when judging at a team with financial constraints, a new GM, and star players that are clearly on the trade block; but so far, the Padres have the look of a team on the rise.

    They have young pitching; some impressive bats; leader-type veterans; and finally, hope.

    Lefty Clayton Richard was acquired from the White Sox in the Jake Peavy trade and is going to be a winner; mark my words on that.

    Mat Latos has a great arm, but needs to mature. Right now, he's got the slumped shoulders, sour faces and horrible body language that come from a pitcher unaccustomed to adversity and with a far-too-high opinion of himself. He reminds me of the way Jeff Weaver looked and behaved while pitching for the Yankees; at times, it appeared that Joe Torre was doing all he could keep from strangling him. Once Latos is bridled and learns his place----and big league hitters have a way of showing tough-love in that respect----he'll start to get it. 

    Kevin Correia has great stuff; the bullpen is well situated with Mike Adams, Luke Gregerson and Heath Bell; and they have bats with Kyle Blanks, Everth Cabrera and Chase Headley; plus "good guy" teaching veterans in David Eckstein and Jon Garland.

    Things could be worse in San Diego.

    True judgment on new GM Jed Hoyer won't come until he trades Adrian Gonzalez. His tenure will be based on that. To take the next step, the Padres are going to need a new manager----Bob Melvin would be a good man to replace Bud Black----but as they make the innocent climb, the pieces are currently in place for a revival in San Diego as early as 2011.

    They could conceivably make a run at .500 this year if things go well. They probably won't, but unlike prior years where it was Peavy, Gonzalez and Trevor Hoffman and middling, cheap journeymen surrounding them, there's plenty of talent on the Padres roster to be more than respectable.

• Viewer Mail 4.21.2010:

Jane Heller at Confessions of a She-Fan writes:

You said it - success changes everything. The minute the Mets go on a winning streak, suddenly every move they make will be "genius."

    It may be my imagination because it's hitting close to home, but the attacks on the Mets seem more vitriolic. It's all relative, but for reasons I can't understand there's almost a bending over backwards for the media darlings like Billy Beane to receive credit when they've done little to warrant it other than be celebrated in a best-selling and baseline inaccurate book like Moneyball.

    Even today, there's an article in today's NY Times again professing Beane's intelligence for signing Brett Anderson to a long-term contract.

    Real clever. Genius, in fact. Where's the "objective analysis"? Apparently, with Beane and his brethren, it doesn't exist. It works both ways. For objectivity to be self-fulfilling, the non-media-darlings like Omar Minaya have to be held to the same standard; and they're not. 

Gabriel (Capo) writes: 

Jane's right, they're under fire because nothing has worked for them.

On another subject, what do you think of Fred Lewis? He's now the Blue Jays' 4th outfielder and he's batting leadoff.

    I've always like Lewis. He had an excellent year in 2008; and was serviceable last year. The Giants had no room for him. With the Blue Jays, he should get a chance to play and while he may not return to what he was in 2008, he's a useful player that will provide speed and extra base hits for the Blue Jays.

Jeff (Acting Boss) at Red State Blue State writes RE Vernon Wells, Alfonso Soriano and the Cubs:

Vernon Wells has sorta held his own so far this season... Soriano cannot say the same.

Because Soriano is worthless.

Did you hear he's finally going to placate Sweet Lou and lose "the hop"? After all these years (and ERRORS), now Sori is ready to lose the hop. Too little too late I'm afraid.

The dude is a waste of space. I could get Soriano out swinging. No problem. Throw him something unhittable, low and away (preferably IN the dirt) and he'll swing.

    It's a remarkable bit of arrogance for Soriano to be so self-absorbed that he has the audacity to demand to bat leadoff (the Cubs have finally dropped him in the lineup); to not hustle on the field; to do things his own way regardless of team needs; and not keep himself in playing shape when he's so well-compensated.

    Piniella has demanded hustle from Soriano in recent days, but it remains to be seen what he's going to do when (not if, when) he doesn't get it. In years past, Piniella would've physically attacked Soriano; I think those days are over even though that might be exactly what Soriano needs.

• Paul Lebowitz's 2010 Baseball Guide:

     Paul Lebowitz's 2010 Baseball Guide is still available on Amazon and I-Universe in paperback and E-book. And now on Barnes and Noble.com. It's available for download as an E-book here.

    I'm not just saying this to sell it: the book has value all year long. It's not a preview or only a set of predictions. It's a guide. A guide, I tell 'ya!!!

• Let's get a consensus on what's acceptable:

    Even when the Mets do something perceived as "right", the critics find reason to attack them.

    Their recall of top first base prospect Ike Davis was greeted with a reaction of "finally" by many; nods of approval by others; and, as is the pre-requisite for anything the Mets do these days, criticism of the way it was handled.

    Judging by the media, this has turned into another reason to bash the Mets, who literally....cannot....win. 

    No matter what they do; how or why they do it, the ravenous and leeching bottom-feeders use it as an opportunity to bash the wounded and reeling club on the whole. That they do it in such a transparent and agenda-driven way is only diminishing their already low credibility and fostering the notion of laziness and inability to formulate interesting and relevant stories on their own without nitpicking everything a staggering club tries to do. 

    There was rampant criticism of what seemed to be clerical hesitation with the Mets official recall of Davis. Here's a clip from Tyler Kepner's column in today's NY Times:

As strange as it was to see the Mets designate their opening-day cleanup hitter (Mike Jacobs) for assignment 11 games into the season, give them credit, at least, for acknowledging a mistake and quickly fixing it.

Davis hit .364 with two homers in 10 games for Class AAA Buffalo. (GM Omar) Minaya said he began considering a promotion late last week, and the move became obvious Sunday when the Mets cut Jacobs and brought in Tobi Stoner to be a fresh arm in the bullpen.

Yet instead of calling Davis on Sunday night and bringing him to New York immediately Monday morning, they did not tell him until after he had taken batting practice for Buffalo’s game on Monday afternoon.

“It’s my first time being called up, so I don’t know the regular routine,” Davis said. “But it wasn’t bad. I thought I was going to be batting fourth for Buffalo, and I got even better news.”

It is a minor point, perhaps; the adrenaline rush of a call to the majors more than makes up for a hectic travel day. But it speaks, again, to a questionable decision-making process that rival executives have called haphazard and disjointed.

    This was the general consensus around the New York and nationwide media. The notion that the Mets did the right thing and still screwed up is only adding to the punching bag/piling on aspect that has become easy sport over the past 2 1/2 years for the club. 

    What....did....they....want?

    Maybe, instead of making decisions the way they currently do, the Mets should hold a mass conference call with the media to see how they feel about each and every issue----from the cleaning solutions used in the Citi Field bathrooms to how to promote prospects----and come to a consensus as to the proper protocol. 

    In every story attempting to detail the perceived ineptitude of the Mets, there are always anonymous quotes from other club executives suggesting there's a "disjointed" and "haphazard" series of missteps that screw up even the most obvious actions.

    The only explanation I can come up with for this is that it's easy to jump on the Mets because of their struggles over the past three years. Some were self-inflicted; others were accidents of circumstance. I didn't see anyone ravaging the Mets in 2006 when they were running away with the NL East title and were well on their way to a World Series win before Duaner Sanchez's car accident; nor did I see the attacks for the majority of 2007 until they collapsed in September.

    Since then, it's been open season.

    Because clubs like the Red Sox appear so smoothly run doesn't mean such a prevailing belief it true. Does anyone remember the Theo Epstein resignation snit in which he threw a tantrum and broke off contract negotiations after 2005? When he escaped from the rampaging media hordes in a gorilla suit?

     Has it been forgotten that the Giants, an organization loaded with prospects; close knit and built the right way, were attacked because of a barren farm system due to GM Brian Sabean's decision (correct in retrospect) to build around his all-world superstar Barry Bonds with veterans who may have been in the twilight of their careers; who may have been declining; but were at least still good enough to provide a semblance of what was expected to "build around Barry" and try to win immediately for a veteran manager in Felipe Alou?

    The Phillies were seen as a group of underachievers and choke-artists in their own right until that hot streak in 2007 that vaulted them into the playoffs and sowed the seeds to their National League dominance over the past two years.

    The Padres were given a pass from the stat zombies because they had one of their "own"----Sandy Alderson----running things; but the organization was filled with a survival of the fittest atmosphere rife with inter-organizational battles of dueling philosophies that eventually caused the collapse to the monstrosity they were before Alderson was forced out. 

    Success cures all ills; justifies a lack of cohesion; but how many clubs are run with the smoothness of the Angels?

    Even the Cardinals, with a Hall of Fame manager and World Series contending club have dealt with a factional war of whether to go with stat-based analysis or run things the way Tony La Russa has become accustomed. La Russa won the war last season as they traded for Mark De Rosa and Matt Holliday; but it went on for years as the team tried to placate the manager with pats on the head while doing the opposite of what he and pitching coach Dave Duncan wanted.

    In looking at the way the Mets handled Davis, was it really so absurd for them to decide to give him some Triple A at bats before promoting him? He'd never played above Double A; did it hurt him to get the few weeks against veteran pitchers----big league swingmen----in Buffalo? The Mets also saved a few bucks in keeping Davis's arbitration clock from beginning----something media darlings like the Rays have been lauded for in the past.

    Was it ridiculous to think that maybe, possibly Mike Jacobs would start off the season hot and hit a few homers before settling into the streaky bat he's always been? The club wasn't expecting to have Albert Pujols at the plate and Casey Kotchman in the field when they went with Jacobs; they took a chance and it turned out that the veteran slugger started off cold; then they made the move to Davis. Without Carlos Beltran, it made sense to take chance on Jacobs and if it didn't work, cut the ties. 

    As for the accusatory eye-raising in print of, "they didn't tell him until after he'd taken batting practice for Buffalo's game on Monday afternoon", I say: Yeah? So?

    So he took batting practice before hopping on a short flight to New York City---so what?

    What was going to happen? Is he some delicate piece of China that was going to break if he was surprised by the wonderful news of his recall and----oh no!!!!----took the dangerous action of....batting practice?!? A top prospect taking batting practice? I guess the Mets truly don't have the faintest clue what they're doing to run such a risk.   

    What got the Mets in trouble before the arrival of Minaya and created the atmosphere that led Fred and Jeff Wilpon to let Minaya run the club and spend the money on the likes of Pedro Martinez and Carlos Beltran was the "College of Cardinals" truth by group dictate that ended with the trade of Scott Kazmir for Victor Zambrano. Like it or not; agree with him or not; there needs to be one main voice running a club with advice from knowledgeable people helping him along. In the end, there has to be one Boss; even if he runs everything over a cliff, at least the decision will be made by the designated voice.

    The group dynamic in running an organization when coming to a final decision does not work.

    Right or wrong, there must----must----be one decisionmaker. The critics can continue their relentless attack out of convenience, but the only way to determine who was "right" is in retrospect.

    Regardless of the media contention of fractured communication with the Mets, it's only the failures of the past three years that have accorded them----the media and critics----free rein to unload. If and when things turn around for the Mets, they'll find another target and a series of "when did you stop beating your wife?" accusations floated against a struggling team or individual.

    It's cowardly and gutless, but it's the way it is. Being able to recognize it is your first step to a greater understanding and dismissal of such faulty logic. If it's accepted that this is the strategy, then maybe it'll stop; or at least happen with decreasing frequency.

• Cardinals 4-Diamondbacks 2:

    Aside from everything that's gone wrong for the Diamondbacks in the past 2+ seasons, what should be of great concern isn't just that they had to place Brandon Webb on the 60-day disabled list and their erstwhile ace won't be available until late-May (if then); it isn't that they're relying on Rodrigo Lopez, Ian Kennedy, and Kris Benson as part of their starting rotation; it isn't even that their bullpen blew another game last night.

    No.

    What should be the biggest red flag for a season rapidly heading down the tubes is that they received serviceable-to-good pitching performances from the aforementioned journeymen over the past three games...and still lost.

    On Saturday, Benson allowed 2 runs in 6 innings.

    On Sunday, Kennedy allowed 0 runs on 2 hits in 5 innings.

    Last night, Lopez allowed 2 runs in 7 innings.

    The Diamondbacks lost all three games either because they didn't score (Saturday); or because the bullpen and/or bad defense gacked the games up. 

    In fact, last night, it appeared that manager A.J. Hinch pushed Lopez through another inning when he was tired (his arm was dragging in the seventh; his mechanics looked off) because he didn't want to put a tie game in the hands of that atrocious bullpen before he had absolutely no choice.

    The Diamondbacks are in trouble.

    The warning signs of doom are too glaring to ignore; and I know them as if I planted them myself.

    Remember, I'm a Mets fan.

• Angels 2-Tigers 0:

    Joel Pineiro.

    Again.

    Yah.

    What was most impressive about Pineiro last night (and with Brad Penny for the Cardinals in Arizona) was that you could almost see Cardinals pitching coach Dave Duncan on their shoulder, counseling them; telling them to battle when they didn't have their best stuff.

    There was one sequence (almost simultaneous as I flipped back and forth between the games), that was more telling than any pitch or mechanical adjustment. Both Pineiro and Penny stopped when things were getting hairy, walked behind the mound, looked down at the ground in concentration, took a deep breath to collect themselves----and got out of their respective jams.

    Pineiro didn't have his sinker working last night, but fought his way through until he found it and his groove later on.

    That is what defines a winning pitcher----not the tenets of the stat zombie or ill-informed allusions that Pineiro was a product of being a Cardinal rather than implementing that which he learned while with the Cardinals now that he's an Angel; and we're going to see it all year long.

• Alfonso Soriano vs Vernon Wells:

    A friend and fan, Mike Fierman (YanktheMike on Twitter) brought up a very good question during last night's Mets game. As the holes in Alfonso Soriano's game become more of a liability for the Cubs, his contract looks increasingly atrocious, it's an interesting question as to whose contract is worse, Soriano's or the Blue Jays' Vernon Wells?

    Wells has a full-no trade (good luck moving him anyway); and, including this season, is owed a guaranteed $95 million through 2014.

    Soriano is owed $90 million through 2014 with a full no-trade clause. (Forget trading him too.) 

    There's no debate on which player I'd rather have if choosing between the two.

    Vernon Wells would be the choice.

    Wells is almost three full years younger than Soriano; he's a thousand times better defensively; and, most importantly, the struggles of Wells haven't come due to a lack of effort. 

    The contract given to Wells by then-Blue Jays GM J.P. Ricciardi (and it's said ownership forced him to do it) is not Wells's fault. They offered him the money and he took it. You and I would've done the same thing. Because Wells is a pretty good player making mega-star player money is not something that should be held against him; and he hustles on the field.

    Soriano's main issue with the Yankees was that he enjoyed his newfound fame a little too much; that he had bouts of laziness that not even Derek Jeter, Jorge Posada or manager Joe Torre could do anything to avert. Now that he's slowed down even more in his mid-30s, he's still displaying the same lack of effort in not running as hard as he should; by exhibiting diva-like tendencies when he should be working harder to make up for a faltering game.

    This decision would be a no-brainer and not just because of on-field issues. 

    The choice would be Vernon Wells.

• Viewer Mail 4.20.2010:

Jeff (Acting Boss) at Red State Blue State writes RE panic and Twitter-blocking:

Panic, panic, everywhere panic!

The tune in the 'Lou is that we've turned into Ozzie Guillen's old White Sox -- livin' and dyin' by the 3 run bomb.

Meh. Too early to freak out (unless you're the Red Sox).

And I forgot to say, who cares that Heyman blocked you. Embrace it! Welcome to the blocked-out twitter club! First round of drinks on me!

    The Cardinals have no problems that I can see; and they've got the personnel (Albert Pujols and Matt Holliday) to live by the 3-run bomb without worry or regret.

    There's a perception that I care about Jon Heyman blocking me when I don't. Evidently he tweeted his reasoning for blocking people----which I didn't even bother to read, believe it or not. I just think it's an odd thing to do for a writer of supposed prominence. He's remarkably weak.

    I have some extremely weird guy from Ghana stalking me on Twitter and asking me bizarre questions; I haven't blocked him...because I don't care enough to bother!!!

    I am down for the drinks though!

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

If I were Theo Epstein, I'd use Mike Lowell more as DH. Lowell can still hit, I'm assuming, so why not add a decent bat to the lineup?

    They're going to have to do something a little more drastic that Mike Lowell to address their issues on offense. That said, their schedule over the next two weeks----the Rangers, Blue Jays and Orioles----is weak enough that they should get back on the winning track.

    At least they'd better.

• Paul Lebowitz's 2010 Baseball Guide: 

• It's two weeks into the season, but...

    I'm not a person who tends to panic.

    On an Ivory Soap scale of purity----99 44/100% of the time----I'm moderately unflappable; but that doesn't mean I'm adverse to acting swiftly if things aren't working correctly; or cutting ties when the inevitable is all but certain. This cannot be construed as reacting capriciously; but doing something before matters get worse. Occasionally when taking such a tack, mistakes will be made, but if a decision has some reasoning behind it, the regret will be muted even if the action taken doesn't yield the desired results immediately.

    Very quickly, certain teams and individuals are under fire because of poor starts or lackluster play.

    On both sides of the spectrum----positively and negatively----it's too early to get excited about teams and players that are doing well; too soon to hit the panic button over teams doing poorly...or is it?

    Let's take a look at both sides of the coin; which teams/individuals should and shouldn't be worried about their current state with the season so young.

Don't flip out one way or the other:

The Athletics

    They've gotten off to a hot start and are leading the league in ERA; their starting pitching's been great. Their hitting has been predictably popgun; the vaunted focus on defense has yielded poor results (they're leading the league in errors); and they've taken advantage of a weak early schedule in beating up on the equally offensively questionable Mariners; the then-slumping Angels; and the staggering Orioles.

    Daric Barton has gotten off to a great start at the plate and, even though he's made 4 errors at first base, has shown good hands and a good arm at first base----eventually, he might be a very good fielder and fulfill the hitting potential that made him the centerpiece (not Dan Haren as was originally believed) in the trade of Mark Mulder to the Cardinals.

    There is absolutely no chance----none----that they continue pitching like this. They'll fall to earth when they hit the East Coast and the Yankees.

    Starting tonight.

    I'm a man of my word.

The Astros

    No one's listening to my assertion that this team is not that bad.

    The Astros aren't contenders; their offense is short; but they have a very respectable starting rotation with solid/serviceable veterans and great potential at the back-end. Roy Oswalt is still Roy Oswalt; I've got a thing for Wandy Rodriguez; Brett Myers has use. What impressed me more than anything is Felipe Paulino. 

    Paulino's results aren't there yet----in fact, they're bottom-line awful without looking at the full context; he's still relatively young (26); and that fastball (nearly 100-mph) and curve have lethal capabilities. In his last start, he held a team that can hit, the Cubs, to one run for six innings before the thing blew up in the seventh and he wasn't the one who got knocked around though he got the loss and was charged with 5 runs. 

    Their bullpen is serviceable; I like the manner of manager Brad Mills. They've gotten off to a rotten start, but the situation isn't as terrible in Houston as is portrayed.

The White Sox

    This White Sox club is too deep and too good to play this poorly.

    They've been out of sync. Their starting pitching, aside from John Danks, has been bad. Jake Peavy and Gavin Floyd have both been, at best, shaky; at worst, they've gotten rocked. The bullpen has gacked up leads; and the club hasn't hit.

    I wouldn't worry about it.

    Even with the inevitable meltdown from manager Ozzie Guillen; an explosion from GM Kenny (James Bond Villain) Williams; and the concerns, the White Sox will be there at the end. They're too good not to be.

The Orioles

    Did no one expect growing pains for a club in the midst of what amounts to their adolescence trying to take the next step from rebuilding to a force to be reckoned with?

    When dealing with young players and a refurbished foundation still under construction, it's easy to take one small sample like a slow start and the perception of "same-old, same old" to turn optimism into the usual dispirited negativity. Things were so rancid in Baltimore for so long that the battered and paranoid fan base has every reason to believe that it's never going to get any better; but there's so much young talent on the roster and in the organization that it's a matter of time before they improve even if it doesn't immediately show up in their record.

    More than any other club, they do need a managerial change from Dave Trembley to a Joey Cora-type fiery leader with a solid winning resume. This has to be done sooner rather than later.

    Then there's the other side; the bad side; the negative side.

Um, yeah. Start to flip out:

The Mets

    It's not that they're losing.

    It's not that manager Jerry Manuel is again abusing his relievers and making strange/nonsensical strategic decisions.

    It's not even that they're playing that badly. The starting pitching's been good; the bullpen's been serviceable. 

    The big problem is the overwhelming aura of losing that's engulfing this team. The "oh what's gonna happen next?" sense of foreboding goes past last season's injury-riddled disaster all the way to the 2007 collapse. A culture shift is needed and it's not in the front office; it's on the field and the quickest and boldest way to do that is to bring in Bobby Valentine.

    One thing I do not understand is this reluctance to hire Valentine based on floating reasons that make little sense when dissected. 

    Bobby's power hungry.

    Bobby's Machiavellian.

    Bobby's difficult.

    Bobby can be cruel and dismissive.

    Bobby's arrogant.

    Bobby's too smart for his own good.

    Sounds familiar, huh?

    To these assessments----accurate though they may be----do they outweigh what he would bring to the organization? Strategic brilliance; a huge personality; and instant credibility are only part of the equation. The overwhelming feeling of bleakness would be gone immediately upon Valentine's arrival.

    And it's the cheapest solution and quickest way to scotch tape things together for another quick run as early as this year.

    Do the Mets really want to endure a new GM? A lost 2010 to be acknowledged in April? The teardown that would accompany said acceptance? 

    Here's what I don't get: the Mets put up with Steve Phillips's public missteps for years. Phillips, despite having done a better job than he's given credit for as the GM, placed the Mets in the crosshairs of a sexual harassment lawsuit because of his inability to control himself----and they didn't fire him until they had no other alternative years later based on on-field failure. 

    Was Valentine ever anything more than controversial off the field in a baseball sense; and polarizing on it? 

    He's sitting there waiting for the phone call (which for all we know may already have come, telling him to stay ready). What's the hold up?

    It's easily forgotten that the Mets went from a laughingstock in 2004, to within one game of the World Series in 2006; a World Series they would've won.

    The fears don't outweigh the instant jolt Valentine would provide to the organization from top-to-bottom. Things turn around quickly with controlled aggressiveness. Valentine is the move that makes the most sense now in theory and practice.

The Red Sox

    J.D. Drew is hitting .133.

    David Ortiz .171.

    Mike Cameron is having physical problems.

    Jacoby Ellsbury is hurt.

    This club appears as if they were halfway expecting the bad start and the fan base is barely concealing their concern. You could make the argument that the foundation started to show cracks in the three-game sweep at the hands of the Angels in the playoffs; or even as far back as them having stumbled down the stretch in blowing the division to the Yankees.

    In this era more than any other, you're always teetering on the cusp of a veteran who may not simply be slumping; there's always the chance that a player entering his mid-to-late 30s is experiencing an unavoidable downslide from which there's no return.

    If any player is testimony to what PEDs can do to performance, it's David Ortiz. He can deny whatever he wants to deny as to their assistance in his rise, but if you look at what he was when he was with the Twins to what he became with the Red Sox and you can't deny the links of player to performance to era.

    You just can't.

    Ortiz was a solid, but vulnerable player for the Twins with holes in his swing and power. He became a one-man wrecking crew with the Red Sox with a personality befitting the leader of the club and an advertising man's dream. Now, he's reverting to his Twins days and worse. He looks slow and old and the Red Sox----falling behind the Yankees already----can't sit and wait for Ortiz to figure it out as he did last year because the ability to regain some semblance of danger at the plate may no longer be possible.

    The natives are getting restless and it's only a matter of time before something blows with the shaky strategy of ignoring offense in favor of defense.

The Diamondbacks (aka Mets West)

    It's somewhat comforting (in a Mets fan sense) that it wasn't anything the Mets did that caused Aaron Heilman to be such a scattershot choice as a reliever.

    He's only a part of the larger issues for the Diamondbacks----an inexplicably sexy pick to contend in the National League this year.

    Everything's falling apart very, very early. In many ways it's worse in Phoenix than it is in Queens.

    Brandon Webb has been shifted to the 60-day disabled list, rendering him unavailable until late May; and who can say what they're going to get if and when he comes back? It doesn't bode well that he's still unable to pitch with free agency beckoning at the end of the year; generally pitchers with the resume of Webb and that financial carrot dangled in front of them will find some way to get out to the mound and pitch.

    The rotation currently consists of the superlative Dan Haren; the very good Edwin Jackson; Ian Kennedy (not good, but he pitched well yesterday); Rodrigo Lopez and Kris Benson. 

    That is as bad as it sounds.

    Conor Jackson pulled up lame with a hamstring problem yesterday catching a fly ball.

    The bullpen has been mismanaged and horrific. Would someone please explain to me how Juan Gutierrez went from being tried as the closer on Friday (and blowing the game) to being used in the seventh inning to clean up Heilman's mess (and failing)?

    A.J. Hinch's inexperience is showing. There's a profound lack of direction in the clubhouse and the players look like they're waiting for the next thing to go wrong.

    Sound familiar?

    Sound like Mets West?

    This season is going to go downhill for the Diamondbacks. Fast. Maybe even faster than in Queens; and what makes it worse is that the consensus was that the Diamondbacks were going to contend.

    They're not.

    Trust me.

• Viewer Mail 4.19.2010:

Jane Heller at Confessions of a She-Fan writes RE Jon Heyman blocking me on Twitter:

Twitter is like a giant cocktail party. You can hang with the guests you want to talk to and avoid the ones you don't. Unlike the Yankees beat writers on there who welcome interaction, Heyman probably uses it to drop newsy items, not to interact, as you point out.

    Even though it adds to the perception of pomposity, there's absolutely nothing wrong with him not wanting to interact with people; but to block me? Especially when I've never done or said anything to warrant it aside from challenging him and making a harmless joke? It shows a remarkably disturbing weakness for a writer of such prominence.

The Brooklyn Trolley Blogger writes RE Bobby Valentine, management and me:

I posted my last comment to you as a post (on blogspot and mlblogs) and linked you in. Hope ya don't mind. There's a thing or two I'm still questioning regarding Theo's moves lately. But like you say, LaRussa and him have the cache and outstanding credit with the bank. Manuel's resume is littered with road kill from everyone he's thrown under the bus since Chicago.

    Linking is the lifeblood of this stuff. Link away!!!

    I've made my case very clearly for Epstein being a solid GM, and not a genius as he's so often portrayed. Genius----as Billy Beane is proving----is highly fleeting. It wasn't that long ago that Mets GM Omar Minaya was feted for his building of the 2006 Mets; that Giants GM Brian Sabean was savaged for his his situational and smart running of his club because it didn't coincide with the accepted way----the politically correct way----of running things. It's going to get ugly in Boston unless they turn things around soon.

    Manuel was the right choice to replace Willie Randolph in 2008; now Valentine is the right choice to replace Manuel.

Sal at SportsFanBuzz writes RE Ubaldo Jimenez; Tony La Russa; and me:

Another point on the Jimenez no-no. He went to the stretch after walking Heyward to start the 5th and never went back to windup. Good coaching by Apodaca to get him in comfort zone for the night.

Spoke about LaRussa moves on today's podcast. I'm scared that I may be thinking like you.

    I noticed that he switched to the stretch with no one on base when I tuned in for the latter stages. It reminded me of Don Larsen's "step and throw" motion of simplicity in his World Series perfect game in 1956. I'm surprised more pitchers don't make similar changes when struggling.

    Thinking like me, huh? No reason to be scared. Embrace it, Sal. Embrace it. Madness gives the freedom to say what you want without fear of consequences; then everything becomes crystal clear.

• Paul Lebowitz's 2010 Baseball Guide:

    Many of the predictions in my book are either on the verge or already have come true. It's a good thing to have. Even if you don't admit it, I get paid either way.

    Paul Lebowitz's 2010 Baseball Guide is still available on Amazon and I-Universe in paperback and E-book. And now on Barnes and Noble.com. It's available for download as an E-book here.  

• Cinco de Mayo----your over/under day for Red Sox Nation panic:

    In case anyone hadn't noticed, the Red Sox have the exact same record (4-7) as the Mets.

    The main difference is that the Red Sox recent history of success has shielded them from the full-blown abandon ship mentality prevalent in Mets fandom (of which I, sadly, am a willing participant).

    In short, the Red Sox have earned some leeway; the Mets haven't.

    Even with that wiggle room the Red Sox have, there's no denying that the concerns from objective analysts (again, of which I'm one) that they simply do not have the firepower to score enough with their newfound emphasis on defense is coming true in the first two weeks of the season. 

    They're old; they're carrying hitters coming off their career years and cashing in; their lineup is pockmarked with limited hitters and declining stars. Aside from Dustin Pedroia, none of their veteran stars are pulling their weight. You can pretty much guarantee that Kevin Youkilis's production will be up to his career expectation by the end of the season. Victor Martinez will start hitting as well. But what of the other imperative bats from whom they need to get something, anything?

    David Ortiz is again facing questions of his declining bat speed and non-existent power; Mike Cameron and Adrian Beltre are----and were predicted to be----limited offensive players. Marco Scutaro is Marco Scutaro. All the pitching the club has isn't going to do much good if they can't score; and there's no getting past a club that has failed in the clutch and is currently 10th in the league in runs scored and last in home runs. Much like the signing of Julio Lugo, it's not as if they weren't warned.

    It's 11 games; there's no reason to panic....yet; there's no denying that there are issues that have to be causing quiet consternation inside and outside the Red Sox that will eventually reach the boiling point. The club's success and intelligence in the John Henry/Theo Epstein era has earned them time to hope their plans come to fruition; but this is not to suggest they're infallible. As the bullpen-by-committee experiment failed miserably in 2003; as they collapsed in 2006; and adjusted their plans in mid-stream without openly admitting as such, the same thing is going to happen if they continue playing like this.

    The offensive woes are going to spur them to do something desperate sooner rather than later; and that will lead them to again pursuing Adrian Gonzalez. The inherent pomposity is evident in the likes of Mike Francesa who masks ignorance with arrogance as he states something to the tune of (I'm paraphrasing): "when the Red Sox need something, they'll just go out and get it" as if it's that easy.

    It wasn't that easy in 2006 as each and every deal they attempted fell apart and they did absolutely nothing; and I don't want to hear that they had a plan in place that led to the 2007 championship. They won the 2007 title by filling their holes as they throwing money at the problems and masked that reality with the cloud of "genius" that hovers around Epstein like the ill-thought-out opinions emanating from the asses of Curt Schilling and Francesa.

    My best guess at the drop-dead date of "giving it time" will be Cinco de Mayo----May 5th. At or around that date, the Boston papers and fan base are going to have one thing to say: "GO GET A BAT!!!"

    If that bat is Adrian Gonzalez, and Padres GM Jed Hoyer is as smart and cold-blooded as an executive as he purportedly learned to be working under Epstein for all those years, the price for Gonzalez in the winter will be substantially higher now----and the Red Sox might not have a choice but to pay it as they continue to stumble and fall hopelessly behind the Yankees.

    "Giving it time" has a short shelf life in Boston and New York. 

    Such is the price of success and the appellation of "genius".

• Managing vs Monkeying:

    Jim Tracy is a manager.

    He runs his club on the field as best he sees fit to keep the loyalty of his players; win games; and do what's right based not on some abstract set of guidelines and numbers mandated by the front office and a desire to self-protect, but based on his vast experience dealing with players and overall baseball smarts.

    I've long been an admirer of Tracy and can make a case for him being the best manager in baseball.

    Last night's no-hitter pitched by Rockies burgeoning star Ubaldo Jimenez was a testimony to Tracy's deft handling of his players.

    Jimenez threw 128 pitches in no-hitting the Atlanta Braves. He was wild up until he found his groove in the late innings. Jimenez issued six walks through the first five innings, but after that, he blew the Braves away retiring the last 15 batters he faced. Such a zone is only achieved by giving a talented pitcher rope to figure it out. 

    That rope was provided by his manager, Tracy, who through all his years as a minor and major league manager, player and coach, learned the nuances of managing by doing rather than a book of stats and sacrosanct numbers that delineate exactly how to deploy players as if they're factory-created foodstuffs that lasts forever, but should never be consumed if you know what's good for you.

    The only thing I could think of in watching the latter stages of the no-no was that the automatons of the managing world----specifically Yankees manager Joe Girardi----would've denied his young pitcher history; would've taken his overmanaging and the thumb under which he operates via front office edict to the extreme and ignored the runaway train that was Ubaldo Jimenez and yanked him from the game.

    Girardi generated headlines and head shakes when he openly and unnecessarily announced he would've pulled ace C.C. Sabathia with a no-hitter intact against the Rays last week. Sycophants like Michael Kay lauded the decision on air, parroting the oft-heard and silly company line (again paraphrasing): "we're about 'team' here; not individual achievement". 

    This is all well and good; but any baseball veteran or intelligent observer will tell you that the art of building a team that believes in itself; trusts their manager; and galvanizes for a legitimate run lies in humanity rather than a conduit to overused and out-of-context stats and guidelines.

    After Girardi's sorry showing in last year's playoffs, the veteran players know that they're always at risk for their manager to sabotage them with some stupid bit of statistical application or desire to show he's in charge by "doing stuff"; by nitpicking; by overmanaging.

    I'm not focusing on Girardi as anything other than an example; he's not the only manager functioning as a front office conduit, carrying out orders and doing what the numbers say----he's the prime example because a week ago, Girardi would've done the exact opposite of what Tracy did; and what that is is managing.

   Girardi's incapable of such a thing through inexperience and fear; and that's why Tracy is so much better at what he does.

• More on managing:

    There will be ad nauseam stories about the 20-inning duel of ineptitude between the Mets and Cardinals yesterday. All I'm going to say about it is that the difference in managerial security was evident as Cardinals manager Tony La Russa made some inexplicable maneuvers in losing the game for his team.

    La Russa allowed his relief pitchers to bat not once, but twice with the bases loaded and 2 outs in extra innings. Both times they were retired. Then, as the game droned on, La Russa was forced to use infielder Felipe Lopez; and outfielder Joe Mather to pitch. The Mets did everything they could to blow the game, but eventually won the war of attrition thanks in large part to La Russa. 

    There was no viable reason for La Russa to save his last remaining bat, backup catcher Bryan Anderson. This was a "we'll figure it out later" game in which a manager has to use every tool at his disposal to get the thing over with, and because of La Russa's odd strategic choices, the Cardinals lost.

    Just imagine if it was Mets manager Jerry Manuel who chose to save his last remaining bat and was reduced to using Jeff Francoeur to pitch? Manuel is under fire (justifiably) from everywhere for his game calls; if he'd done what La Russa did? Forget it. 

    Bottom line, Tony La Russa gets away with things because he's Tony La Russa. Period. Other managers don't. It's only fair based on resume, but it doesn't excuse the inexcusable. There are questions about yesterday's game from La Russa's standpoint and there should be. What he did was stupid.

• Too soon to panic in Baltimore:

    I find it laughable that a 1-11 start is supposedly has Orioles GM Andy MacPhail "feeling some heat" for the terrible start. Bill Madden's column today in the NY Daily News makes that very claim.

    It wasn't long ago that the Orioles were completely haphazard and rudderless with overpriced, declining veterans and rampant spending patching together a crumbling foundation that needed to be torn apart and rebuilt. 

    And MacPhail has done just that.

    The Orioles organization is packed with talent both on the mound and at the plate. They do need a new manager to replace Dave Trembley. This is not something new. I've been saying for years that Trembley is not the man to run things on the field for a young and still-learning team.

    They need a young, fiery type who's not going to put up with garbage----a Joey Cora. There are calls for Bobby Valentine in Baltimore and there will be talk that I am dampening the idea because I want him to take over the Mets. I want Valentine to take over the Mets----that's true; but I'm not making this statement about the Orioles to keep Valentine free; the Orioles are not a good spot for Valentine.

    At his age and with his pedigree, Bobby Valentine is going to want to win immediately or have a club with talent to turn things around quickly within the next three years by flinging money at their issues. The Orioles have to continue growing organically and if they started going the Peter Angelos-route of spending to keep up with the Yankees and Red Sox, they'll find themselves running into the same wall that put them in the position to need to call on MacPhail and give him the keys to the franchise in the first place.

    I've long said that the perfect spot for Valentine is Tampa. Baltimore and Valentine is a bad match.

    Did no one expect growing pains from the Orioles as they try to turn the corner? If anything, it should be seen as a positive that for once they haven't gotten off to a fast start only to fall apart as the season unfolds. Maybe the opposite----a terrible start----will yield the opposite result. They're young and talented and being built the right way. This freakout is overblown and needless.

• I know all there is to know about the blocking game...

    ...and if he knows, maybe he'll explain.

    I'm not getting into a loose-cannon bit of accusations and name-calling; you can take this for what it is based on facts.

    Jon Heyman of Sports Illustrated blocked me from following his tweets on Twitter.

    For anyone unfamiliar with Twitter, the way it works is you "follow" people and their tweets show up on your timeline. They can choose to follow you back or simply allow you to read what they write. Heyman follows very few people, so his choosing not to follow me is purely understandable; but blocking isn't.

    The only back-and-forth interaction I've had with Heyman was when I first joined Twitter last August and he wrote something about the Royals not trading their veterans for prospects; I said that maybe they didn't want people to think they'd given up. He responded (the only time he ever answered me) with something to the tune of: "Giving up? Are they in it?"

    I wrote in a posting the next day that Heyman didn't do sarcasm.

    He didn't block me then.

    In fact, I didn't even realize he was no longer on my timeline until someone "re-tweeted" something he said; he was one of those people (there have been a few) who pop up on my timeline and I say, "Oh yeah, what happened to them?"  not realizing I no longer followed them.

    Occasionally there are glitches in the system where people are unfollowed inadvertently; so I clicked onto his profile, tried to follow and saw that I'd been blocked. 

    No, I don't know why.

   I'd get it if I bothered him; if I threatened him; cussed at him; called him names; or whatever. I have no idea what it was I did aside from disagreeing with him and for writing that he didn't understand sarcasm.

    Heyman rarely interacts with people and it lends itself to the perception that he thinks he's too good to respond----even those who aren't as combative or challenging as me.

    I have never blocked anyone. There are people on Twitter who literally hate me. A friendly voice told me I'm the most despised man in sports. Apparently it's because I say what I think regardless of casualties.

    Here's something that is repeatedly missed in dealing with me: It's.....nothing.....personal.

    As much as I unload on the stat zombies; on Paul DePodesta; on Trey Hillman; or Jerry Manuel----it's not an attack based on anything other than baseball. I don't know these people. I'm sure that most of them are nice enough; it has nothing to do with anything. I don't cuss; I don't call names; I don't attack for the purposes of an agenda.

    I've had others block me because of reasons unknown. One Yankee fan with whom I had a brief scuffle comes to mind; a Diamondbacks fan who didn't appreciate my assessment of his team is another. I didn't hit them that hard that I can recall. I don't see how a man can block another man because of such silliness online. 

    Someone needs to explain to Jon Heyman that he's showing himself to be a remarakably weak person if he chose to block me because I disagreed with him or did so in a way which he thought was an attack. The point of Twitter isn't to drop little notes to the masses as if you're some despot who's deigning to share information with the great unwashed masses. It's to interact with people.

    If you want to see the difference between those that get it and those that don't, Roger Clemens interacts with people when he's on Twitter; he tweeted back-and-forth with me a couple of times.

    In case he didn't realize it, Jon Heyman is not Roger Clemens.

    Maybe someone ought to tell him that if they can reach the perch upon which he seems to place himself.

• I'm your favorite one man show....

    A million different ways to go.

    Paul Lebowitz's 2010 Baseball Guide is still available on Amazon and I-Universe in paperback and Barnes and Noble.com in paperback and E-Book.

    In addition to that (as the lyrics from the Kindle song in the bulletpoint suggest----ah, what passes for my brain goes to bittersweet places from the past) it's available for download as an E-book here.  

• Give 'em what they want:

    The bloodlust of Mets fans is a hair away from reaching critical mass.

    After last night's sorry showing by manager Jerry Manuel what amounted to self-immolation with his bullpen calls, it's only a matter of time before he's mercifully put out of his figurative (or literal) misery as Mets manager. 

    Unlike many observers, I was completely on board with Manuel removing Oliver Perez after the ultra-talented and strangle-worthy lefty delivered his best performance since 2008. He did his job admirably---6.1 innings; 4 hits; 1 run; 3 walks; 4 strikeouts; and an above-and-beyond the call job on nullifying Albert Pujols, getting him to ground into a double play and striking him out----Perez deserved a better fate.

    It likely would've done more harm than good to leave Perez in and run the risk of him blowing the game up, turning a positive into a negative when he allowed the leadoff batter in the bottom of the seventh to reach base. The smart, long-term move was to get Perez out while he could feel good about himself and his performance, which was eerily reminiscent to the pitcher who won 15 games in 2007 and has the stuff to dominate.

    After that? There's no explanation for what Manuel did.

    Jerry Manuel has a tendency to use relievers he trusts to the point of exhaustion.

    The Mets have played 10 games this season.

    Fernando Nieve has appeared in seven of them.

    At what point is Manuel going to trust Ryota Igarashi in a big spot? Where was Hisanori Takahashi, who has the variety of pitches and changes speeds to get lefties out as well as righties? Then, to compound the error of overusing Nieve, why bring in Raul Valdes to pitch to Felipe Lopez? The argument that Pedro Feliciano was out with a stomach bug doesn't explain why he was bringing a lefty in to pitch to Lopez to begin with. Lopez, a switch-hitter, has more power from the right side of the plate and strikes out a lot; wouldn't it have been better to get a righty pitcher like Igarashi, who throws hard, over a lefty specialist like Valdes? And if he wanted to use a lefty, where was Takahashi?

    This isn't second-guessing because ever before Lopez's grand slam, the decision made no sense. Had he brought in Jenrry Mejia or Igarashi, there would've been no debate. It was as if Manuel was gambling with no basis in fact behind what he was doing; sometimes that works, but when it works it can't be considered managing; it's throwing darts at a dartboard with eyes closed hoping to hit the bullseye.

    It's enough.

    Manuel's lost the team. He's lost the confidence of anyone and everyone associated with the club in any capacity from the players to the front office to the media to the fans. It's as if they expect to lose and are waiting for the other shoe to finally drop and end matters to move forward. Players thinking, "how are we gonna blow it this time?" is the final nail in the managerial coffin. And that's where the Mets are in every conceivable aspect.

    They need to move forward.

    And the only way to truly move forward is with Bobby Valentine taking over as manager.

    It's frustrating to hear the stories of how the Mets front office is reluctant to bring back Valentine for a second go-round. Remembering Mets history is an antidote to that fear preventing them from doing what must be done to make the club relevant again; to lose the stigma of ineptitude that's following them around like a plume of smoke, fog or a raincloud. Every time the Mets have made a drastic leap forward, it stemmed from doing something bold and outside-the-box that made sense not only in theory, but in practice.

    What would the Mets be had they never entered into the sweepstakes and winning the rights to Tom Seaver? Hired (essentially traded for) Gil Hodges from the Washington Senators to take over as manager? Acquired Keith Hernandez and Gary Carter? Hired a young, feisty and egotistical computer geek in Davey Johnson to manage a group of youngsters? Traded for Mike Piazza? Signed Pedro Martinez, Carlos Beltran? Traded for Carlos Delgado?

    Whenever the Mets have done something bold and drastic, it's been the cure for the doldrums that have been as much of a franchise cornerstone as the dramatic and implausible victories they've achieved. 

    The most disturbing aspect of the shying away from Valentine is that there's no reason for it. He can handle New York; he wants the job; he has a good relationship with GM Omar Minaya, mitigating the need to clean out the entire front office and start over again; and he's box office.

    Are the Mets again going to go the route of the outlet pass rather than throw the deep ball (and it's not a Hail Mary, it's a bomb with a purpose and plan) and hire Bob Melvin?

    There's nothing wrong with Melvin. He's a solid game manager and good guy, but he's not what the Mets need. If there's such a love affair with Melvin, then put him in uniform as one of Valentine's coaches. If Manuel's dismissed, so too would be pitching coach Dan Warthen and presumably coach Razor Shines. (Leo Mazzone would be a good idea as pitching coach.) Melvin doesn't do the trick to address the Mets current multitude of issues.

    The negatives against Valentine seem to have little to do with his baseball acumen; it's all personality and that which can be dealt with.

    It would be one thing if fans were using sentimentalist nonsense and absurd nostalgia in an attempt to reach back into the past glory days by hiring Darryl Strawberry or Ray Knight to manage the team. What's conveniently lost in the dismissal of the idea of a reunion between the Mets and Bobby Valentine is that Valentine is one of the best----if not the best----baseball strategists in the world; he has the personality to get the Mets right back on the back pages of the papers with the Yankees; and he'd bring fans to the ballpark by his mere presence. 

    What's it going to take for the Mets to make this bold maneuver and bring back Valentine? The club has a tendency to let things decline to the point where they're cornered and have no choice but to do something that should've been done at an earlier juncture. Will an empty stadium in May and repulsed fan base force their hands? Another lost year of revenue, doomed to irrelevance and another GM to start over again?

    If they wait; if they keep sitting on their hands hoping things get better under Manuel or decide to replace him with Melvin, they're still staring into the abyss; still delaying the inevitable. The difference between now and then is they'll have Melvin managing the team instead of Valentine; be under relentless and accurate attack from all sides; knowing a full-scale makeover with a new GM will be necessary at the conclusion of another dismal season of losses and, more importantly, unsold tickets; and Valentine may no longer be available because someone else might hire him.

    Despite his politically-correct allusions to the contrary, Valentine wants the job; he wants to be back on the big stage befitting his personality; butting heads with the Yankees; the Phillies; the Braves; and I can guarantee you he's watching the Mets very closely and plotting what he'd do the second he slipped that familiar uniform number 2 on his back with Mets emblazoned across the front.

    He's not going to wait forever.

    He's available now.

    It's the right move.

    It's the only move.

    Are the Mets going to let this opportunity pass them by again? Or are they going to make a preemptive strike to avert what's looking increasingly like a disaster and do what must be done coldly, fearlessly and with purpose?

    The Mets must hire Bobby Valentine.

    Now.

• Padres 6-Diamondbacks 3:

    I'm developing a warm spot for the Padres.

    They've got talent; they're feisty; and they don't quit.

    Watching last night's game showed two teams heading in the opposite direction. There's been lust directed at the Diamondbacks all winter for reasons I can't quite understand. They're functioning with a back of the starting rotation consisting of Rodrigo Lopez; Ian Kennedy and now, they're recalling Kris Benson. Last night, their questionable bullpen imploded as the Padres notched an impressive comeback victory. 

    Never mind the performance of Aaron Heilman. It's clear by now that if he's going to make it in the big leagues as anything more than an inspiration for people to roll their eyes, leave the ballpark or shut the game off, he's got to be given the opportunity to start. He doesn't like relieving; he's not good at it; and the Diamondbacks have massive holes in their rotation.

    The decision to demote Chad Qualls from the role as closer strikes of desperation that's been prevalent in Arizona over the past year. Qualls has struggled in the job; he's clearly better suited mentally to being a set-up man, but to use Juan Gutierrez as a replacement this quickly?

    The worst part of the Diamondbacks proactive bullpen machinations is that they didn't work.

    For their part, the Padres are taking on the personality of David Eckstein. Of deciding to get it done one way or the other no matter what. To make it as far as Eckstein has as a big leaguer (listed at 5'7", if he's 5'7", I'm Shaquille O'Neal) shows more than a reliance on talent. 

    There's something missing from the Diamondbacks. They're constructed oddly with a bad bullpen; the aforementioned rotation issues; a bad defensive team with questions on offense.

    Manager A.J. Hinch has the smarts to be a good big league manager, but I've seen a pronounced absence of passion. Even when he questions an umpiring call from the dugout----some of the ball/strike calls were hideous against his club last night----he does it in an almost apologetic, meek fashion. It's cerebral and it's not enough to get the umpires to imperceptibly hesitate before sending a close call the other way.

    Bobby Cox has spent his entire managerial career shouting at the umpires and getting them to give Tom Glavine and Greg Maddux the close pitches because the umpires don't want to deal with Cox barking at them. With Hinch, it's easier to shrug off his complaints.

    I'm no fan of Padres manager Bud Black either, but these are two teams criss-crossing based on attitude and "feel" alone.

• Paul Lebowitz's 2010 Baseball Guide:

    Already some predictions are coming to pass (and of course, others, well, aren't), but the book is well-written and entertaining. Along with borderline psychotic. Enter my world....if you dare.

    Pick up a copy on Amazon and I-Universe in paperback and E-book. And now on Barnes and Noble.com.

• Batting practice with Jeff Suppan:

    Just as I extolled the virtues of Joel Pineiro yesterday and presented the case for his transformation under Tony La Russa and Dave Duncan as a member of the Cardinals for being something more than a function of deployment and support; that it was a transferable foundation which would translate wherever he went after St. Louis, it's the opposite with Brewers pitcher Jeff Suppan.

    While pitchers like Darryl Kile and Pineiro had the stuff to get people out regardless of the venue as long as their heads were on straight and executed their pitches and gameplan, Suppan is the epitome of a pitcher who was made by La Russa and Duncan. His stuff isn't even big league worthy anymore; even when he was at his "best" in his earlier years, he was what the big league hitters would refer to as a "cunnythumber".

    A cunnythumber seen as a junkballer; a pitcher against whom the batters are embarrassed for having failed; walking back to the dugout gritting their teeth and shaking their heads for letting him get them out. There are cunnythumbers and there ar "comfortable-out" pitchers. For example, Tom Glavine, for almost his whole career, was a comfortable-out pitcher. Jeff Suppan is a cunnythumber. It's something on a level with a left-handed relief pitcher who's only in the big leagues or keeps getting chances because he had the good fortune to be born left-handed (Mike Myers, Ron Villone). 

    The term is explained neatly in Keith Hernandez's highly underrated diary of the 1985 season with the Mets, If At First on pages 262-263:

Two grounders, two strikeouts----and one each against Mark Thurmond, what we call a cunnythumber (lingo: junkballer). There are your "comfortable" 0-for-4s, guys like (Ed) Lynch, and then there are your cunnythumbers, guys who have the minimum required for survival in the big leagues. They throw junk, sometimes well-placed, and can be especially effective as relievers, because the hitters see their stuff only once in a game.

    For the record, I think Keith was being kind to his friend and teammate Ed Lynch. Lynch's stuff (or lack thereof) was about on a level with that of Suppan.

    It's as if Suppan's trying to trick big league hitters. His fastball----clocked at somewhere in the 80s----is testimony to the inaccuracy/"tweaking" of the radar guns; there's no chance he's throwing even that "hard". The truth is that his stuff hasn't declined all that much from what it was in his heyday with the Cardinals; it's about where it was then, but he was able to win games because he----like Storm Davis 20 years ago----hung around in games until the Cardinals got a lead and La Russa got him out before the hitters got a bead on his stuff and started teeing off.

    There's absolutely nothing wrong with being a functional pitcher; having use, but not being a star; and no one can ever deny Suppan's money pitching in the post-season----specifically in 2006----but teams have to seriously determine whether they're getting a Pineiro or a Suppan when debating a lucrative contract offer.

    The Angels are going to get their money's worth and more from Pineiro; the Brewers will have paid a guaranteed $42 million to a pitcher who's plainly and simply not worth it; for a pitcher who can be found on a Triple A roster (or in the Royals bullpen) to do exactly what it is Suppan does.

    Just as Pineiro was misjudged in a negative way and many, many teams made a mistake in letting him slip through their fingers, the Brewers made an error in judgment by thinking they were getting a 15-game winning, innings-eater when they were, in reality, getting a cunnythumber.

    Suppan's going to get released; and don't be surprised to see him end up in St. Louis again and actually be of use to La Russa and Duncan.

    It's the way of the world.  

• Speaking of Keith Hernandez:

    As engaging and politically-incorrect as he can be in the Mets broadcast booth, I don't think Hernandez maximizes his potential as he would if he related some of his stories from playing days. I'm not talking anything unsuitable for kids; I'm talking about stories of his years with Whitey Herzog in St. Louis; or his struggle to maximize his potential and early-career failures due to rampant emotionality and an absence of impulse control. 

    I've often wondered about his post-playing days relationship with his father figure/nemesis from the Cardinals, Whitey Herzog. Are they friends now? Do they look back on their days butting heads and laugh an understanding laugh?

    The issues between the two reached critical mass when Herzog----tired of Hernandez's iconoclastic ways and quirks; and wanting to drop a bomb in his slumping clubhouse post the 1982 World Series win----traded his star first basemen to the Mets for Neil Allen and Rick Ownbey. It's widely acknowledged as one of the worst trades ever made and was one of the main factors in the Mets return to prominence in the mid-to-late 80s. 

    Even with the troubled relationship, Hernandez often references the things that Herzog taught him as a player; and for someone with an ego the size of Hernandez to make such an admission, you can imagine that the respect and beneath-the-surface affinity that runs far deeper than just a baseball-related respect. Herzog was a fantastic manager and excellent judge of personnel.

    I've always gotten the idea from Hernandez that he bought into the rules when he was a younger player because he had no choice (shaving his mustache for the disciplinarian Vern Rapp when he took over as Cardinals manager in the mid-70s) and was waiting until he fulfilled his potential to be himself. Once he achieved star status, if someone tried to tell Hernandez to shave his mustache; curb his after-hours activities; or proclivity for doing things his own way, he'd have told them to go to hell.

    This, more than anything else, was the genesis of his feud with Herzog, which was probably never a feud at all; it was simply two strong-willed individuals who needed to part ways because they'd outgrown one another and couldn't co-exist.

    I wouldn't be stunned to hear either, privately of course, say how much they respect the other as baseball people and as men. I bet they even like each other----to a point----under that simmering tension and competitiveness that both exhibited  and was necessary to reach the heights that they did in the game.

• An honorific goes over-the-top:

    I'm all for giving Jackie Robinson his due, but am no fan of the practice of every player wearing uniform number 42 as they did yesterday.

    To me, the uniform choice is going too far over-the-top to the detriment of the games of the day. When I'm watching a game, I like to actually know who's doing what; which relief pitcher is warming up; who's playing the field. Some players are easy to identify; others not so much. What would be wrong with putting a prominent and well-designed patch on everyone's uniform above the heart or on the sleeve?

    People will disagree with me (or privately agree----in this case, you can comment anonymously without me losing my cool), but I just see it as diminishing what it was Jackie accomplished and the sacrifice he undertook by handing out uniforms with the same number on it for a particular day like the stuff that comes out of a sausage factory. There are other ways to give him his due that won't distract from the game and be more appropriate to what Jackie was.

    Jackie was such an intense, old-school competitor (he defiantly made sure Bobby Thomson touched all the bases in the Shot Heard 'Round the World game; and retired rather than wear a Giants uniform after the Dodgers traded him) that I think he'd agree.

• Reason #10,935 to worship Jane Heller:

    Author and rabid Yankee fan Jane Heller wrote what amounted to a love letter to promote my book in her blog posting today at Confessions of a She-Fan.

    I don't think there's a nicer person in the world than Jane; she does things out of pure kindness without being sappy and asks nothing in return; and unlike most writers of what would be considered "chick-lit", she can actually write. She's one of the few people in the world that I'd ungrudgingly acknowledge as being a better writer than me and I'm lucky to count her as a friend.

• Viewer Mail 4.16.2010:

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

It's weird about people booing Vazquez. Fans have every right to boo their own players (they paid good money, blah blah), but as much as I scream at the TV and on Twitter, I just couldn't bring myself to boo a guy at the ballpark. What purpose does it serve other than to release frustration and disappointment? It's certainly not going to make the player go, "Oh, right. They're booing me. I'll do better now."

    To me, the only reason to let a player from your own team have it is if he's not putting forth the proper effort or does something stupid. With Vazquez, as I said yesterday, I think it's blowback from 2004 and will fester into a frenzy of jealous fans trying to get attention and break the spirit of a person in whose position they would desperately love to be.

    What would concern me----aside from Vazquez's mental state----is that he pitched quite serviceably in the game. What if he gets shelled in his next home outing? It's going to get worse and worse unless he's perfect, and we already know that he's not.

Jeff (Acting Boss) at Red State Blue State writes Family Business and the Yankees:

I'm ready to start sluggin' away if ya need it, Prince.

And don't the Yankees boo everybody?

    I got that handled and will continue to deal with it until it no longer amuses me; then I'll let you delegate to a lower-level soldier----unless you want to get your hands dirty with it for a bit like a cat playing with a mouse before putting it out of its misery. I'm thinking (and I'll leave this decision to you as Acting Boss) that it might be something for Isaac to make his bones if you think he's ready. It'd be a perfect assignment (though slightly beneath him) for that psychopath in Arizona if he'd agree to come under the Prince of New York auspices as Southwest Underboss; he's remarkably stubborn, but his skills at dismemberment are undeniable.

    Aside from that, it's at your discretion. 

    With the Yankees, they're being abusive to a pitcher that they're going to need to perform in the playoffs; and they're going to regret it unless they hit the brakes. Now.

The Brooklyn Trolley Blogger writes RE the Yankees booing:

Javy was kind of cornered into answering the question regarding getting boo'd. It really wasn't that bad. But if getting boo'd is something that's on his mind, he's already in for a tough season. If the fans are in his head already, he hasn't heard anything yet. This town, Yankee fans, boo'd Mantle, Jeter, Mo. Mets? We boo'd Reyes, Beltran and Johan in his very first game at Shea...etc etc.
Javy, you better get thicker skin. Is the boo'ing right or wrong or misguided? It doesn't matter. In baseball, everyone gets boo'd. Get over it and pitch.

    There's having a thick skin and there's getting abused. Guys like Bobby Bonilla asked for it with his "you're not gonna knock the smile off my face"; and "this is where I always wanted to be" rhetoric. What did Vazquez do to deserve this relentless and unfair attack aside from pitching poorly in 2004? It's six years ago. 

    This is going to be a problem for the Yankees. A big one. I don't think they accurately calculated the possibly fallout when bringing Vazquez back.

• Paul Lebowitz's 2010 Baseball Guide:

    Check out Jane's luminous review in her posting here.

    Pick up a copy on Amazon and I-Universe in paperback and E-book. And now on Barnes and Noble.com.

• Short attention-span theatre:
  

    Rather than interpret every situation on its own merits with analytical appraisal, it's easier to pigeonhole; to stereotype; to mash everyone into the same vat with no concept of, nor concern for derivatives. It's the culture of data; of safety; of hedging; of the bulletpoint over context.

    Because it's easier and less of a risk to shove everyone into the same category, experience and intelligence takes a backseat to whatever pops out of a calculator.

    Joba Chamberlain has four pitches; a starter has more "value" than a reliever, therefore he must be a starter.

    Every pitcher has to have a pitch count to prevent injury.

    Anyone can be a closer.

    The manager is a negligible aspect to a team's success or failure.

    Clutch hitting doesn't exist.

    And Joel Pineiro was a product of Tony La Russa and Dave Duncan and won't be able to replicate his success in St. Louis with the Angels.

    This attitude that diminishes individuality is how certain teams stumble and others succeed. Nothing is exhibiting that as well as Joel Pineiro.

    Watching Pineiro's cold and brutal efficiency in dismantling the Yankees yesterday afternoon was a prime example of why it's an invitation to disaster in disregarding the nuance of the story rather than relying on a summary.

    Using all of his pitches, but mostly relying on a sinking fastball, changing speeds and location, Pineiro delivered a primer on how to handle a powerful lineup; more importantly, he made a bold statement to the naysayers who scoffed at his evolution under La Russa and Duncan as something that wasn't going to be replicated upon leaving the comfortable shelter of the Hall of Fame-caliber duo in St. Louis.

    Pineiro was the beneficiary of the way La Russa and Duncan are able to penetrate the thick skulls of their charges; of stressing the importance of throwing strikes and relying on one's fielders; of maximizing what the individual is able to do rather than what he wants to do. To take what Pineiro was when he arrived in St. Louis----having failed as a closer for the Red Sox; and being injury-prone and ineffective after a solid career-start for the Mariners----and turn him into what he is now was due in part to a pitcher who knew it may have been his last chance to rejuvenate his career; and the reputations of La Russa and Duncan for turning around the careers of floundering talents.

    Sometimes it takes hitting rock-bottom to get an athlete to finally listen to someone telling him the truth.

    Pineiro is a different animal than other reclamation projects who only evolved in St. Louis and reverted back to what they were after they left. Jeff Suppan; Garrett Stephenson; Kent Bottenfield; and Storm Davis all learned their lessons with the Cardinals, but those lessons weren't transferred to other venues. A major part of the success of these pitchers wasn't simply the lessons learned from La Russa/Duncan; it was that the other players were part of the improvement in a team-wide effort.

    Because the bullpens play such an important role in what La Russa does, it's easy to misinterpret a pitcher who wins 15-20 games as having "improved" when he really hasn't. Suppan's stuff was never much better than it is now; but La Russa was able to take a pitcher who was durable and threw strikes, get him to use his defense and pull him from the game with a lead to accumulate wins. With the Athletics, Davis was the epitome of such a pitcher; he'd get in his six innings; leave with a lead and turn it over to a deep and well-stocked bullpen. It garnered him 19 wins in 1988 and a big, stupid contract from the Royals (dutifully provided by their then-GM, the "genius" John Schuerholz). 

    With Pineiro, it's different.

    The hard part of dealing with a pitcher who's known success in the big leagues doing it "his" way is to get him to understand that he needs to make changes to his mechanics and alter his approach. Cleaning and streamlining Pineiro's motion to the smooth, simple and repeatable thing of beauty it is now was the easy part; getting him to adapt and throw a sinking fastball and use the fielders behind him wasn't.

    But they did it.

    Those that take every player as little more than a wooden functionary are categorizing that which cannot be categorized; they're playing it safe and undermining any experience and subjectivity that comes from observation. It's an absence of confidence as much as understanding; of knowing without a book of data to fortify that knowledge. 

    The conventional wisdom was that as soon as Pineiro left the Cardinals, his success would disappear.

    It's ridiculous.

    It's a wide-ranging analysis based on nothing other than specious logic that is the hallmark of those that think they're experts based on a perceived understanding of numbers and it's what causes ghastly mistakes that have been prevalent in the Moneyball era.

• The Yankee fans booing of Javier Vazquez:

    The Yankee fans booing Javier Vazquez had nothing to do with his performance yesterday. He was solid enough; he got outpitched.

    I truly believe that the bullseye on Vazquez's back has to do with residual affect of Yankee fans never having gotten the opportunity to express their ire at the way Vazquez melted down in the second half of 2004 and that he got shelled in the playoffs. They never got the chance to let him have it in 2005 because he was traded. It's silly and it's vindictive, but somewhat understandable. It's hard to forgive and forget what happened it 2004 even six years later. He's here and they're getting their fill.

    In addition to that, there are concerns about Vazquez's mental toughness and whether or not he can handle New York. Booing's not going to help and eventually, it's going to devolve into a feeding frenzy of a group attack/joining in; the guy next to me is booing? I'll boo too. 

    Of course it's unfair, but the questions about Vazquez are legitimate with or without the abuse. 

• Viewer Mail 4.15.2010:

Jeff (Acting Boss) at Red State Blue State writes RE the Mets:

Indeed, the Mets are playing terribly right now, but it could be worse: they could be the Orioles.

I have made it a point to watch all Brian Matusz's starts because I have a tiny man-crush on they youngster and his ace-like abilities... but watching that game Tuesday night where the O's bullpen did their usual imploding thing really got me down. I mean, I was literally depressed after watching it. You could see on the Orioles' faces that they knew they were shit and they were really embarrassed about it.

The total attendance was around 13,000 people. In Baltimore. Home of Camden Yards. What a tragedy the O's have become.

Sorry, that was a long-winded way of saying it could be worse for the Metropolitans.

    It's a sad state of affairs indeed when people are consoling Mets fans by saying, "they could be the Orioles"; it's the equivalent of saying. "well, at least you have your health". 

    Great.

    Neither the Mets nor the Orioles are this bad. The Orioles have a ton of talent, but this horrific start is lending credence to the need for a managerial change in Baltimore and it's better to do it early. I don't think anyone, anywhere thinks Dave Trembley is the man to turn things around on the field for the Orioles and while owner Peter Angelos has left Andy MacPhail to his own devices in rebuilding the club, he's not going to let the season come apart this early. Trembley's in deep, deep trouble.

Gabriel (Capo) writes RE the Mets:

Or they could be the Astros.

    Another team that's nowhere near as bad as they're playing. People scoff, but their starting pitching----Roy Oswalt; Wandy Rodrgiuez; Brian Moehler; Felipe Paulino; Brett Myers----is quite respectable. Their lineup has pop; and they have some arms in the bullpen. I like Brad Mills as a manager. They've just gotten off to a bad start. They were never contenders, but they're not a 100-loss; or even a 90-loss team. Things have just gotten off poorly.

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

Ah, Bobby Valentine. I knew you'd go there. But Wally Backman? Are people really mentioning his name? I don't know much about the Mets, but I do know he'd be a disaster.

    A few people have suggested Backman. If nothing else, he'd flip the food table and get in the faces of players he didn't think were busting it on the field. While Valentine would be a bold move, Backman would be a desperation move that would be hard to see working. He'd have to coach in the big leagues for a bit before even receiving consideration as a manager.

The Brooklyn Trolley Blogger writes RE Bobby Valentine and the Mets (the comment is redacted; the entirety is available here):

Bobby V is certainly all the things you said and is capable of doing the things you said. Here's the other side. Bobby V and Steve Phillips couldn't stand each other because Phillips was trying to protect his power and Bobby wanted more input on personnel matters. It didn't help that Bobby V was openly critical of Fred Wilpon, and in METropolis that's a big no-no.

The Wilpons need to go off campus for a GM that will institute a standard operating procedure for this organization and MAKE the Wilpons comply in order to secure his services. I.E. LARRY BEINFEST!

    Valentine's reaction to his firing and the retaining of Phillips was more emotional than anything. He was under the impression that Phillips would be gone too. His classic reaction to his firing and Phillips's retention still echoes: "And Steve stays?!?" 

    My question is how long are the Wilpons going to hold a grudge? Valentine was dumped in 2002. That's almost eight years ago.

    Is it the right thing for the franchise to bring Valentine back? Yes. Is it the cheapest and potentially the most lucrative route? Yes. Is it a gamble? No more of a gamble than staying this course which is heading into a mountain.

    The bottom line factor should be more of an attraction than anything. The cost of firing both Omar Minaya and Jerry Manuel, finding a new GM/manager tandem and essentially starting over again in April dooms the club to seven months of torture; of relentless attacks; and the experts in the media suggesting what needs to be done. Keeping Minaya saves the club the money on his contract and of paying someone else big money to take the job; and bringing in Valentine could save the season; at the very least, it'll keep people coming to the ballpark; nothing will speak louder than empty seats in a beautiful new ballpark due to apathy and disgust. 

    They need to stop hedging; stop playing it safe and/or halfway that would be giving the fans the head they want (Manuel) and hiring someone like Bob Melvin. Nothing against Melvin, but he's vanilla.

    Say what you want about Valentine, he'll get people's attention.

    Tossing an explosive package like Valentine into the mix gets them right back into the conversation again and it has to be done sooner rather than later. There's no guarantee Valentine's going to be available in a month. He's sitting there and waiting. He wants the job. They need to do it now. 

    As for Larry Beinfest? I'd sign onto getting him NOW!!!! He's the best GM in baseball. Period. 

PairFace writes RE the Mets:

Your NL East predictions are not 2 weeks old yet, and the Mets are in a "death spiral"??? Don't you have them winning the East???

You have some other logic issues, as well. The Angels have "leadership", but the Yankees and Phillies get by with "relentless lineups"??? What 2 teams played in the WS last year??? Seems to me like you need some leadership to make it to that point.

And I guess Jerry Manuel is out of the running for MoY, huh???

    I don’t think I can help you because you either can’t read; can’t comprehend; or there's some disturbing combination of both at play.

    Did the Angels lineup compare with that of the Phillies or Yankees? Are you unable to grasp that leadership and talent are  two separate concepts? That following the death of Nick Adenhart, just about any other team would’ve folded the tents and gone home for the season----and everyone would’ve understood----with a manager other than Mike Scioscia and a steady organization like the Angels?

    A manager like Tony La Russa is going to be able to extract more from his roster than a Joe Girardi. I’m convinced that even you (well, maybe not you) but anyone with a modicum of baseball sense could’ve managed the Yankees to the World Series last year; in fact, that team would likely have functioned better without a manager at all if said invisible man was not the overthinking and too smart for his own good Girardi.

    Do you have the audacity to compare Charlie Manuel with Scioscia or La Russa?

    As for the logic issues, at least I can read. If you read the excerpt from my book (which you must’ve done since you’re on my site(s) 10 times a day religiously; and you probably have the book too), I said the Mets season was going to go one of two ways, either band together or collapse. They’re collapsing. It’s not that they’re playing poorly; they look dead; they look like they don’t care; that’s a reflection on the manager that they’re no longer listening; that he’s lost the team.

    And no, simple math dictates that if Jerry Manuel gets fired, he's not going to win Manager of the Year. 

    Maybe if you start reading me 30 times a day instead of 10-20, you’ll finally start to get it. I’d slow down for you, but I don’t want to alienate the readers that do know what I’m talking about and aren't nitpicking to attack in an attempt to bolster themselves from their insecurities.

    Next comment, doubtlessly you'll go into your regular pattern from ridicule to calling me names to telling me how big you are (as if I care).

    If you comment respectfully (even if you want to attack me), I'm more than happy to debate about anything; I'll print the comments and respond. I'll even link your unread blog----maybe someone will actually look at it; but if you cuss at me; call me names, I'm not going to respond.

• Paul Lebowitz's 2010 Baseball Guide:

• There are ways to fix this mess....if they have the nerve:

    When watching the Yankees; the Phillies; the Angels, there's never a game in which you can say they've bagged it and gone home; never a time when you can chalk things up to misfortune, formulate a series of excuses for the buzzards circling overhead (the reporters); the after-the-fact experts (hack radio hosts); and the bottom-feeders waiting to pounce (the fans looking for blood).

    With the Yankees and Phillies, it comes from their relentless lineups; with the Angels, it stems from leadership, the aversion to panic and implementation of a template. They may lose, but it won't be because they packed their gloves, bats and balls and went home.

    Such has not been the case with the Mets. 

    Going back to last season, the team has too often chosen to throw their hands up in the air, use injuries or uncontrollable events to consume them and give them cause to give in. The injuries from 2009 were an reason for their atrocious result, but not an excuse. It's only seven games into 2010 and the team doesn't look much different fundamentally; in body language; nor in results than they did in August and September of 2009.

    It's still obviously too soon to go on a spree of firings; to unload on the club and do something that will be regretted later; but to deny the aura surrounding this team that they simply don't care is the death knell to another season----in April.

    The stench of failure and ambivalence with this team is unmistakable. As soon as one thing goes wrong, the fragility present in this club sends them into a spin of self-doubt and paranoia that can be traced back to the collapse in September of 2007.

    Taking a step back from what they've done so far and there are positives to be extracted----Jeff Francoeur----but those positives haven't equated into wins. The team appears to have tuned out manager Jerry Manuel; it's a question as to how effective pitching coach Dan Warthen has been in getting through to the pupils who need the most guidance----John Maine and Oliver Perez. They don't get the big hit or record the big out; and whenever they're pushed, they fold. It's as if staying in the game or making a valiant comeback is enough for them to say they did the best they could and "almost" won. 

    Well, it's not good enough.

    Not anymore.

    Contrary to popular belief, Manuel did a very good job in 2008 after replacing Willie Randolph as manager. The team responded to him (or more likely responded to an end to the constant speculation regarding Randolph's job status and the stifling, suffocating, in-your-face style of pitching coach Rick Peterson). Had Billy Wagner not blown out his elbow leaving the team without a closer in September, they would've made the playoffs that year; that wasn't a collapse, it was an absence of personnel.

    There was no way to blame Manuel or anyone else for what happened in 2009 as a powerful witch doctor was tearing the club apart in relentless fashion from the beginning of the season to the end.

    Now, there are no more excuses. The injuries aren't such that the club should look so inept. Is Daniel Murphy going to make that much of a difference to this lineup? Carlos Beltran's return will drastically alter the landscape, but no one----not Joe Mauer; not Albert Pujols----would help with the pitching that has too often put the club in the hole of 3,4, and 5-0 to give them the impetus to say, "let's get the hell outta here". 

    And that's the way many Mets appear to be approaching their at bats.

    "Let's get the hell outta here."

    What's even more disturbing is the pitching they've faced in the past two games and against whom they've been unable to generate any kid of offense. Livan Hernandez? Greg Smith? It's not like they were dealing with Chris Carpenter and Tim Lincecum. 

    Until a culture shift occurs or an entire attitude adjustment takes place, nothing's going to change.

    There's already speculation about the job of manager Manuel and if they continue to play so poorly and slog their way through this road trip, there could be a new manager in place for the Cubs on Monday.

    The Mets have options of what to do in an attempt to save the season.

    Let's have a look:

Keep the management team in place and see what happens:

    Many will scoff at the idea of keeping GM Omar Minaya and Manuel in place, but it's not an unprecedented occurrence for a team under duress to hold off on making any radical decisions. Most notably, the Rangers were hours away from firing manager Ron Washington in late April of 2008 as they stood at 9-18....then they started winning. It was inexplicable as the team rallied to over .500 at mid-season and played respectably until fading at the end. Ignoring all the cocaine stuff (for which Washington should've been replaced), the team contended for much of 2009 and has the talent to do so again this year.

    Another Manuel, Charlie in Philadelphia, was under about as heavy scrutiny for the Phillies in 2007 as the club began the season at 3-10 after having been an also-ran for his entire tenure. Then they started playing better and took advantage of that 2007 Mets collapse to win the division and sow the seeds for the World Series win in 2008 and pennant in 2009.

    It's not ridiculous to hold off and say, "let's see what happens" before firing the manager and especially firing the General Manager, which I don't remember ever having worked when done in-season.

    The fans and media, looking for a scapegoat, won't be happy if this is the course chosen by the club, but it's not a crazy notion to give it time to see if it self-corrects.

Fire both Minaya and Manuel:

    If anyone's expecting the Mets to bring in a big name GM (and I can't think of anyone available right now who'd be interested in taking over in April without the nod to do whatever he feels needs to be done to fix things), they can forget it. If the Mets fire Minaya, one person and one person only would take over and that's assistant GM John Ricco.

    Ricco was credited with the idea of bringing Jeff Francoeur in for Ryan Church and is much smoother as a communicator than Minaya; but is he the talent evaluator? Can he judge a player? He's a corporate guy and while he may be able to do the job, it's a risk that's probably not worth taking now. Mets assistant Wayne Krivsy is a respected talent evaluator who made some savvy moves as the Reds GM; or they could bring back a former assistant Gerry Hunsicker to take over. Firing the GM is a difficult thing to do and overcome during the season.

    As for the field boss, former Diamondbacks and Mariners manager Bob Melvin was hired by the club as a scout in what appeared to be a move to have someone within the organization to take over for Manuel if things went horribly wrong.

    I respect Melvin and his players loved him. 

    One funny story about Melvin as a player was when he was catching for the Tigers in 1985 and Yankees manager Billy Martin, in full meltdown, sent lefty swinging Mike Pagliarulo up to the plate to bat right-handed against lefty Mickey Mahler and Melvin looked at him settling into the right-side of the batter's box and asked in bewilderment, "What the hell are you doing?" Pagliarulo replied that he was trying to get a hit. He eventually struck out. 

    Melvin, as a manager, for the most part got the most out of the talent on his roster. He was unfairly blamed for a Mariners team that went from 93 wins in his first season to 99 losses in his second----he was managing Lou Piniella's players and they all got old at once. With the Diamondbacks, his team overachieved and he was too independent for the tastes of GM Josh Byrnes.

    Is he the man for New York?

    Hiring John Ricco and Bob Melvin wouldn't enliven a fan base that's bloodthirsty and desperate for a spark.

Keep Minaya and hire Bobby Valentine:

    Bobby Valentine is sitting in an ESPN studio desperate to manage in the majors again; has experience with the Mets; a good relationship with Minaya going back to their days with the Rangers; and would be an stick of dynamite to the fans, media and players.

    If the club gets desperate enough to do something drastic, this is the way to wake everyone up.

    There are few managers in baseball who can draw fans by themselves and would accord instant credibility to any club strictly by force of will, personality and strategic acumen. Valentine is one.

    Are the Mets going to let this opportunity pass by again by playing it safe and going with Melvin? 

    Or are they going to look at the crashing season and light a fire under everyone by bringing back the manager they never should've fired to begin with? Just one bellow from that muppet-like, foghorn voice of Valentine will send the opposing teams into a frenzy of hatred that was a hallmark of Valentine's first tenure and, at the very least, would give a front man to the club that is a personality. His encyclopedic knowledge of the rulebook; smug condescension and overt arrogance is exactly what that organization needs. 

    It doesn't hurt that he wouldn't put up with the laissez-faire at bats the club is taking; nor would he tolerate the way the pitchers are afraid to throw the ball over the plate; he's fearless and one of the top three strategists in the world. 

    Money shouldn't be a factor because Manuel is on the last year of his contract and they wouldn't have to eat the money remaining on Minaya's contract if they kept him and brought in Valentine.

    The easiest thing to do is fire the manager. Some are speculating the Mets should hire Wally Backman. Backman would flip the food table and get in players' faces, but putting him in this cauldron when it took him that long to get another job as a single A manager is too big a gamble. After the disastrous hiring and firing within days by the Diamondbacks, Backman's the opposite of the what the under siege Mets need or want even if it worked.

    The most viable solution is Bobby Valentine.

    Period. 

    A slow start is tolerable. The perception of not caring isn't. There's blood in the water.

    The sharks are out and looking for a sacrifice. Hiring Valentine does two things, it reinvigorates the organization and gives the fans what they want. It's not as if they're hiring someone who doesn't know what he's doing or is unwilling to get his hands dirty.

    Will they do it? Do they have the nerve? The desperation? 

    We'll see by the end of this road trip, because they may not have a choice by Monday and it's the quickest fix they have at their disposal.

    Valentine's not in Japan anymore. He's in Connecticut. It's a short ride. And they don't have much choice anymore.

    As much of a laughingstock the Mets appear to be, people conveniently forget the Phillies were ridiculed in much the same way until 2007; no one wanted to play for the Red Sox in 2001; the Yankees were a joke in 1990; and the Mets went from a similar morass in 2004 to one game from the World Series in 2006. There's nothing wrong with dropping a bomb into the organization to shake the foundation.

    Just as things fall apart, they rebuild quickly.

    But something's going to have to be done barring a drastic shift in fortune or a steering from the spiral that the current manager doesn't have the capacity nor the support to accomplish. We'll see in the near future where this is going to go.

• Oh look, it's Ian Kennedy:

    The Diamondbacks version of Ian Kennedy looked strikingly similar to the one who pitched for the Yankees. Here's what I wrote about Kennedy in my book from two years ago when the talk was that Kennedy was the most "polished" and ready for big league success among the three of Kennedy, Joba Chamberlain and Phil Hughes:

Ian Kennedy is the third of the Yankees young starters and the one that the team was most willing to trade in deals for a veteran starter the likes of (Johan) Santana or (Dan) Haren. I don't think Kennedy is as good as the other two starters and is the most likely to not make the team out of spring training, or make the team, get pounded and sent back down. He looks to be a finesse pitcher who has been built up by the Yankee propaganda machine and apparently other organizations feel the same way with their reluctance to take him as the centerpiece of any deal for one of their veteran starters.

    The only inaccurate thing about my assessment of Kennedy is that he may actually be worse than I thought.

    Kennedy's started two games for the Diamondbacks and hasn't been particularly good in either. Against the Padres, he at least threw strikes and didn't walk anyone; he struck out eight, but allowed 3 runs and 6 hits in five innings. The Padres aren't exactly an offensive powerhouse.

    Against the Dodgers, he was back to his old self. In 4 1/3 innings, he allowed 6 runs; 6 hits; 3 homers; and walked 3.

    He's horrific. A sixth starter/long reliever who simply does not have the stuff nor the mentality to be a successful starter. Possibly, once through the lineup, as a reliever he can become a Taylor Buchholz-type who has use out of the bullpen if he throws strikes. Maybe.

• Viewer Mail 4.14.2010:

Kyle Johnson writes RE the Angels pitching and possible pursuit of Cliff Lee:

I'm really hoping the Angels move Joe Saunders before the trade deadline this year and try to land Cliff Lee in the offseason next year. Saunders gives up so many hits its bound to catch up to him soon enough (if it hasn't already).

    I'm not a fan of Saunders either and he is a trade chip. The way the Angels do business focusing on pitching makes them a very likely spot for Lee. I can't see them trading Saunders at the deadline unless things really go badly for them. 

Jeff (Acting Boss) at Red State Blue State writes RE the Mariners:

So I've been staying up late and watching the Mariners because I want to know more about this "sexy" pick.

They are not sexy.

They are boring.

Like him or not, when Milton Bradely is your clean-up guy there are major offensive issues.

This team can not hit. They might be the Giants from a year or two ago.

    The Giants weren't dealing with a diva in Ken Griffey Jr; nor were they always on eggshells with someone like Milton Bradley. They appeared to be a close-knit group; the Mariners are trying to find themselves and, like you said, can not hit. 

• Paul Lebowitz's 2010 Baseball Guide:

    People focused on my picking the crashing Mets (it's still early; it's still early) in the NL East, but here's what I wrote:

The 2010 season is going to go one of two ways for the Mets.
   

After the relentless and out-of-control ridicule the club has endured for being a dysfunctional mess, the situation will continue to spiral downward until the club cleans house of both Omar Minaya and Jerry Manuel and starts all over again and they’ll have a disastrous season falling into or near last place. Or, they’ll take the underdog status and that they’ve become a convenient punching bag for every leech who wants to take a shot and turn it into an “us against the world” mentality to galvanize the club to band together and stick it to everyone who’s had a field day at ravaging them since their collapse in 2007.

    As of right now, with the way they're playing, it appears that I chose the door with the tiger rather than the lady. It's early to be judging assessments; but this is what I wrote. It's analysis, not homerism. Like it or not. 

    Pick up a copy on Amazon and I-Universe in paperback and E-book. And now on Barnes and Noble.com.

• Know your situation and don't be a hero:

    The two things you cannot do against that Phillies lineup is walk them and give them extra outs; but the latter is exactly what Nationals catcher Ivan Rodriguez did yesterday when he inexplicably tried to force the lead runner out at second base in the bottom of the fifth inning.

    With the Nationals leading 4-2, Shane Victorino led off the inning with a strikeout; Carlos Ruiz then singled to left bringing up pitcher Cole Hamels; Hamels bunted in front of the plate and Rodriguez threw wildly to second base trying to force Ruiz. Both runners were safe and the floodgates were open. 

    As is customary in such circumstances, the Phillies took hold of the opportunity and scored five runs to take a 7-4 lead. This mistake by Rodriguez would've been fine-worthy and demotion-inducing had it been a rookie catcher; but for it to be made by a player who was specifically brought in to Washington to teach the Nationals how to play the game correctly----despite having little left in the tank----is inexcusable.

    Rodriguez has to know the situation; he has to know that the out at first base (with Juan Castro batting next instead of the injured Jimmy Rollins) is more important; and that the Phillies have a tendency for punishing teams that make such a mistake. There was no reason for Rodriguez's gaffe aside from not thinking and/or trying to be a hero.

    Naturally, there's every possibility that the Phillies were going to start mashing the Nationals suspect pitching later in the game----it was Jason Marquis they were facing, not exactly Tim Lincecum----but why give them the break? Get the out. A "savvy" veteran should've known better.

    Another note about the Phillies, just as the teams off to a slow start need to remember it's early, it also has to be remembered on the other side of the coin that it's: A) early for the teams that have started off hot as well; and B) the schedule has favored them----the Phillies have beaten up on the Nationals and Astros.

    They don't make the schedule, but those are two teams that aren't very good. At all.

• Milton Bradley, Milton Bradley, Milton Bradley:

    The Mariners knew the risks when taking on Milton Bradley and the nine suitcases of baggage he toted with him; getting Carlos Silva's contract off the books and bringing in a player that could be a huge win if he behaved and hit was worth Bradley, good or bad.

    One thing about Mariners GM Jack Zduriencik is that he's a gambler. People who have the slightest baseball knowledge will tell you that the Mariners roster in 2008 was nowhere near bad enough to lose 100 games; if they had the tiniest bit of luck and didn't experience the "everything that could go wrong did go wrong" disaster from 2008, they were going to be somewhere around 75-80 wins in 2009. In fact, the season went far better than even the most enthusiastic observers could've anticipated.

    Then came the winter of 2009-2010 when the Mariners went for defense, dice-shooting and sentimentality rather than getting a legitimate big power bat.  

    Despite the misapplied and far-too-early label of "genius", Zduriencik was right in dealing Silva for Bradley. It may still work, but already, Bradley has had several incidents having to do with his prodigious temper and persecution complex (some of it justified); the biggest problem of all for the Mariners is that Bradley hasn't hit. 

    Batting .045 after 28 plate appearances with one hit (it was a homer) and 9 strikeouts is about what I'd hit if the Mariners stuck me in the middle of their lineup (and they'd only get 63% of the Bradley psycohpathy/paranoia). I truly believe that Bradley is trying to stay out of trouble, but fans and even umpires seem eager to provoke him to elicit a reaction, and given his history, they're going to get it.

    This wouldn't be as big an issue if he started to hit and after last year with the Cubs, it's a viable question as to whether or not that's going to happen.

• Speaking of the Mariners:

    I was thinking about Cliff Lee and his upcoming free agency and it occurred to me that he may find himself in a Jason Bay-type situation in the winter of 2010-2011 if he wants to get the big money that he evidently seeks.

    Which teams are going to: A) have the money to pay him? and B) have the willingness to pay him?

    The Red Sox were widely expected to be major suitors for Lee, but with the signing of Josh Beckett; the long term commitments to Jon Lester and John Lackey, along with the albatross of Daisuke Matsuzaka, they're not going to go crazy ($100 million) for Lee.

    The Yankees? They look like they have their sights set on Carl Crawford and are going to move forward with C.C. Sabathia, A.J. Burnett, (possibly) Andy Pettitte, plus Phil Hughes and Joba Chamberlain in the rotation; they're not getting into another $100 million starter. 

    Without the two bigger spenders in the American League, where does that leave Lee? The Dodgers have the money, but who knows where they'll be with the divorce proceedings of the McCourts?

    He's not going to Baltimore. The Cubs are in flux with their entire top-to-bottom operation. And the White Sox don't spend that lavishly. That will dwindle the number of teams that are willing to pay Lee to the Angels and the Mets. 

    The Angels swoop in and snatch players in quick-strike fashion and focus on pitching; but they also have a loaded starting rotation and no room for Lee unless they deal one of their young pitchers.

    That leaves the Mets.

    There are a few reasons to look at this is Lee's likely destination. One, they'll pay him. If things go badly this year----and it's teetering----a big splash will be coming and the biggest splash is Lee. Two, GM Omar Minaya is in love with Cliff Lee; he tried to get him every year he's been the Mets GM and won't have to surrender anything other than money for him this time. Three, Lee is a relentless, vindictive and mean competitor (a Stone Cold Killer) who would like nothing more than to shove it to the Phillies for trading him and making him look greedy by suggesting he wasn't willing to negotiate on a long-term contract.

    Lee's hurt now, but he'll be back; and if he's healthy, he's one of the top ten pitchers in baseball who's performed in the playoffs. His free agency isn't something to ignore for 2011. It's something to keep an eye on. Now.

• Nothing to worry about with Jair Jurrjens:

    Braves starter Jair Jurrjens has been the subject of endless concern since his shoulder was barking in the spring. I had Jurrjens as my Cy Young Award pick in the National League before said shoulder issues and switched to Clayton Kershaw, but that doesn't mean Jurrjens won't contend for the award if he's healthy.

    Trying to find solace in the beating the Braves took yesterday at the hands of the Padres (17-2? That wasn't a baseball game, it was two Philip Rivers touchdown passes.) Finding comfort in Jurrjens's line of 8 earned runs in 3 1/3 innings is like dressing up the grade of "F" by putting a plus next to it. It's a pat on the head for showing up at all. That said, Jurrjens was a little wild, but he's always been a little wild. His result looks awful----he wasn't fooling anyone; but the majority of the damage came from walks and because he gave up a dunking hit to the opposing pitcher.

    Apart from that, his health has been the main issue. In that respect, Jurrjens looked fine. His motion was free and easy and his velocity was where it should be at around 91-92 after he got loose. The Braves have plenty to worry about, notably their offense, but Jurrjens should be well down on the list of concerns. The biggest problems, already, are Troy Glaus----historically a quick starter----who's looked atrocious with a slow bat and zero extra base hits in 29 plate appearances; and that Chipper Jones is already hurt.

    Pitching isn't the Braves problem and Jurrjens will be okay.

• Viewer Mail 4.13.2010:

Joe Campise writes RE Joe Girardi:

I agree with your take on Joe Girardi.  I was at the game in St. Pete and if Girardi pulled CC with a No-No still intact, I would hated him forever.  Also Tampa fans were leaving the game in the Top of the 8th inning during the nohitter. I was shocked. That brings to my question, Would you leave a game early if your team was getting no-hit.  (I honestly believe Tampa fans had no clue a no-hitter was going on.)

    Here's what I don't understand: Why....announce....it?

    Let's say hypothetically that Girardi really would've done it (and I'm not convinced he would've), why place himself in the center of the story in such a way? All he's done is to take the focus on where it should've been----C.C. Sabathia.

    Just as players dislike having the manager insinuate himself into history by sabotaging their hard work with misapplication of statistics, they hate having their glory diminished by a manager's attempts to exert his authority; and that's what Girardi seems to be doing. It's as if he's pulling a power play on his players and it's not necessary with a veteran, self-policing clubhouse.

    He's jumping up-and-down and screaming for attention and the players don't forget that stuff.

    As for the Tampa fans? I have to shrug. Florida has two exciting young teams and the fans appear passionately disinterested. I'm all for beating traffic, but I'd never leave if a no-hitter was intact on either end.

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

I would think it's way too early to fire a manager - unless the team is playing with the same lack of fire or plan or discipline as the year before. Trembly does fit that profile. I wouldn't be shocked to see him go.

    I would've made a change after last year if I was Andy MacPhail. The Orioles are going to have a different manager when they take the next step, so why not do it now? It's close between Dave Trembley and Ken Macha to see which one goes first.

    For different reasons, neither the Orioles or Brewers are going to mess around. The Orioles are expecting improvement and I can't blame Peter Angelos this time if he orders a change; and MacPhail wouldn't fight him. The Brewers are expecting to compete and are going to be better off with Willie Randolph running things anyway.

Jeff (Acting Boss) at Red State Blue State writes RE the firing line and the Mariners and Athletics:

FIRE AWAY!

By the way, been watching a lot of the A's and M's this season so far... if they only play each other all year the A's might be considered a powerhouse. Talk about boring offensive games... but the pitching is great.

    Much like the context needed in looking at the Phillies hot start against bad teams, it's hard to judge the Athletics when they're dominating a team that literally cannot hit in the Mariners. The Athletics are getting great starting pitching though.

• Paul Lebowitz's 2010 Baseball Guide:

    My book is still available and there are projections therein that are already making me look remarkably clever a week into the season. See what all the fuss is about!

    Available on Amazon and I-Universe in paperback and E-book. And now on Barnes and Noble.com. 

• Let the managerial speculation begin:

    It's a week into the season and already teams are starting to panic.

    The oddest part is that the Angels, White Sox and Dodgers----good teams all from whom much is expected----have all gotten off to bad starts and no one is having the freakout sessions that are being exhibited in Queens and Milwaukee. 

    Six games is a little early to hit the ejector seat.

    This isn't to imply I'm adverse to firing the manager; I'm an advocate of doing it sooner rather than later if a team is going to do it; but if it's done as a means to placate an agitated fan base or an agenda-driven media, then it's a mistake. 

    Jerry Manuel of the Mets is already having his job security threatened after a 2-4 start; the Brewers' Ken Macha is in trouble as well; and the Orioles----with raised hopes due to their young players and under-the-radar veteran acquisitions----are also going to make a change from Dave Trembley if their slump continues. 

    When contemplating a managerial change, several questions have to be asked and answered before pulling the trigger: Is it fair? Will it help? Would a new manager do any better with the current group than the current manager?

    With Manuel and Macha, the firings would of course, be unfair.

    To blame Jerry Manuel for what happened to the Mets last season is absurd. The entire team was on the disabled list. The entire team. Tony La Russa; Connie Mack; John McGraw; Earl Weaver; and Billy Martin combined couldn't have done any better than 70-92 with what the Mets were trotting out last year. 

    Macha brought the Brewers in at 80-82 in 2009, which was around where their talent level----especially on the mound----dictated they belonged.

    With Trembley I have to shrug. He's lacking something; whether that's professional experience as a player despite having a long career as a minor league manager; or it's an absence of the aura a big league manager needs, I don't know; but he's the epitome of the manager who "won't take his team to the next level"; and of the three examples, a change needs to be made in Baltimore to a younger, strategically oriented manager who's going to be able to relate to his young players and forge a bond with the veterans.

    Would firing any of the three above-mentioned managers help the club's fortunes immediately?

    The Mets have had this cloud hanging over them going back to 2007 and the epic collapse. It's accurate to say clearing out Manuel and pitching coach Dan Warthen could help. If nothing else, it would bring in fresh blood and a spark with Bobby Valentine or Bob Melvin and could take the pressure off of GM Omar Minaya and ownership at least for awhile.

    The Brewers have a manager-in-waiting in Willie Randolph; Macha's not well-liked despite making the right moves most of the time; he, like Manuel, is in the last year of his contract and was almost dumped after last season. The Brewers are a flawed team posing as a contender; after the money they spent on Randy Wolf and LaTroy Hawkins, they're not going to let the season go down the tubes without sacrificing someone; the easiest thing to do is to fire the manager who they don't appear to want anyway.

    Would Randolph do any better with the Brewers now than Macha? Would Valentine or Melvin fix the Mets?

    Studying the "bottom-line"----the record----is like reading a three sentence summary of a 50 page book; it's taken woefully out of context.

    The Brewers are currently 3-3. They lost two games in which their ace----Yovani Gallardo----started and lost; in one of the games, he got shelled. On Friday, Macha had his closer, Trevor Hoffman, in pitching the ninth; Hoffman coughed up the lead and the game by allowing a 2-run homer with 2 outs and 2 strikes on Cardinals pinch hitter Nick Stavinoha. Then last night, Hoffman blew a 7-4 lead by allowing a 2-out, 2-run homer to Albert Pujols to pull the Cardinals to within one; then Matt Holliday homered to tie it; the Brewers won in the bottom of the ninth as Casey McGehee homered to win it.

    The implication was that the McGehee walk-off may have "saved" Macha's job.

    Saved it from what?

    Being fired for no reason?

    If I'm Ken Macha and anyone started questioning me for what happened, I'd sit there with a bewildered, murderous look on my face accompanied by the rhetorical and unanswerable question: "What...did....you....want....me....to....do?"

    He had his closer in the games and his closer blew the games. Was he supposed to do something other than what he did? Was it the wrong strategy?

    If a manager does the right things and they don't work, how is he to blame? Just as when a manager does the wrong things and they do work (see Joe Maddon, circa 2008), there's not credit or blame to be doled out.

    With Manuel, the 2-4 record is also misapplied as a reason to dump him. The Mets have shown fight; the bullpen and starting pitching have done well. Johan Santana ran into one of the more underrated sluggers in baseball in Josh Willingham yesterday and the hitters did nothing with Livan Hernandez. The starting pitching has been very good up to now; even Oliver Perez was serviceable on Saturday (in comparison to what he was last year anyway); and had it not been for a great catch by Willie Harris on Rod Barajas's sinking liner, the Mets would've won the game.

    To think that one game either way should save or doom a manager is absurd.

    Those clamoring for Bobby Valentine to return to the Mets are forgetting that, as great a manager as Valentine is (and he's probably one of the top three baseball strategists in the world), his Mets teams collapsed in both 1998 and 1999; and he lost the clubhouse by 2002.

    I love Bobby Valentine as a manager and thought it was mistake to fire him, but to wax nostalgic for his Mets tenure is forgetting the negatives that come within the "Bobby V Package"----the arrogance, condescension, and occasional cold brutality with players he dislikes are part of the reason he's so good at other aspects of the job. Negatives don't outweigh positives; they can exist simultaneously and bolster strengths; but they're still there.

    There were managerial changes last season that were made and ended as hit-or-miss. 

    The Rockies fired Clint Hurdle and replaced him with Jim Tracy because: A) the team was 10 games under .500; B) the relationship between Hurdle and star shortstop Troy Tulowitzki had deteriorated to the point that they could no longer co-exist; and C) GM Dan O'Dowd was under fire himself working in the last year of his contract and likely to be let go if the team didn't turn things around. 

    A case could easily be made for Tracy to be called the best manager in baseball and the Rockies ignited as soon as he took over; O'Dowd wound up with a contract extension and the Rockies are a trendy pick to make the World Series. This would not have happened had they kept Hurdle; in retrospect, it was the right move. 

    With the Diamondbacks, Bob Melvin was let go.

    Melvin was very popular with the players and a solid manager who wasn't responsible for the Diamondbacks downfall last season. Losing Brandon Webb sabotaged any chance for them to contend in a rough division; and Melvin, too independent for the taste of GM Josh Byrnes, was dismissed.

    What made things worse in Arizona was the elevation of A.J. Hinch----a managerial neophyte and cerebral front office man who had never shown any interest in returning to the field. Hinch made mostly the right moves strategically as he felt his way through and tried to win the backing of his players, but there will always be the Byrnes statement of Hinch providing "organizational advocacy" following him around as if he's being told what to do; why and how to do it.

    Other teams that should've or still should make managerial changes have yet to do so. The Blue Jays' Cito Gaston should've been asked to resign after the way the Blue Jays quit last year; and with their numerous young players in the midst of a rebuild, they need a manager with whom they can forge a bond and grow together.

    The Rays' Joe Maddon is one of the worst managers I've ever seen and more evidence was presented yesterday with his stupid decision to have Randy Choate pitch to Jorge Posada----Posada homered.

    Bud Black of the Padres and Trey Hillman of the Royals are clueless.

    Those that defend Yankees manager Joe Girardi are just as off topic as the "record-keepers" who think a 2-4, 3-3 start and a missed opportunity here and there----through no fault of the manager----are reason to fire someone. Girardi is still feeling his way through as Yankees manager and has been carried to a championship as the players protect him from himself with greatness. Truth be told, the Yankees could stick a mannequin in the corner of the dugout in full uniform and they'd still win 95 games. (That's essentially what the Diamondbacks did with Bob Brenly from 2001 onward.) 

    If a team wants to make a change, they should do so. It's their right and they don't have to give a reason, but for the media and fan base to take a firing as a cure-all and absolve the players and make the manager the scapegoat is the epitome of short-sightedness.

    People forget now, but Charlie Manuel (3 straight division titles, a World Series win and a National League championship) was days away from being fired after the Phillies started 2007 at 3-10. The 1998, 125-50 Yankees were about to fire Joe Torre after a 1-4 start.

    Did Manuel suddenly become smarter from early 2007 until now? Or did the players just start performing? He's managing now exactly as he did then; what he's doing is simply working better.

    Did Torre steer the ship with his personality, charm and calm? Or did Chad Curtis hit a home run in Oakland to save his job? Would that Yankees team have won anyway had Jim Fregosi or whoever taken over? Probably----that's how good they were----but they would absolutely have lost the aesthetic that came from Torre running the show. 

    In the end, if a team is going hire a new manager, they should do it and end the speculation. The one thing I don't want to hear is that it's something other than what it is because just like most everything else, it's hit-or-miss and the only way to determine success or failure is in the rear-view-mirror.

• Paul Lebowitz's 2010 Baseball Guide:

    Please purchase a copy of my book on Amazon and I-Universe in paperback and E-book. And now on Barnes and Noble.com. It's me and only me. Love me or hate me, at least I'm interesting. I'm always good; but there are times----as evidenced above----that I'm spectacular. 

    That's just fact.  

• Stepping out front in the wrong way:

    Joe Girardi has done nothing to dissuade me from the fact that his lack of experience as a manager is going to haunt him until he learns the nuances of strategy and, more importantly, handling his clubhouse.

    That, more than anything else, has been Joe Torre's strength throughout his long managerial career. It wasn't game calling; it wasn't likability; it wasn't luck; it was his calm in the face of a storm that allowed Torre----more than any other manager including strategic superiors like Billy Martin----to survive for so long under George Steinbrenner and maintain the backing of his players.

    I'm not seeing that with Joe Girardi.

    There's an overt lack of feel for the way he runs things as if he manages in a straitjacket. So tied into organizational edicts and his notorious book of stats, numbers, pitch counts and parameters that he's almost robotic. This will either evolve into a more freewheeling and deft way to handle circumstances or will eventually sow the seeds for his downfall.

    Few want to admit this, but the Yankees won the World Series last season in spite of Girardi. 

    That team----and this team for that mattter----could viably function with Derek Jeter as player-manager; or without a manager at all. In fact, they might be better off. 

    There is no explanation; no excuse for Girardi inserting himself into the storyline of C.C. Sabathia's near no-hitter yesterday. Rather than let Sabathia's masterpiece speak for itself, Girardi has caused another mini-firestorm with his dogmatic adherence to the phantom numbers of a pitch count. 

    In case you missed it, Girardi said that regardless of whether Sabathia retired Kelly Shoppach to keep his no-hitter after the eighth inning, he was coming out of the game. 

    Girardi's quote:

"It's not something you want to do, but you have to think big picture,"

"I told Dave (Eiland, the pitching coach) 110 to 115 and that was it. If he would have been 105 in the ninth maybe I'd let him go out."

    The NY Times story mentioned that Girardi was thinking about David Cone's near no-hitter in 1996 as he returned from aneurysm surgery; Torre yanked him after seven innings.

    To even compare the two situations isn't simply a misunderstanding and mishandling of players and games, but it's utter garbage. 

    C.C. Sabathia is 6'7" and 300 pounds; he's durable; and he's tough. He wasn't pitching in the 30 degree cold of Minnesota; he was pitching in the climate controlled atmosphere of a dome. He couldn't have thrown 15 more pitches for history?

    Would Girardi have been that clueless that he would've drawn the ire of the entire clubhouse and the Yankees fan base (that's not all that thrilled with him to begin with) by pulling Sabathia for an arbitrary reason such as a pitch count that was at 111 when Shoppach broke up the bid?

    It's ridiculous.

    The players seem to like Girardi personally; they play hard for him; but there's been an underlying aura----since his hiring----that they don't trust him to do the right thing in his handling of the players nor in strategy; that they have to protect him from himself because he either thinks too much and has to "do stuff" to make it look like he's in charge rather than maintain a feel for the job. Such a feel comes from experience that Girardi does not have. 

    Alex Rodriguez and Mark Teixeira both made magnificent plays to keep the no-hitter intact; Jeter would've been apoplectic had Girardi pulled Sabathia after eight innings. Again, Girardi could've lost the clubhouse there and then with one move that would've put the puppet-strings under which he operates.

    This is another black mark against Girardi. Another reason to question his suitability for the job. You can mention his positives----intelligence; hard work; likability; the championship from last year----but there will come a day when the players won't bail him out and save him from himself. The evidence----his inexplicable love affair with Sergio Mitre; the Joba Chamberlain mistakes; his gaffes in the playoffs; and now this insertion of himself into what should've been a celebration of Sabathia's excellence----are all a concern that he's never going to get it; never going to learn the touch and feel that goes with managing a club full of stars.

    Eventually, Girardi's going to do something so devastatingly wooden; so overtly self-destructive for a specious reason, that not even that roster is going to protect him from himself. The most disturbing thing isn't that he considered it; but that he felt he needed to announce it, robbing Sabathia of his proper due and again insinuating himself into the middle of a story for no reason other than just "because".  

    I'd like to say he wouldn't have had the temerity to pull Sabathia with a no-hitter heading into the ninth inning; but I don't know; and that should scare Yankee fans more than anything Girardi's done so far. It's adding fuel to the fire that he's not learning on the job, which could lead to a catastrophic gaffe in October that teamwide talent won't overcome.

• Who's running the Rays' ship?

    Would someone explain to me who's running the show in Tampa? 

    Does Joe Maddon have any control whatsoever over his players?

    Or did he order the absurd steal of second base by Ben Zobrist in the bottom of the seventh inning trailing 4-0?

    With B.J Upton at the plate?

    Ignore that Zobrist made it. Ignore that the Rays lost the game 10-0. 

    With the power in their lineup; with Upton at the plate; with hitters behind him who can hit the ball out of the park, what was the risk/reward of letting Zobrist steal? 

    Zobrist made it; even had Upton driven him in, it's still a bad play. The score would've been 4-1. So? If Zobrist was thrown out, the play was in no way worth the risk. It was another example of Maddon plainly and simply not knowing what he's doing as a manager; running games as if he's just sort of there as a minor inconvenience for the players to ignore at will; and if he ordered it? That's even worse. 

    One thing I don't want to hear by way of explanation is "that's how we always play". Such nonsense. It's how the Rays "always play" that cost them the World Series in 2008; and it let them stagger to barely over .500 last season despite the much ballyhooed early season run differential that implied they should've been in first place by a mile.

    Maddon is a horrible manager; the players don't respect his game calling; don't listen to him; and his absent-minded professor routine is going to be the main thing that sabotages the Rays----again.

• Who's that guy?!?

    The Astros are off to a rotten start, but there's hope in Houston. Their starting rotation isn't that bad with Roy Oswalt; Wandy Rodriguez; Brett Myers...and Felipe Paulino.

    The information I had on Paulino equated to his solid strikeout numbers throughout his professional career; his big league numbers have been a calamity up to now; and his minor league numbers show little aside from promise, but I saw him last night and was impressed.

    Very impressed.

    His fastball was close to 100 mph; and he showed a wicked off-speed curve. He has stuff that----if he can bridle it----show a potential big-time starter. He's still young (26) and if he can get it together, the talent is undeniable. The one thing missing from him appeared to be command, but he's got what's needed to win in the big leagues. Keep an eye on him. 

• That looked like a spring training drill:

    People don't understand the mundane nature of spring training.

    Pitchers do the same drills over-and-over again for the dual benefit of getting them some exercise and "doing" something under the auspices of repetition leading to proper execution.

    Last night, during the Marlins 4-3 win over the Dodgers, I saw something I'd never seen before in my life. 

    In the top of the sixth inning, Russell Martin led off with a single off of Burke Badenhop; Ronnie Belliard grounded back to Badenhop, who threw off line to second base, causing Dan Uggla to lay out to catch the ball; he managed to keep his foot on the base to record the out.

    Belliard was now on first with one out.

    Rafael Furcal then grounded back to Badenhop, who again messed up the throw to second; and both runners were safe.

    First and second, one out.

    Implausibly, Garret Anderson then grounded....back to Badenhop!

    This time, Badenhop fired a strike to Hanley Ramirez, who threw to first for the double play.

    The most absurd thing about all this isn't that there were three straight grounders back to the mound----as absurd as that is----but that Badenhop and the Marlins kept screwing up such a fundamental play; and a play that is endlessly repeated in spring training drills!

    There are numerous things that pitchers do during spring training workouts; they work on grounders to the right side with the pitcher covering first; they do run-downs; where to be during bunt situations; and...double play balls back to the mound.

    On a grounder back to the mound with a runner on first, the pitcher is supposed to turn and fire it to the base whether the covering infielder is there or not. It's not his fault if the second baseman or shortstop isn't there; it's not his responsibility. His job is to turn and fire. Period. It looked like Badenhop was waiting for either Uggla or Ramirez to be standing on the base and that is the exact opposite of what he's supposed to do on the play.

    This is supposed to be second nature for the pitcher; not something he has to even think about. The Marlins were lucky that it didn't cost them a crooked number in the inning and the game. There's no excuse. I'd have fined Badenhop even though he got out of the inning. Or at least screamed at him.

    I got sca-reeeeeamed at once for messing up the same bunt play over and over again during drills. The whole team looked at me with death in their eyes (okay, more death in their eyes) because we had to stay until I got it right, which I eventually did. I deserved to get yelled at too.

    It was a simple fundamental screwup for which there's no excuse.

• Viewer Mail 4.11.2010:

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

I don't think the issue is that Vazquez can't handle New York. I think - if his troubles continue - that he can't handle the AL East. He was cruising through the early innings, as you said, then couldn't pitch out of the stretch when he was afraid guys would steal on him. Maybe he needs a shrink.

    I'm withholding judgment for now, but it's something I'd keep in the back of my mind. What's he going to do when he starts a game in Boston? There's no shame in a player not being able to handle New York, but it is something that the Yankees have not taken as seriously as they should've when making the decision to bring Vazquez back. They may have been better off with Bronson Arroyo. In fact, they definitely would've been and probably could've gotten him for less than they gave up for Vazquez.

Gabriel (Capo) writes RE the Blue Jays and a closer-by-committee:

Don't know if it's a good idea, but Cito Gaston said that when Jason Frasor, the named closer, has a day off (like yesterday), he will see the situation and split the saves amongst Kevin Gregg and Scott Downs. Maybe that's as close as anyone will get to the closer-by-committee evolution for now.

On another topic, what do you think of Vernon Wells? Is he going to be able to keep on his performance? Were his four homers in three days only abuse of the Rangers' pitchers?

    Gregg's horrible; but there have to be hitters he's handled in the past for whom he'd be the smart option in the late innings. The Blue Jays have some good arms out there and nothing to lose by going with the best option based on matchups rather than the designated closer.

    With Wells, I'd say his history proves that this is an aberration. Texas is a hitter's haven. I'd have to see at least another month of him mashing to believe in it and Wells hasn't been good since getting his big contract. He's on a hot streak. That's all. 

The Brooklyn Trolley Blogger writes RE Javier Vazquez and relief pitchers:

Memories..., from the corner of
2004's eyes. Misty watered colored memories of the way Vazquez was.

Wagner? - It's always been a little pet project of mine to look over closers with revisionist history. Examples are Roy Face, Perranoski, Rob Nenn and (Tom) Henke among others. Wagner kinda keeps the discussion of closers a little watered down in spite of his saves totals. Long live the Fireman.

    Normally it'd be too early to start looking askance at a newcomer after one start, but Vazquez's history and reputation as a big game washout are not to be disregarded. 

    With closers, I look at the bottom line. The stat zombies are absolutely correct in one aspect of their theories about closers----you can find someone to rack up the save stat during the regular season. But it's at crunch time----September and October----where you determine whether or not a closer is money. Billy Wagner has proven time-and-time again that he isn't.

    While Carlos Beltran's strikeout to end game 7 is repeatedly blamed for the Mets loss in the NLCS (and Babe Ruth couldn't have hit that pitch, as I repeat ad nauseam), it was Wagner gacking up game 2 that cost the Mets the series.

    It's money saves that put Mariano Rivera at the top of the heap. Nothing else.

• Paul Lebowitz's 2010 Baseball Guide:

• Closer blow-o-rama:

    It's not as if the Braves weren't warned what Billy Wagner is and what he does.

    For the most part, he'll convert his save opportunities with a gack-job sprinkled in here-and-there; but the threat is always there of a blow-up at any moment; and just wait until September when he's guaranteed to blow at least 2-3 imperative games that will cost the Braves a playoff spot. 

    Such was the case yesterday when a superlative performance by Tim Hudson was wasted as Wagner came in to close the victory for the Braves over the Giants in San Francisco and allowed a game-tying 2-run homer to Edgar Renteria with one out in the bottom of the ninth inning. 

    The Giants later won the game in the bottom of the 13th on an infield hit by Aaron Rowand.

    Welcome to Billy Wagner, Atlanta.

    The Wagner failure was just one of three games lost in the late innings by a good idea gone wrong. That good idea is the "one-inning closer". 

    Tony La Russa is widely blamed for the practice with his deployment of Dennis Eckersley in the late-80s and 90s; but the truth is that the use of Eckersley was little more than a cold-blooded and well-reasoned determination on the part of La Russa and pitching coach Dave Duncan that one-inning was the best possible use for Eckersley; it wasn't a cookie-cutter decision designed to remove responsibility from the manager or to have an explanation to reporters of why he did what he did. 

    Such a baseline and intractable template is the type of thing perpetrated by a manager who has neither the competence nor the courage to do what's right rather than what's safe. That is definitely not Tony La Russa.

    Because of the success La Russa had with Eckersley, of course others copied the misunderstood practice. This is another case of forcing players into roles they may not be best suited for. The one thing that La Russa did that should be copied is the defined roles for relievers. Since being a designated closer is now worth big money, pitchers like Wagner want the job; want the gaudy save stat; and want to be the man coming into games at the end. 

    But is that the best way to win games?

    I don't think Yankee fans truly appreciate Mariano Rivera even with the accolades he receives. His value is beyond comprehension because he's not going to be afraid; he doesn't give up many homers; he throws strikes; and he remains calm in the most dire circumstances. 

    The same goes for the Red Sox with Jonathan Papelbon. For the most part, Rivera and Papelbon are going to convert their saves; but because the closer is now such a high-profile position and is so lucratively compensated, they're not going to sign in a venue that doesn't give them the ninth inning regardless of circumstances. 

    Yesterday, both Mike Gonzalez of the Orioles and Trevor Hoffman of the Brewers blew ninth inning leads. Gonzalez's was the second blown save in his first week with the Orioles; Hoffman allowed a 2-out; 2-strike homer to Cardinals pinch hitter Nick Stavinoha to lose the game.

    Gonzalez's resume isn't as impressive as Hoffman's, but Hoffman's had his vast share of big game stumbles throughout his career lending credence to the implication that he doesn't belong in a category with Rivera despite an accummulation of saves. Hoffman has always been more of a John Franco, Billy Wagner and Lee Smith-type than a true "Hall of Fame" closer as he's often described.

    I'm waiting for a team with nothing to lose and some good arms----the Blue Jays?----to take the tack of using the proper pitcher in the situation rather than the designated "ninth inning ace" to close the game. I'm not talking about the Red Sox disastrous attempts at a "bullpen-by-committee" in 2003 when none of the pitchers they used were any good; I'm talking about a team making the conscious decision to do what's strategically correct rather than what's safe.

    For most teams, the closer-by-committee won't work because they can't take the criticism for trying it; nor do they have the pitchers to do the job. The actual designated closer isn't working either and they can't make the change because of big money being paid to the "ace" in the bullpen. I'd like to see someone try it. Just because the Athletics altered the way the game is played in the 90s doesn't mean a manager with guts and a front office who supports him can't change things again.

    It's called evolution and I'm waiting for it to kick in. 

    I think I'll be waiting awhile.

• No reason to panic; reason to be concerned:

    It didn't take long for Yankee fans to have a PTSD-style flashback to 2004 with Javier Vazquez in last night's 9-3 loss to the Rays in Tampa. 

    Vazquez cruised through the first three innings before giving up 3 runs in the fourth; then the wheels came off in the sixth as he allowed another 5 runs. Vazquez's line was about as repugnant as it was (albeit in a less important game) in his last game in a Yankee uniform, the fateful game 7 of the 2004 ALCS against the Red Sox when Johnny Damon hit a grand slam off Vazquez----pitching in relief----to blow the game open.

    I'm on record as saying I wouldn't have brought Vazquez back to the site of his greatest failure. Although supporters cite injuries as the real reason behind Vazquez's atrocious second-half in 2004, there's a widely held whisper-belief throughout baseball (elucidated openly by Ozzie Guillen---who but?) that Vazquez cannot handle pressure.

    This isn't going to be a regular-season issue with the way the Yankees hit and Vazquez's durability. He's going to win his 13-15 games; and probably lose his 10-12 games; the innings are the most important thing for the fourth starter....in the regular season.

    But what's going to happen in the playoffs?

    Are the Yankees going to run the risk of Javier Vazquez in a make-or-break game 4 start if they're in Chicago and facing the White Sox down 2 games to 1? With Guillen and A.J. Pierzynski taunting him from the opposing dugout? Can they trust him?

    There's no reason to worry now; but that doesn't mean they shouldn't have it in the back of their minds that Vazquez cannot handle New York. It's happened before and it'd be ignoring reality to dismiss the thought entirely now, even after only one start.

• Viewer Mail 4.10.2010:

Jane Heller at Confessions of a She-Fan writes RE early season panic:

I think panic is just part of being a fan, no matter what team you root for. Yes, it's silly to freak out after only a few games, but that's what we do. (Well, I guess I should speak for myself.)

    I never panic. I explode, but don't panic. Panicking only makes things worse.

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

Figueroa? Seriously? If anything deserves a "WTF!?!?!" that move certainly does.

    It's not a verifiable and quantifiable aspect, but there are players who I simply do not want around because bad things seem to follow them. Regardless of their possible use (not to imply Nelson Figueroa has use as anything other than filler), they simply have an aura of negativity. Damion Easley was a good guy and power bat off the bench; but he was a member of two teams----the 1995 Angels and 2007 Mets----that utterly collapsed. 

    There have been "good things" players like Dave Henderson; Lenny Dykstra; Eric Hinske; and Jim Leyritz (on the field anyway) who found themselves in advantageous situations to win and produce in big spots.

    You can look at the "bad things" aspect of Figueroa; of Easley; of Vazquez; of Hoffman; and say this is a good enough reason not to keep them around. You could even stick Don Mattingly in there. People will scoff, but I believe it. My advice to the Phillies would be to get rid of Nelson Figueroa as quickly as possible.

• Paul Lebowitz's 2010 Baseball Guide:

    My book is available on Amazon and I-Universe in paperback and E-book. And now on Barnes and Noble.com.

• Mets fans are already on suicide watch:

    Since the 2007 collapse and the downward spiral of negativity and performance on and off the field that followed, Mets fans have been on the edge of their seats waiting for terrible things to happen. Like the proverbial hapless loser. there's always this faint hope that things will change; that the other shoe won't drop; that the occasionally ludicrous accidents of happenstance won't reinforce the aura of "only the Mets". 

    It's to the point where it's not even taken as a badge of honor to be a Mets fan; to be a convenient target for the cheap shot artists; to be so battered down by the endless ridicule that it can't even be taken as a joke anymore. The Cubs fans and for years, Red Sox fans, seemed to take pride in their ability to whine and complain that they were snakebit. Like a secondary benefit, they identified with their appellation of "loser". Reveling in that cocoon as a shield for the pain that comes from losing year-after-year as a defense mechanism to accept and handle pain.

    Already, three games into the season----two losses----it's starting.

    But unlike the Cubs fans or Red Sox fans from the years before 2004, there's hope. Every time something good happens, you can cut through the fear of more pain and disappointment like a machete slashing through the thick brush of a rainforest, only to see the quivering and agony that's accompanied the accidents of circumstance and errors that have cost the Mets since that fateful month of September, 2007.

    It's three games into the season.

    As shaky as certain aspects have looked----specifically John Maine and some of the relief pitching----have things gone that terribly? So terribly for fans to already by savaging the club after three games?

    The team showed fight in the game 2 loss; and last night they received a gutty and solid performance from rookie Jonathon Niese against a Marlins lineup that can bash. The only way to tell what's going to result from the bullpen will be in retrospect; bullpens that are built on a lot of big, expensive names (aside from the necessary closer) never work. The lineup will get one boost this weekend when Jose Reyes returns; and another in a month when Carlos Beltran gets back.

    If the Mets were in the American League East or National League West, there'd be legitimate reason to panic. They're not. They're in a division with a team in the defending NL champion Phillies are scrambling so desperately for pitching that they signed the less-than-mediocre journeyman Nelson Figueroa and are dealing with the veterans wondering why Cliff Lee was traded (more on this follows). The Braves biggest issues are their offense and injury histories of Troy Glaus and Chipper Jones; and Jones is now out with a strained oblique; the Marlins have bullpen issues and a rotten defense; the Nationals are terrible.

    The NL East is wide open.

    The reluctance to have any faith is understandable; but misplaced.

    They've played three games.

• Jimmy Rollins speaks for the Phillies' veterans:

    Like him or not, Phillies shortstop Jimmy Rollins speaks his mind. In an era where generic quotes are the norm in an effort to self-protect, at least he answers when he's asked a question. Not everyone has the confidence to speak their mind; nor do they have the fortitude to accept the fallout for saying what they believe. Like another despised rabble-rouser----Curt Schilling----you're going to get something from Rollins when he speaks.

    Also much like Schilling, Rollins questioned the wisdom of the Phillies trading Cliff Lee rather than keeping him to form a devastating duo at the top of their starting rotation with Roy Halladay.

    In an appearance on Dan Patrick's radio show, Rollins openly wondered what the thought process was in trading Lee----Story.

    Clearly speaking for the entirety of Phillies veterans----Ryan Howard; Chase Utley; Jayson Werth; Raul Ibanez----Rollins said the following regarding the trade of Lee:

"That, I have no idea," Rollins told Patrick. "I'm sure we could afford him. We turned nearly four million people through the turnstiles last year. I don't know. You should have [Phillies general manager] Ruben [Amaro Jr.] on here.

"When the trade happened, I actually got a text from Jayson Werth and he was like, 'What are we doing?' And I was like, 'Didn't we get Halladay?' And he was like, 'Yeah, but we traded Lee.' And my mouth dropped like, 'That wasn't part of the deal.' I really don't know. I thought we had enough to keep him. I thought we could have done enough to keep him. I guess that's just a move the Yankees do. ... That's just the truth. The Yankees would have been like, 'Hey, we got a chance to keep both of them. We'll pay them both for a year or two and we got a chance to win a championship.'"

    The Phillies veterans are all past 30. 

    I said months ago that the trade wasn't just a mistake; but that the players that make up the core of the championship club couldn't care a whit about what the club's going to look like in 2013. 

    They don't have any interest in securing the future with the centerpiece of a deal that was a Double A closer who may or may not make it. 

    While they're still in their primes; while Utley is still one of the top 5 pure hitters in baseball; while Ibanez has something left; while Werth is still with the club for this year at least, the deal...made...no....sense.

    Add in that the Phillies starting rotation behind Halladay is a disaster zone that's not much better than that of the ridiculed Mets; that their bullpen is atrocious, and this has all the makings of an implosion by June if they're slumping; short of starting pitching; and battling for a playoff spot that had no business being in jeopardy; no possibility of being in question had they kept Lee. 

    GM Ruben Amaro is growing flustered at the repeated questioning of his decision; and with that  now emanating from inside his own clubhouse, you have to wonder about his leadership. The Lee trade was bad enough; but the failure to address the bullpen; the leak from somewhere inside the organization of a proposed Ryan Howard for Albert Pujols trade; and now Rollins expressing the view of the teammates he represents, it won't be long before Amaro is under heavy fire from all directions.

    He's shown little ability to deal with it so far. 

    And it's going to get worse unless they get some pitching from somewhere.

• Viewer Mail 4.9.2010:

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

I watched Carmona pitch... he was all over the place... never looked comfortable... the benefactor of poor weather and timely hitting from his teammates.

And the Sox didn't capitalize as they should have.

    Having not watched the game, I can't judge Carmona's mechanics and stuff, but the line is what it is. From a distance, it appeared as if the White Sox were too patient with him and it cost them. Rumors of Carmona's resurgence are going to be shown as greatly exaggerated and premature.

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

What's wrong with your handwriting? If it's better than the average doctor's, you're just fine.

    I guess you're right; but it does seem a big manic at times. Then again, this is me we're talking about, so manic might be a step up from deranged.

The Brooklyn Trolley Blogger writes RE Tom Seaver and the fastball:

Tom Seaver also said there are 5 outs per game a pitcher has to get in order to win. I digress. It's a great read by you. Maine is another cat who's in for a lot of trouble if his fastball doesn't get above 88 mph. The fastball is a dying art being overtaken by the "miss-able pitch in a fastball motion." Everything works off the fastball. The curveball is almost extinct. The Neo-thinkers have everyone convinced changing speed and location are outdated or no longer good enough. Koufax had 6 types of fastballs; high, low, inside, outside, high and tight and the one right over the plate no one could hit anyway..Marichal, three pitches he threw three different ways. Where's Rube Walker? He'll teach em.

    Games always come down to one or two plays or pitches that determine the outcome. Despite the attempts to blame or credit managers for much of what happens, their jobs are more relegated to handling inter-clubhouse crises; dealing with the media; and making moves that make sense. If a manager brings the right pitcher in for the situation; or makes the correct offensive call and it doesn't work, what was he supposed to do? It's like bringing the closer in for the ninth inning and seeing him blow it; what else was the manager supposed to do?

    A pitcher has to be what he is. For years, many tried to copy Greg Maddux; but for a pitcher with a 95 mph fastball to abandon that in favor of doing what Maddux did is a misapplication of talent; a flaw in strategy. Maddux couldn't pitch like Randy Johnson and vice versa because that's not what they did. 

    It's fine for Hamels to pick the brain of Moyer, but not at the expense of his fastball.

    With Maine, his fastball was short; it looked like he was intentionally trying to back off of trying to throw too hard to increase his command; and he was throwing more breaking pitches and change-ups. I'm iffy on the plan. If he has the 90+ fastball, he has to throw it.

• Podcasts Prince style:

    Check my podcast appearances to hear me say all sorts of stuff.

    First with Sal at SportsFanBuzz. The Podcast links are available here---- Part I and Part II on Friday; then Sunday with Mike Silva at New York Baseball Digest. The link is here: NYBD Podcast. Fast forward to 1 hour and 36 seconds to hear me.

• Paul Lebowitz's 2010 Baseball Guide:

    In case you haven't already, get my book, available on Amazon and I-Universe in paperback and E-book. And now on Barnes and Noble.com as well!!!!

    I don't judge based on the locale in which you make your purchases----it's your preference; but I do judge on whether you buy it or not. Then....I....execute.

• What happened to Cole Hamels's fastball?

    I watched bits and pieces of the Phillies 8-4 win over the horrific Nationals last night and, when watching Cole Hamels, couldn't get the image of former Braves pitcher Steve Avery out of my head.

    For those of you who don't remember Avery, he was supposed to be the best among the Braves big four starters, Greg Maddux, Tom Glavine, John Smoltz and Avery. 

    In the big leagues at 19, Avery had a power fastball; a great change-up; impeccable control; and was post-season money from age 21-23 as the young Braves were in the early stages of their amazing dynasty of the National League East. Then he fell out of favor as he struggled in 1994-1996; and his fastball all but disappeared. 

    If Avery were brought to the big leagues today, under no circumstances would his workload be as heavy as it was; but in the early 90s, not many people were paying that close attention to the minute details that are adhered to today in developing a young pitcher. At the ages of 21-23, Avery threw 210, 233 and 223 innings.

    Mechanical issues plagued him; he fell into manager Bobby Cox's doghouse; and by 1997 was out of Atlanta and throwing almost sidearm for the Red Sox. His fortunes didn't improve in Boston; he bounced to the Reds; had arm surgery; didn't pitch from 2001-2002; attempted a brief comeback with his hometown Detroit Tigers before retiring at 33. 

    I still remember, after the Braves didn't even attempt to re-sign hjim following 1996, then-Mets GM Joe McIlvaine was a guest of Mike Francesa and Chris Russo on The Mike and the Mad Dog Show and responded to the duo's entreaties to sign Avery in a nonplussed tone, "What happened to (Avery's) fastball?"

    His fastball----which had been in the mid-90s in his heyday----was puttering in at somewhere around 80 mph by the end. It's fine for Jamie Moyer at age 47 to be throwing that kind of slop; but when a pitcher is in his 20s? It's a sign of trouble.

    I'm seeing that now with Cole Hamels.

    Hamels's fastball hasn't degenerated to the depths of Avery's, but in watching him last night, he appeared to be trying to pitch like Moyer; not trusting his fastball; and trying to trick hitters. From his brilliance in the post-season of 2008 in which he was the NLCS and World Series MVP, Hamels's stuff has declined drastically. His fastball, which had been around 93 back then, has lost it's pop. He doesn't trust it or he doesn't have it. It's an issue that has to be worrisome to the Phillies.

    Is it because he stopped throwing it?

    Was it the extra work that was necessary in 2008 for the Phillies to win that cost him those critical inches? 

    Is he hurt?

    There's an old adage that Tom Seaver heard from a veteran major leaguer on the way down as Seaver was on the way up (I'm paraphrasing): "You have to throw your fastball or you'll lose it." Perhaps Hamels is relying too heavily on location and not cutting loose.

    Hamels's innings jumped from 132 in 2006; to 183 in 2007; to over 250 in 2008, including the post-season. This isn't to blame anyone from the Phillies for the jump; they needed him to pitch and it was worth it as they won the World Series with the masterful Hamels one of the keys; but last season, he was terrible and frazzled; despite a 14-10 won/lost record, his other numbers were across-the-board bad.

    Where's his fastball?

    He looks like he's trying to navigate his way through games rather than attacking hitters; the Nationals have some players who can hit, but they're an awful team. What's Hamels going to do with the Marlins? The Mets? The Cardinals? The Brewers? The teams that can hit?

    I'm not a slave to the radar gun for any reason other than as a comparison; and Hamels's fastball and confidence are nowhere near where they were two years ago. If the Phillies are concerned about this, they're not letting on; but they have to be. Because there's something missing; and it's Cole Hamels's fastball.

    He'd better find it----pardon the pun----fast.

    If he can.

• Indians 5-White Sox 3:

    I'm curious if we'll hear how the Indians boosters and Fausto Carmona "comeback" theorists are going to spin last night's win over the White Sox as a validation that they're going to be "right".

    We keep hearing suggestions of the Indians being a "surprise" team in the American League. The only surprise for me will be if they don't lose 100 games.

    I didn't see the game, but looking at Carmona's line and I don't see all that much different from the pitcher who's been the right-handed Oliver Perez for the past two years. The line follows:

Innings pitched: 6

Hits: 1

Runs: 3

Earned Runs: 3

Walks: 6

Strikeouts: 1

Home Runs: 1

Pitches: 109; Strikes: 59

    59 strikes and 50 balls? Six walks?

    He's lucky he didn't give up eight runs. 

    It's exactly what he's been doing over the past two years, and nowhere near the "comeback" of Carmona to ace status that was supposed to be the key to an Indians revival. From the line, there's no comeback; no "fixed mechanical issues"; just the same-old, same-old from Carmona.

    If this is what the Indians are going to get, you can completely disregard the twisted reality espoused by those who inexplicably think the Indians are going to be any good this year. They're going to be atrocious; in part because they don't have any pitching as evidenced by Carmona last night.  

• Viewer Mail 4.8.2010:

Joe at Statistician Magician writes RE Marco Scutaro:

Yes, it IS way to early to question whether or not Scutaro is going to succeed in Boston. He made one error. Who knows, he may make 30 this season. But anyone concerned after one error would not being thinking right.

    Did you buy my book yet, Joe?

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

I agree that the Yankees need more than one lefty in the pen. I would have kept Logan, because Marte, despite his very good postseason, scares me.

    I don't understand why they kept Sergio Mitre over Boone Logan. I don't get it. They're going to burn Damaso Marte out by May at this rate. It makes no sense. 

Gabriel (Capo) writes RE a properly constructed bullpen:

I have always thought that a successful bullpen has at least a couple of lefty pitchers, to split the workload.

    I'm an advocate of two lefties in the bullpen even if one isn't particularly good for the mere threat of him being brought into the game. Tony La Russa has always----always, always, always----wanted two lefties out there. He doles out the workload evenly and uses the fact that the possibility is there to mitigate any moves the opposing manager could and would make as a hammer to prevent certain decisions.

    What makes the Yankees decision to keep Mitre over Logan even worse is that Sergio Mitre is awful. If it was a good pitcher they were keeping, there'd be an argument; but it's Sergio Mitre!!!

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

That's the Joba I like watching. As asinine as he acts with his celebratory fist pumping, etc, he sure is entertaining. So I tip my cap.

    The fist pumping is annoying, but I appreciate his talents being deployed properly. I despise players being misused and wasted because of dogmatic and self-serving agendas.

• The Prince on the Podcasts:

    Dig my podcast appearances from this past weekend with Sal at SportsFanBuzz. The Podcast links are available here---- Part I and Part IINew York Baseball Digest. The link is here: NYBD Podcast. Fast forward to 1 hour and 36 seconds to hear me. on Friday; then Sunday with Mike Silva at

• Paul Lebowitz's 2010 Baseball Guide:

    I was dedicating and signing a few copies yesterday and examining my handwriting disturbed even me! If I was looking at my handwriting as if it were penned by someone else, I'd think I was a psychopath. If one realizes this, does that imply that they're totally sane?

    Discuss.

    Check out the book anyway----still available on Amazon and available on I-Universe in paperback and E-book.

• How's that 'hopey-changey' thing workin' out for 'ya?

    I extend my sincerest thanks to the former Governor of Alaska; former Vice Presidential candidate and noted uneducated lunatic----Sarah Palin----for the above affectation in attempt to criticize that which she has neither the capacity nor the desire to understand.

    The only way for the Red Sox new focus on pitching and defense to work is if they actually get some pitching and defense. 

    Marco Scutaro's error in the eighth inning on Derek Jeter's grounder kept the rally alive for the Yankees and was followed by Nick Johnson working a bases loaded walk to give the Yankees a 5-4 lead.

    It's too early to start criticizing the newfound emphasis on pitching and defense for the Red Sox as having "failed" after one game in which a lack of defense cost them; but it's not too early to question whether Scutaro, a journeyman player who got paid based on his career year at age 33, is going to be the latest in a long line of Red Sox shortstop imports to falter.

    After the way Edgar Renteria and Julio Lugo were miserable and unable to handle the Boston pressure, it's not too early to wonder as a pre-season question if Scutaro is the answer at the position. He's average defensively and regardless of the range exhibited by Adrian Beltre, the Red Sox are going to need Scutaro to at least make the routine plays.

    Last night he didn't and it was the first failure of the move to pitching and defense.

• Joe Girardi's bullpen management:

    As the likes of Jeff Torborg have proven with their litany of failures as a push-button manager who makes pitching changes to have an answer to reporters after the game rather than because they're the right decisions, you can't become Tony La Russa by trying to copy the La Russa playbook of mixing and matching his pitchers to hitters.

    Yankees manager Joe Girardi is feeling his way through the bullpen roles early in the season as he tried Dave Robertson as the eighth inning man before playing lefty-lefty with the soon-to-be-overworked and achy Damaso Marte. After Marte, he turned to Joba Chamberlain who looked close to the dominating force-of-nature he was in 2007 as a nuclear weapon out of the bullpen for then-manager Joe Torre.

    It's hard to criticize Girardi for giving several different pitchers like Robertson (with a massive strikeout/innings pitched ratio of 63/43 last season) to see if someone emerges into the job. Chamberlain shouldn't be handed the role even though he's eventually going to seize it if he's left alone.

    The one problem the club is going to have is Marte.

    With only one lefty out there; and the Red Sox with J.D. Drew and David Ortiz; the Rays with Carlos Pena and Carl Crawford, Marte's going to get overused very quickly. Whether or not it was Girardi's decision to keep the useless Sergio Mitre over Boone Logan or Royce Ring is unknown, but eventually it's going to be a problem as the season moves along.

• Viewer Mail 4.7.2010:

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

I only saw highlights of Heyward's debut, but he looked way scary. The analysts compared his swing to Winfield's but I see Strawberry's in there too.

    No one's denying his ability; but we've seen the pressure/hype-machine sabotage so many superlative talents that the Braves are doing a disservice to his development whether he lives up to it or not.

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

I have said it over and over, time and time again: Carlos Zambrano is NOT an ace, and the Cubs deserve to be ridiculed for paying him as if he were an ace.

HE'S NOT!

Halladay is an ace. Beckett, an ace. Carpenter, an ace.

Carlos? An ass.

    No matter how great a talent a player is, eventually he does have to put it together on the field. A great start here and there amid a morass of mediocrity and----like Monday----nauseating performances have to be taken for what they are. Zambrano's never going to live up to that contract; nor be an ace until he makes necessary alterations. I'm beginning to believe that he needs a change-of-scenery and I'm sure the Cubs and their fans would love to oblige.

    On another note, Jeff gave me a glowing review of my book in his most recent posting. He's a loyal soldier, but an honest one, so you should believe his positive reaction. 

Franklin at Bravesbloggerinlawschool writes RE Jason Heyward, Jeff Francoeur and Jordan Schafer (the comment is redacted; see the whole thing here):

The cases of Schafer, Francouer and Heyward are all pretty different. Schafer is the most obviously different. There is this perception that won't go away that Schafer folded under the pressure of expectations. That's not remotely true. He... Broke... His... Wrist. Which is kinda, sorta important for swinging a bat.

Francouer was always more a product of the outside media than the inside media. He had a great smile, looked like a baeball player and was popular with the hometown fans, especially the females. Maybe the Braves rode this a little bit at times, but they were never the ones putting it out there.

Finally I'm not worried about Heyward's mental approach to the game. From all reports, he's as solid mentally as they come, very much like Tommy Hanson.

    Are you still in law school, Franklin? Are you on my college graduation plan of 1989-2005 with breaks and school changes?

    Schafer didn't have a broken wrist as is repeatedly alleged. He had a spur and two small bones were linked during the surgery----story. That said, it's a fair point with him; he does deserve a clean slate if he was injured, especially to the all-important wrist. 

    With Francoeur, the Braves were heavily immersed in the media love affair with him. They did nothing to curtail his free swinging ways and dumped on him when the struggled. His fall from grace was more the fault of the club than anything the media and Francoeur did or didn't do. You can't play a prospect up as the next coming----whether or not they believed it----and then abuse him when he fails. If Francoeur's hacking away wasn't an issue when he was doing well; when the club was getting use from him; his charm; his enthusiasm and his looks, then it shouldn't have been a problem when he stumbled. They battered him to the point where he didn't know whether he was coming or going and this spurred his departure. It's a bit of revisionist history/excuses to absolve them of responsibility in his downfall.

    With Heyward, you can't possibly say that he's going to be able to handle the pressure being heaped on him until after the fact. Rather than place him in a cocoon and nurture his talent to maximize it under as small a microscope as possible, they've put a 20-year-old in the position where he's got to produce and carry the team. It might work, but it's still a mistake.

    There are baseline strategies to developing a player and the Braves are making the same error again and again.

Joe Campise writes RE Jorge Posada: 

As an ex-pitcher Jorge Posada drives me crazy behind the plate.  He misses pitches that are very catchable and he doesnt call a good game. Whats your take?

    Every pitcher has his preferences. I liked to think as little as possible when I was pitching so I generally threw whatever sign I received. That was a long time ago. I can understand both sides of the argument that Posada is hard-headed and stubborn; and the pitchers would prefer to deal with someone who listens to them.

    Veteran pitchers coming from other organizations----C.C. Sabathia; A.J. Burnett----do have a right to tell the catcher that they want a say in the game-calling. I can't criticize Posada given the fact that he's got all that championship jewelry as a starting catcher. The big problem with the veteran imports is that they didn't grow up with Posada as Andy Pettitte did; they can't come to a meeting of the minds with him because he's so temperamental.

    In the end, that comes down to the manager. Girardi should've sat Burnett and Posada down and gotten them on the same page, and he never did.

John Jones at Jonestein writes RE the Texas Rangers:

Hey Prince,

Just discovered your site via RSBS.  Your assessment of the Rangers is right on the money, IMHO.  As you said in an earlier entry, so many head-scratching moves in the off-season, plus, I'm beginning to think Hamilton is made of paper mâché.   As far as Wash goes, I've been saying all along that new "hitting coach" Clint Hurdle was hired specifically to step in once the Rangers inevitably start to slip in 2010...we'll see how that goes.

Anyway, you have a new blog-stalker, looking forward to reading you this season.

    Welcome aboard, John. You'll find two things with me: A) you never know what you're gonna get; and B) at least it's interesting.

    It was inexplicable what Daniels did with Kevin Millwood-Rich Harden; with C.J. Wilson; and the entire Ron Washington nightmare. I hadn't thought of Hurdle as the manager-in-waiting, but he's competent and a disciplinarian to get in the face of the young players if they step out-of-line. 

    It's hard to know how much Daniels has to do with some of these calls. It's widely known that he wanted to hire Don Wakamatsu as the manager instead of Washington, but was overruled; then he spearheaded the rebuilding of the club to contender status with masterful trades; and followed that up with the odd winter of 2009-2010. What he does if things spiral out of control on and off the field will be a window into the thought process----until it changes again.

• The Prince on the Podcasts:

    Check out my appearances from this past weekend with Sal at SportsFanBuzz. The Podcast links are available here---- Part I and Part II on Friday; then Sunday with Mike Silva at New York Baseball Digest. The link is here: NYBD Podcast. Fast forward to 1 hour and 36 seconds to hear me.

• Paul Lebowitz's 2010 Baseball Guide:

• Um, sorry Victor?

    If you heard my podcast appearance of Friday with Sal at SportsFanBuzz and listened to Part II discussing the National League (here's Part I on the AL), you may or may not remember me mistakenly referring to Cubs pitcher Carlos Zambrano as Victor Zambrano. Considering the perceived abilities and careers of the two pitchers, it was an on-the-surface insult to Carlos Zambrano----or maybe it wasn't.

    My mistake may have been an insult to Victor because after Carlos's odious performance against the Braves yesterday, he might actually be worse than Victor.

    Here's the line----and it may be more of a terrifying horror film than the upcoming re-make of A Nightmare on Elm Street starring Jackie Earle Haley (Kelly Leak in The Bad News Bears, enjoying a career resurgence in middle-age). Freddy Krueger himself would've been mortified by Carlos yesterday.

    Avert your eyes if you're weak of heart/stomach.

Innings pitched: 1 1/3

Hits: 6

Runs: 8

Earned runs: 8

Walks: 2

Strikeouts: 1

Home runs allowed: 2

Pitches: 49; Strikes: 28

    This is an Oliver Perez/Fausto Carmona-type performance for a pitcher who's owed a guaranteed $53 million and has the stuff to win 22 games.

    How Cubs manager Lou Piniella keeps from attacking Zambrano as he did with Rob Dibble years ago and appeared at times to want to do with Randy Johnson is beyond me. I can only shake my head at Carlos Zambrano. Usually there's an obvious reason for a pitcher's struggles; but with this pitcher, I haven't the faintest idea what's wrong with him. 

    In the past he's lacked focus; concentration; location; been unable to control his temper; hasn't been in shape----or all of the above. It's one thing to get rocked----it's opening day; in the cosmic scheme of things it's essentially meaningless----but to be thoroughly non-competitive and deliver a line that I could've provided at age 38 and with a giant bone chip in my elbow and having not picked up a baseball and thrown it competitively in 16 years, is panic-inducing for the Cubs.

    What makes it worse was his supposed dedication to being ready for 2010. Last season, Carlos was counted on to be the ace of a Cubs team in flux; he got injured and was admittedly out of shape and lapsed on his rehabilitation. He was a major part of the Cubs fall to also-ran status as he went 9-7 in 28 starts.

    As trade rumors swirled around him this past winter, he insisted he wanted to stay with the Cubs; that he wanted to redeem himself. 

    Then he pitched on opening day.

    Of course there's time to turn things around. Carlos has the stuff to be a winner; but then again so do Oliver Perez and Fausto Carmona; and so too did Victor Zambrano, as a matter of fact.

    Stuff doesn't always translate into success; and unless Carlos truly gets his head together and makes the required changes, things are only going to get worse. 

    If that's possible after what happened yesterday; and it may not be.

• Jayson Heyward's explosive debut:

    Prized and impressive prospect Jayson Heyward homered in his first big league at bat for the Braves yesterday and only increased the intensity of coverage that will follow him around. 

    The 20-year-old has mega-star potential; and he's done nothing to dissuade observers from buying into the hype that's included comparisons to Willie Mays. 

    It's still smart to tone it down a little.

    Putting someone on such a high pedestal is a very difficult thing to live up to and maintain; Heyward is from the Atlanta area; is a worshipped entity even before his big league career has started in earnest; and is seen as a savior for a club that desperately needs him to hit if they want to seriously contend. 

    We've seen the hype machine from the Braves before with Jeff Francoeur and Jordan Schafer and both were nearly run out of town when they showed themselves to be human. Heyward is far more talented than both; but that doesn't mean he's not going to have adversity as he makes his way around the league. One would think the club and town had learned their lesson; but judging from the way Heyward has been played up as the next Hall of Fame-caliber player, they haven't.

    It's an invitation to a downfall no matter how gifted the player is.

• Josh Beckett agrees to a contract extension with the Red Sox:

    Now I'm annoyed.

    Already one of my predictions in my book has been proven wrong with Beckett agreeing to a 4-year, $68 million contract extension with the Red Sox----ESPN Story.

    I felt that Beckett was going to want to explore free agency and go after a contract comparable in dollars and length to what C.C. Sabathia got from the Yankees. Even in this economy, it's not absurd to think that Beckett could've gotten an extra 3-4 years in a contract from a big market team like the Mets, Angels or Dodgers. Given his durability and reputation as a post-season ace (he's one of the best big game pitchers I've ever seen), he could've gotten more money.

    Instead, he signed with the Red Sox for four more years.

    This is an interesting decision by the club.

    In years past, the Red Sox have been reluctant to commit so many guaranteed dollars to pitchers. So many things can go wrong with a pitcher that they did have an argument for refusing to dig so deeply into the coffers for pitching. Now, they've locked up John Lackey; Jon Lester; and Beckett for the next four years. Lackey and Beckett are both 30, so it's a risk; Lackey especially has had arm trouble. Only time will tell whether this was the smart move; but it was a meeting in the middle by both the club and the pitcher.

• The Prince on the Podcasts:

    In case you missed them, I was a guest on two podcasts this past weekend.

    First, I was on with Sal at SportsFanBuzz. The Podcast links are available here---- Part I and Part II on Friday; then Sunday with Mike Silva at New York Baseball Digest. The link is here: NYBD Podcast. Fast forward to 1 hour and 36 seconds to hear my "sexy rasp" and baseball talk that some would love to hear all...day...long. (Not my words.)

• Paul Lebowitz's 2010 Baseball Guide:

• Thus ends the pre-season stories to watch...or does it?

    Just when you thought it was over, the man who brought you the 2010 Stories To Watch eleven times before...brings them to you.....again....

    Here are the final pre-season (even though it's technically not anymore) Stories to To Watch for 2010.

Cliff Lee's injury:

    With the Mariners being as top-heavy as they are and relying on Cliff Lee as the centerpiece for their intention to contend (or as an inordinately valuable trade chip if they don't), the one thing I don't believe anyone counted on was Lee getting hurt again. He had an abdominal injury that sabotaged his season in 2007 with the Indians and he pitched so poorly when he returned that he wound up back in the minors.

    After the Cy Young Award winning season in 2008 and his brilliance last season in the playoffs, it was believed that his dedication to fitness would prevent this from happening again; but now he's started the season on the disabled list for the Mariners and it's not like a hamstring or calf; abdominals are tricky and were an issue beforehand.

    I know I've discussed this before, but now he's actually on the disabled list. If the Mariners----top heavy and attached to the required greatness of Lee and Felix Hernandez to contend----are in deep trouble without Lee. 

The collapsing world of Billy Beane:

    How many more passes is Athletics boss Billy Beane going to get? 

    I can't stop asking because no one seems willing to give me a sensible response. 

    The Jack Cust mess has been baffling from the time Beane resurrected Cust's flagging career until now. Cust----a former first round pick of the Arizona Diamondbacks in 1997 who bounced from the Diamondbacks; to the Rockies; to the Orioles; to the Padres, before joining the Athletics---failed in part because he didn't produce when he was in the big leagues and in part because he never got a fair shot until he got to Oakland. 

    Beane deserves credit for that. In fact, this type of maneuver----the low-risk/high-reward of players who were out of chances----was a huge part of the Beane legend. With Cust, however, it came down to a case of diminishing returns. Despite being inexpensive and developing into a "known" quantity from whom a team would pencil in what they're going to get (homers and walks), when Beane cleared out the veterans Dan Haren and Nick Swisher, it made sense for him to move Cust as well. Cust was never going to be more than what he was; and there was always a chance for regression.

    Instead, Beane held onto him.

    Then after last season, Cust was due for a big raise and Beane non-tendered him only to re-sign him at a cheaper rate. Again, at least the A's knew what they were getting----until Beane cut Cust last week. Now, rather than getting the production at the big league level, the A's are going to be paying Cust $2.65 million to be Triple A insurance and won't get anything for him in a trade. 

    The players like Cust; like Eric Chavez have had enough of Beane's self-serving and floating machinations. Having treated anyone and everyone as if they're disposable entities, either on the bus or under it, the scrutiny is growing.

    I'm on the record as saying that Beane's star is reaching white dwarf status; that his time in Oakland is drawing to a close. Admittedly, I thought it wouldn't begin until the season was in full swing. Even with the bizarre signing of Ben Sheets; the haphazard and desperate construction of a team that is inexplicably expected to contend in certain circles; I didn't see it starting this quickly.

    The Cust move is another thread in the unraveling.

    If this were Dayton Moore or Omar Minaya making these decisions, what would be said? 

    If the A's get off to a bad start, this is going dismantle piece-by-piece like a plummeting satellite; and it's gonna be an event that's painful to watch, but too fascinating to look away.

The Mets:

    Bottom line, if the Mets get off to a bad start, ownership isn't going to be able to withstand the barrage that's going to accompany it.

    After a horrific 2009; a shaky off-season; and relentless abuse that went so far over-the-top that it was absurd, the Wilpons can't sit by and let things spiral without doing something. Whether that would be to fire manager Jerry Manuel or both he and GM Omar Minaya is the question.

    My guess would be that Manuel would be the first to go to see if a switch to Bobby Valentine or Bob Melvin would spark an awakening. After that, Minaya would be next. (And don't expect any big name taking over. It'd be John Ricco and only John Ricco taking over as GM.) Expectations in almost all circles are so low that the Mets could play under-the-radar in a similar way as they did in Valentine's first year in 1997.

    They got off to a bad start; Valentine stayed positive; kept working hard; and before anyone knew it, they looked up and saw the Mets in the middle of the pennant race until late in the season.

    If they hold their heads above water until Jose Reyes and Carlos Beltran return, the management team should be safe.

    Maybe.

The Phillies bullpen:

    Who's closing?

    Ryan Madson?

    Danys Baez?

    Those lusting after the Phillies and uttering the ridiculous "100 wins" mantra are ignoring that horrible bullpen. As much as it can be denied, the club did not address their weaknesses this off-season. Period.

    They needed pitching help.

    Danys Baez is okay as a 7th inning man; Jose Contreras isn't. They can't expect the Chad Durbin from 2008 ever again; and Brad Lidge is having physical issues to go with his general mental/confidence problems. J.C. Romero looks like he's going to have recurrent aches and pains with his arm. Now, Joe Blanton is on the disabled list with an oblique strain.

    They're looking at Tim Redding and Nelson Figueroa.

    That says it all. 

Scott Kazmir:

    Wouldn't it a be a kick----six years after the fact----if Rick Peterson was right about Scott Kazmir? That his motion is too stressful and his bone structure too frail to be a long-term durable innings-eater?

    In every start the lefty is at risk for getting hurt. This is not, under any circumstances, defending the Mets idiotic decision to trade Kazmir for Victor Zambrano in 2004; in fact, it's conceivable that had they held onto Kazmir, they could've packaged him to the Athletics for Tim Hudson after the season or later.

    The deal is what it is; but we can separate the reason for making the move with the move itself.

    As dominating as Kazmir can be, he's always an injury-risk. Always.

    The Angels have never shied away from pitchers with funky motions (Jered Weaver); or small frames (Ervin Santana); and they made a bold move for Kazmir. I can't get away from the feeling that he needs to be a closer; that he's never going to be able to start long-term. This latest trip to the disabled list might be evidence of that.

The Rangers:

    Talk about needing to get off to a good start.

    With the Ron Washington cocaine disaster seeming to have died down a little, they must-must-must-must get off to a good start. The worst possible scenario for the Rangers is to have Rich Harden walk off the mound with a strained...something in the third inning tomorrow. Plus with C.J. Wilson, a reliever, being inserted into the starting rotation, there could be trouble in Texas sooner rather than later.

    Washington's demise will be facilitated by a bad start; and it would take the team off the hook from any allegations of blackmail as the reason for keeping him on after the positive cocaine test last year. There's always the excuse of "the team wasn't playing well" to get rid of the manager.

    It would be the best thing for them.

Joba:

    Of course, after one appearance, the debate of Joba Chamberlain is going to start up again.

    Much was said about Chamberlain's shaky performance last night; but what I liked was his improved demeanor. His velocity was down in the low-90s, but it's early in the season. Not something to discount entirely because one would think he'd be fired up for opening night in Boston, it's not a concern yet. If it continues into the season, it might be something to worry about. (Could he be demoted?!?)

    That said, I liked his swagger; that he appeared more confident relieving. The problem was location more than stuff. One thing the Yankees cannot do is to jerk him around more than they already have by panicking if he stumbles a bit in the transition back to the bullpen.

    But I think they will.

    It's history talking.

    Not me.

• Viewer Mail 4.5.2010:

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

You really do like those White Sox. Guess I'd better take another look at them.

    They're really, really good. Dunno if I should be concerned that Ken Rosenthal apparently picked them as well, but I made my call first. I'll live with it.

John Seal (West Coast Spiritual Advisor) writes RE Billy Beane and Jack Cust:

As you can imagine, I'm on a real Jack Cust-inspired emotional rollercoaster. The season hasn't even begun, and my favorite brainless slugger has been DFA'd...help me, Prince, help me...I'm having nightmares about the zombie corpse of Eric Chavez shuffling its way to first base...

    It's insanity what they're doing over there. 

    As an somewhat objective observer (although I love being right), the best case scenario for the A's at this point would be for everything to implode. Then they can move forward. I don't think you need to worry about Eric Chavez; he'll be shuffling to the disabled list shortly after completing the shuffle to first base or third base or to the urinal.

    When are you getting on Twitter, John? The Family is growing, but I need more management-type reinforcements. I'm still working on that psychopath in Arizona with an offer of control of his own fiefdom (partially because I need to distance myself from what he might do and believe it or not, he's more unstable than I am); and the Canadian pimpmaster. 

    It's lucrative for all!!!

• The hypnotic sound of my voice:

    My podcast appearances are available for your listening pleasure. Or anger. Or hatred. Or rage. Or lust. Or all of the above.

    First, I was on with Sal at SportsFanBuzz. The Podcast links are available here---- Part I and Part II on Friday; then yesterday with Mike Silva at New York Baseball Digest for his Podcast. The link is here: NYBD Podcast. Fast forward to 1 hour and 36 seconds if you quite literally can't wait to hear me. 

• Paul Lebowitz's 2010 Baseball Guide:
  

    My book is available, has been slightly marked down on Amazon and available on I-Universe in paperback and E-book. It's moving quite well it seems. 

    No, I'm not saying that as if I'm shocked.

• Playtime's over:

    With the season about to start, here are my final pre-season predictions for the 2010 season. I'm going to repeat the division winners (in-depth analysis is available in prior postings) along with the previously published National League Award winners; and the unpublished American League Award winners; and of course, the post-season predictions and World Series winner.

• National League Playoff Teams:

NL East: New York Mets

NL Central: St. Louis Cardinals

NL West: Los Angeles Dodgers

Wild Card Winner: San Francisco Giants

NL Playoff Predictions:

NLDS: Los Angeles Dodgers vs New York Mets

Dodgers in Five

NLDS: San Francisco Giants vs St. Louis Cardinals

Cardinals in Four.

NLCS: Los Angeles Dodgers vs St. Louis Cardinals

Cardinals in Seven.

NATIONAL LEAGUE CHAMPIONS: ST. LOUIS CARDINALS

• American League Playoff Teams:

AL East: New York Yankees

AL Central: Chicago White Sox

AL West: Los Angeles Angels

AL Wild Card Winner: Minnesota Twins

AL Playoff Predictions:

ALDS: Minnesota Twins vs New York Yankees

Yankees in Four

ALDS: Los Angeles Angels vs Chicago White Sox

White Sox in Three

ALCS: Chicago White Sox vs New York Yankees

White Sox in Seven

AMERICAN LEAGUE CHAMPIONS: CHICAGO WHITE SOX

• 2010 WORLD SERIES:

ST. LOUIS CARDINALS VS CHICAGO WHITE SOX

WHITE SOX IN SEVEN

2010 WORLD SERIES WINNER: CHICAGO WHITE SOX

• National League Award Winners:

NL MVP: Jose Reyes, SS--New York Mets

    I made the selection before Reyes had the thyroid issue and as he was slated to bat third in the Mets lineup. Now, he's scheduled to be back by next week and it's still undetermined where he's going to bat. I'll stick with the pick in the hopes that something similar to last year happens as I picked Alex Rodriguez; ARod got hurt; and the Yankees won the World Series.

    Scoffing at the thought that Reyes is an MVP candidate is absurd; if he's healthy, he's still one of the most dynamic players in all of baseball and is absolutely a viable MVP candidate.

NL Cy Young Award: Clayton Kershaw, LHP--Los Angeles Dodgers

    The shackles are being removed from Kershaw and he's primed to explode into mega-star status. I'm talking about 20+ wins, and close to 300 strikeouts.

    With a power fastball and devastating curve, Kershaw has the stuff; poise; and charisma to blow up the National League.

NL Rookie of the Year: Madison Bumgarner, LHP--San Francisco Giants

    Picking the Rookie of the Year is always a guess more than any other award and Bumgarner ruined my aesthetic by getting rocked in spring training and sent to the minors. Given how he devastated the minor leagues on the way up, a little adversity won't hurt him and he'll be heard from this season.

NL Manager of the Year: Jerry Manuel, New York Mets

    If the Mets play poorly, Manuel will get the blame and be fired; presumably along with GM Omar Minaya. If they play well, Manuel will get the credit for "overachieving" with a team that, if you look at their roster objectively, is quite formidable if they're healthy.

• American League Award Winners:

AL MVP: Joe Mauer, C--Minnesota Twins

    This is a bit of a cop out pick given how superlative Mauer is; how important he is to the Twins. A Gold Glove catcher; who can do everything at the plate; and is a leader in the clubhouse; looking to have a big year just as he signed a long-term contract extension. But Mauer is a hitting machine; and I'm waiting for him to hit for more power and contend for the Triple Crown.

AL Cy Young Award: Jake Peavy, RHP--Chicago White Sox

    With Peavy's horrible and stressful motion, the injury risk is always a factor; but he's looked healthy and terrific this spring and, playing on a legitimate title contender, is a possible Triple Crown pitching winner. When he's on and healthy, Peavy is devastating and he'll lead the White Sox with his power stuff.

AL Rookie of the Year: Scott Sizemore, 2B--Detroit Tigers

    Sizemore is getting a chance to play with the departure of Placido Polanco and has put up fine numbers in the minor leagues. That's not always the best way to gauge a player of course, but Sizemore is a solid pick for the award.

AL Manager of the Year: Ozzie Guillen--Chicago White Sox

    Amid all the lunacy; controversy; and indecipherable stream of consciousness rants, it's easily lost on what a good manager Ozzie Guillen is strategically. He creates messes himself with his outspoken nature, but the White Sox are a legitimate title contender and part of the reason is Guillen.

• The Athletics/Jack Cust merry-go-round:

    Billy Beane is losing it.

    First he turns the success of a first round, journeyman bust like Jack Cust (poetry!!!) into a useful power hitter from whom at least you know you're going to get power and walks, if a load of strikeouts and a horrific glove; then it becomes a negative as he should've traded Cust at his high value when he was clearing out the house in the past several years. 

    After that, he non-tenders Cust this past off-season; re-signs him at a lower rate rather than go after the more useful Jim Thome; and now, the A's have designated Cust for assignment with the apparent intent of trying to use some combination of Travis Buck, Jake Fox and....Eric Chavez (for as long as his body stays patched together----good luck) as the DH. 

    What a mess. Cust will probably clear waivers, but add this to the list of black marks against Billy Beane as he becomes more and more human as the Moneyball hangover wears off.

• ESPN hires Curt Schilling as an analyst:

    Naturally, someone as outspoken and controversial (and with as many ridiculous things to say as Curt Schlling on any and all subjects) would be met with derision; but I think it's a great idea. Along with the hiring of the explosive and temperamental J.P. Ricciardi, ESPN has some people that are going to say something rather than spout the company line and worry about the feelings of friends and acquaintances in baseball. 

    I think it's great.

    No matter whether you agree with what they say, like or dislike them personally for team allegiance reasons or whatever else, you have to admit when someone's interesting and willing to speak out regardless of consequences and that is what Schilling does. 

• Viewer Mail 4.4.2010:

Gabriel (Capo) writes RE the Blue Jays, Curt Schilling and me:

My hopes are on the Blue Jays being not that bad.

On the Schilling alliance, I'd advise against it. See how things worked out for the Republic once they gave Palpatine absolute powers. Then again, maybe YOU are Palpatine.

    The Blue Jays won't be that bad. 

    Don't you trust the leader of the Family, Gabriel, to do what's best? At the very least, under Emperor Palpatine (and me) things are efficient! 

Jane Heller at Confessions of a She-Fan writes RE the Yankees and Red Sox:

All I can say is I sure do like your prediction for the Yankees. I see the Red Sox as more of a threat than you do, but that could just be my normal paranoia.

    Trust me, I understand paranoia. 

    I'm a Mets fan and a borderline psychotic (or so I'm told). 

PairFace writes RE the Mets, the Phillies and me in a redacted comment (click here to get the whole thing):

Sorry fanboy, I have to call it like I see it. If you noticed, I haven't said one word about the Phils. But since you mentioned them, they are coming off 2 NL pennants, and added the most dominant RH starter in baseball. I don't see how they drop to 82 wins anymore than I see the Mets rising to 91. You cite the bullpen as a problem. But the bullpen was a problem last year (17 blown saves) and they still won 93 games and went to the World Series.

As for Reyes...you can't win the MVP from the DL. He'll need rehab time. And once he's back in the lineup, it will take some time to get into playing shape. That could run into May. How far will he be behind the other MVP candidates at that point?

Being a Mets fan, I would understand if you wanted to throw your team a bone by picking ONE of those things to happen. But for a team that's coming into the season already banged up, having all kinds of questions with starting pitchers not named Santana, and a front office that is completely inept from the ownership down, there's simply NO WAY a sane person could come to the conclusions you did, even if you turn out to be right.

    I'm getting a Mark David Chapman vibe from you especially considering you're on my sites with such a frequency that it's bordering on disturbing. 

    You can call me names. I really don't care. It reflects on you and I don't have to resort to such things to bat down the shoddy and scattershot arguments you present. I have no idea what the "pairface" name implies, but if the second part of the "pair" is smarter than you, I suggest you call on him (or her).

    You call it like you see it. The problem is that you don't know what you're talking about. The way to attack and off-season is to either bolster strengths or address weaknesses. The Phillies did neither. Their bullpen is worse than it was last year. Way worse. The back of the rotation is also worse. The lineup is similar aside from Jayson Werth----under no circumstances----being able to repeat last season's career year. The Halladay trade was a lateral move that depleted the farm system even further. 

    Reyes will be back by the weekend. Where are you getting May? And have you ever heard of Joe Mauer? (Missed the first month of 2009, won the MVP.) C.C. Sabathia? (Traded to the Brewers at mid-season, 2008, and contended for the CYA.) Chris Carpenter? (Missed the first month of last season, finished 2nd in the NL CYA voting.) Rick Sutcliffe? (Traded to the Cubs at mid-season 1984 and won the CYA.) 

    I find it funny that you're trying to hedge your bets in such a transparent way by playing both sides (I see the "pairface" reference now) and leaving wiggle room if I happen to be right by calling me insane. It'd be clever if it wasn't so obvious and wasn't coming from you. Dismiss me if I'm right by calling me crazy or lucky; that's the last vestiges of the inept and defeated.

    This is the last comment I answer from you on my site. You wanna have a go at me? You do it on Twitter in front of a live audience in which you'll learn why I've acquired the reputation I have to the point that no one wants to step into the ring with me. I'll be more than happy to use you as my punching bag for the day if you muster up the courage.

    Anytime, anyplace.

    And in any context, if you catch my meaning.

• The Prince on the Podcasts:

    On Friday, I was a guest with Sal at SportsFanBuzz. The Podcast links are available here---- Part I and Part II.

    Also, earlier this morning, I was a guest with Mike Silva at New York Baseball Digest for his Podcast. The link is here: NYBD Podcast. Now, you can listen to the whole thing or click on the I-Tunes icon at the bottom of the player and fast forward to about 1 hour, 36 minutes in where you can experience the magnitude of me.

• Paul Lebowitz's 2010 Baseball Guide:

•  This is the BIG one:

    The American League East is where all the drama/storylines/propaganda are. Home to the Yankees, Red Sox and Rays, it's expected to be a battle down to the wire in which only two of the three "powerhouses" will make the playoffs.

    I don't see it that way.

    Not...even....close.

American League East

                                                                     Wins      Losses       GB

1. New York Yankees                             100             62         ---                    
   
2. Boston Red Sox                                    89             74        11.5                                
   
3. Tampa Bay Rays                                  79             83        21
4. Baltimore Orioles                                 77             85        23
5. Toronto Blue Jays                                70             92        30

New York Yankees:

    Even with the controversy that Alex Rodriguez inevitably attracts; the debate about Joba Chamberlain's role; the burning question of who's going to be the all-important long-reliever; the usual atmosphere that follows the Yankees around, it's been less chaotic around the Yankees than it's been in the past. Much of that is due to GM Brian Cashman taking control of the entire organization from top-to-bottom. 

    You can ignore the usual stuff that emanates from the most famous team in sports; it's easily forgotten how well-constructed they are. Yes, they do still have an issue with the debate about Chamberlain; with Cashman's penchant for misjudging pitching; with manager Joe Girardi's strategic gaffes; the Derek Jeter/Mariano Rivera contract situations; and of course, ARod and the tornado that's always surrounding him no matter what he does----none of that matters.

    The Yankees have a deep starting rotation; with Chamberlain in the bullpen where he belongs, a devastating bullpen; a star-laden and relentless lineup; and the wiggle room to improve during the season if they need to. (Keep an eye on David DeJesus from the Royals if the Yankees need an outfielder.) 

    They're not just better than the Red Sox and Rays, they're way better than the Red Sox and Rays and they're going to roll to another division title easily. The only question will be whether they're going to have the opportunity to bounce the Red Sox from the playoffs entirely on the last weekend of the season.

Boston Red Sox:

    Pitching and defense?

    The Red Sox?

    After making the conscious decision to let Jason Bay walk away (and naturally, rip him apart on the way out the door----I wonder if, when Bay retires, they'll invite him back as they did Nomar Garciaparra to retire as a Red Sox in a financially fueled publicity stunt), the Red Sox chose to abandon their standard of finding hitters who have power and going the defense and pitching route. 

    In signing Adrian Beltre; Marco Scutaro; Mike Cameron; and John Lackey, the Red Sox have gone from one extreme to the other.

    And it's not going to work.

    This strikes me as another stat-fueled attempt to re-invent the wheel just as they tried to do with the "closer-by-committee" in 2003. We saw how well that worked.

    The endgame of all this is baffling. Even with a very good top three in the starting rotation of Josh Beckett, Jon Lester and Lackey, the Red Sox are still short at the back end with a youngster, Clay Buchholz; the train wreck Daisuke Matsuzaka; and the falling apart Tim Wakefield.

    It's easy to say the Red Sox will have the prospects to go out and get a bat as the season moves along, but that was the same opinion in 2006 when they did absolutely nothing and watched helplessly as the season collapsed around them. Will they panic if they're 8 games behind the Yankees in June and make a bold move for the power bat they need in Adrian Gonzalez or Prince Fielder? Will the competition for one of those bats shut them out?

    We'll know quickly whether this strategy is going to work; and the Red Sox penchant for desperation as a rightfully concerned fan base explodes may still be too little, too late with rough competition from the rest of the American League.

Tampa Bay Rays:

    The more things change, the more they stay the same.

    A year ago at this time, all we heard was how the Rays were in the stratosphere with the Yankees and Red Sox and were there to stay; that there were three "championship-level teams" in the AL East; that the battle for the playoffs would come down to those three teams and the winner would be a great bet to win the whole thing.

    Then they started playing.

    It should've been a red flag that everything----everything----went right for the Rays in 2008; such a sequence of events wasn't just unlikely to happen again, it was impossible.

    And it didn't happen again.

    All the "experts" had the Rays at the top of the division with 90+ wins. 

    I had them at 82.

    They won 84.

    Joe Maddon's absent-minded professor routine is wearing thin. The inmates are running the asylum; they're going to lose Carl Crawford at the end of the year; they have giant pitching questions; and aren't only behind the Yankees and Red Sox, but also the White Sox, Twins, Angels and maybe even the Mariners and Rangers.

    They're going to have to make some decisive and aggressive maneuvers this year including trading Crawford, Carlos Pena and some of their bullpen components. If they don't get off to a good start, it could happen quickly and it might be the best thing for them.

Baltimore Orioles:

    The most amazing thing that Andy MacPhail's been able to accomplish since taking over the organization wasn't a smart trade or signing; nor was it his astute drafting; it was convincing impetuous owner Peter Angelos to let him rebuild the team correctly rather than continuously throw money at the problems and fail again and again.

    The Orioles have brought in solid veterans to teach their impressive array of youngsters how to behave and win. Kevin Millwood; Ty Wigginton; Miguel Tejada; and Garrett Atkins are all going to foment the growth of Nick Markakis; Adam Jones; Matt Wieters and the young pitchers.

    I think they're going to need a managerial change from Dave Trembley to take the next step, but the Orioles have reason for optimism and don't be surprised at the end of the season to see them tied or even ahead of the Rays.

    Things are looking up in Baltimore.

Toronto Blue Jays:

    After excising the growing disaster that was J.P. Ricciardi, new GM Alex Anthopolous did quite well in trading Roy Halladay. 

    Many have said that the Blue Jays are going to lose close to 100 games. With that young pitching, I don't see how that's possible. The acquisition of Brandon Morrow was a bold move that is going to pay dividends once they rebuild his confidence and stick him in the starting rotation where he belongs. Their lineup still has holes; but there's plenty of talent, even with the space cadet-style (Edwin Encarnacion); and dead contracts (Vernon Wells).

    They are going to need to bring in a younger manager to steer the ship. In fact, I don't know why they didn't get rid of Cito Gaston after last year when it was clear they were starting over again. Aside from that, the Blue Jays are on the right track; and the first step back into contention was getting rid of Ricciardi. 

    The Blue Jays aren't going to be as bad as everyone thinks. 

• Viewer Mail 4.3.2010:

Jeff (Acting Boss) at Red State Blue State writes RE the proposed alliance between me and Curt Schilling:

Okay, Prince, as Street Boss, I have no choice but to STRONGLY persuade you to stay far, far away from Schilling. I don't wanna be digging a ditch in the middle of the night wondering if I should keep part of a bloody sock as a memento for future doting.

Jane Heller (consigliere) at Confessions of a She-Fan also writes RE me and Curt:

I'm with Jeff on Schilling. I don't care if you agree with him about Cliff Lee. You will not be friends with him - ever! Do you hear me? As for the AL Central, I think the Twins are that division's Angels. They always find a way... 

    And you thought it was easy being a Boss?

    Where do I go?

    Do I do what's best for my Family, going with my instincts and possibly forging a relationship that could bring my growing empire crashing to the ground even though I know, instinctively, that it would be a mutually advantageous relationship? Or do I take the advice of my most trusted and loyal confidantes? 

    I'll have to thing long and hard about this before moving forward. 

    Long and hard...

PairFace writes RE my predictions and my book:

"In-depth" analysis??? OK. Please indulge me here, and give me a reason JOSE REYES is going to win the NL MVP...other than he plays for your favorite team. I don't think even Reyes himself knows how many games he's going to play this year, and he didn't play much last year. Yet he's going to move past Pujols...past Howard...past Fielder...past a lot of people to claim that award.

I'm sorry, but moving the Mets to the top of the division, picking Reyes as NL MVP, and Jerry Manuel as MoY isn't "ruthless"...it's being a Met fanboy.

And if your book is anything like your free samples...I'll pass. Good luck with that.

    Because of one injury-plagued season, one of the most talented players in baseball is somehow on a level with a mediocre entry level player who has no upside nor potential to contend for the MVP?

    Jose Reyes?

    At age 27 and one of the best all-around players in the game from 2005-2008, Reyes is now a laughingstock because he got hurt? It seems a certain declining shortstop that you may be familiar with did exactly what you suggest is utterly impossible as recently as 2007----Jimmy Rollins----in winning the MVP over the players you toss out there.

    Whether or not you consider Jerry Manuel a good or bad manager, if the club turns things around, he's on the hook for credit or blame. 

    There's only one way to determine which of us is right and that's going to be what happens during the season. If attacking me makes you feel better about the drastic and soon-to-be catastrophic errors the Phillies made this winter, feel free to come after me to your heart's content. 

    You've got it exactly right. You figured it all out. I'm a Mets fanboy. That's why I picked them to miss the playoffs last season; to lose in the playoffs in 2007 and 2008 when they were the consensus World Series favorite from all the "experts".

    You don't need to read what I have to say in full. Since you have neither the desire nor the capacity to take everything I say in its proper context, it's just as well if you don't read it.

    Your argument is so weak and pockmarked with holes, I'm almost embarrassed for you; it's packed with specious reasoning, senseless, haphazard shots, wildly off the mark; and rife with team-related vitriol. Bask in the Phillies success over the past three years. Your arrogance, pomposity, ignorance and self-justifying twisting of facts is right in line with your current favorite team from the front office on down.

Joe at Statistician Magician writes RE me:

Well, Paul. You rip apart the Red Sox more than you rip apart the Mets. So you are not completely unbiased.

    Did you buy my book yet, Joe?

Peter writes RE the AL Central and Curt Schilling:

I think I have the same for the AL Central except I have the Indians over the Royals... as if those two will matter anyway.. as for Schilling, be careful, he is a nice enough guy, but will sell you out and crucify you for a better deal given the chance.... and he has no animosity towards the Phillies so anything he would say against them must be believable.

    The Indians are going to be horrific; far worse than the Royals.

    I think if there was any alliance between myself and Schilling, we'd both be prepared for a battle to the death at a moment's notice and one would never turn his back on the other.

    It's a battle that I'd win.

    Schilling says some loony stuff. Thing is, in this case regarding the Phillies, he happens to be right. 

• Taking over the media, step-by-step:

    You may have missed it, but I'll remind everyone again and again; and again; and again...

Paul Lebowitz's 2010 Baseball Guide:

    My book is available and it's not a "preview"; it's a guide, valuable throughout the whole season. Despite criticism by those who have an agenda (see above), it's aboveboard and evenhanded. Available on Amazon and I-Universe in paperback and E-book.

    Check it out; it'll blow your mind.

The Prince on the Podcast:

    Yesterday, I was a guest with Sal at SportsFanBuzz previewing the entire season from top-to-bottom. It's a 2-part Podcast in which you can hear my voice which has been repeatedly described as "sexy" or "raspy sexy" or "calmly frightening" and "borderline psychotic". 

    I bring the party with me. 

    Here are the links to Part I and Part II.

    It's Easter and this is your first class ticket to the Resurrection.

    Everything is proceeding just as I have foreseen....

• This quality gap between the AL Divisions is not that wide:
  

    The American League Central has two very tough, deep and well-run teams with the White Sox and Twins; another team with the talent to cause trouble in the Tigers; a hideously run Royals club that has ability; and a punching bag in the Indians.

    Let's dig deep, Mr. Bond.

American League Central

                                                                     Wins      Losses       GB

1. Chicago White Sox                               94             68         ---                    
   
2. Minnesota Twins*                                90             73         4.5                                 
   
3. Detroit Tigers                                       80             82         14
4. Kansas City Royals                             74              88         20
5. Cleveland Indians                                 63             99         31
   

* Denoted Predicted Wild Card Winner

Chicago White Sox:

    Overlook the White Sox at your own risk. 

    I don't think people realize how good this team really is. How deep they are; how well-run they are; and how fearless and brilliant GM Kenny Williams is when making decisions. 

    Amid all the controversy that surrounds manager Ozzie Guillen, it's easily forgotten what an excellent strategic manager he is. More than any other team, the White Sox clubhouse is rife with players like A.J. Pierzynski who rankle everyone; the whole place appears to feed off the energy of controversy and perceived in-fighting. 

    None of that would matter if the talent level wasn't what it is. 

    The keys to the entire White Sox season are Jake Peavy and Carlos Quentin. If Peavy is healthy----and he's shown no reason to disbelieve that he is and ready to have a monster season----the White Sox are a legitimate World Series threat. 

    Their offense could be short in certain spots, but that would be mitigated by a healthy Quentin hitting as he did in 2008 when he was an MVP candidate. 

    The starting pitching is six deep; the bullpen is rife with power arms; they're fiery and run by a James Bond villain in Williams and his psychotic assistant in Guillen. 

    Ignore them. See what happens.

Minnesota Twins:

    Despite the loss of Joe Nathan, the Twins are also a serious contender. The under-the-radar additions of veteran bats Jim Thome; Orlando Hudson; and J.J. Hardy bolster an already strong lineup; they have a bunch of mid-rotation starters permeating their rotation, but they deploy their relievers effectively and play the game with great fundamentals. 

    They're aggressive in-season trying to improve, so if needed, they'll go out and get a closer of the Heath Bell variety. What I'd do if I were the Twins is trust Matt Guerrier as the closer, but for now, they're going with the committee system until everything shakes out.

    Joe Mauer and Justin Morneau are a devastating 1-2 punch in the lineup and they have bats like Denard Span, Michael Cuddyer and Jason Kubel among others to bash as well. I'm waiting for the freshly extended Mauer to begin turning on inside pitches to hit more homers. If he does, he's a threat to win the Triple Crown. As it is, I think he'll win another MVP.

    The Twins will be there in the end, fighting for a playoff spot even with a patched together closer situation.

Detroit Tigers:

    Horrible contracts the Tigers have the Tigers suspended in limbo. The got rid of Nate Robertson's $10 million by dealing him to the Marlins----but they paid almost all of it. They're trapped with declining veterans Carlos Guillen; Magglio Ordonez; Jeremy Bonderman; Dontrelle Willis; et al. Now they're trying to incorporate youngsters Austin Jackson; Max Scherzer; and Scott Sizemore into a somewhat weak lineup. They also signed Johnny Damon to play left field.

    There's talent in Detroit, but until they're able to extricate themselves from the massive sunk costs, they're mediocre, period. The enthusiasm with Willis's solid spring, I fear, is going to come apart as soon as the season starts. Joel Zumaya is again lighting up the radar guns with his 102 mph fastballs, but how long before he gets hurt again? 

    Sometimes it's better for things to come apart completely than it is to flounder along somewhere in the middle, unsure of where to go and what to do. That's where the Tigers are. Mediocrity, hovering around .500.

Kansas City Royals:

    The Royals have one of the best pitchers in baseball----Zack Greinke; a great closer----Joakim Soria; some background talent in Alex Gordon; Billy Butler; Luke Hochevar; and David DeJesus; but they're run terribly by an overmatched combination of GM Dayton Moore and manager Trey Hillman and aren't going to go anywhere until they import some competence into their operation.

    Even with the shabbiness in management, the Royals actually have enough talent to come close to .500 if everything goes exactly right with Hochevar developing; Kyle Davies pitching well; and Greinke repeating his performance from last season. They have some bats as well; but it's hard to see them being anything more than what they were last year and falling to the lower rung of the division again in a hazardous American League.

Cleveland Indians:

    All you need do is look at the "big" acquisitions the Indians made this past off-season and you'll be able to gauge where things are headed. 

    Their big imports were Russell Branyan and Mike Redmond.

    Yah.

    The oft-injured Branyan fits right in with Travis Hafner as a productive player who could end up on the sidelines for extended periods of time at any second (he's already on the DL with a back problem).

    The starting rotation is loaded with soft-tossers (Aaron Laffey, David Huff); injury-returnees (Jake Westbrook); and mental cases (Fausto Carmona). A bad bullpen was made worse (or maybe not, which is an issue in and of itself) when Kerry Wood went on the disabled list. The lineup has some talent, but the Yankees wouldn't be able to make up for that pitching staff; forget the Indians.

    There are many who are looking at this team as a sleeper.

    Sleeper for what?

    They're atrocious and are going to lose close to 100 games.

•  An alliance? Could the world handle this?
  

    Talk about a combination of evil ripe for destruction for everything in its path.

    It seems that a loquacious former Red Sox star is in total agreement with me about a certain subject that I hammer at repeatedly. 

    Yes. 

    Curt Schilling and I are on the exact same page, saying the same things about the Phillies trade of Cliff Lee to the Mariners. 

    In this posting on Big League Stew, Schilling says the following:

"I think trading Cliff Lee was the stupidest thing they've ever done, and they didn't have to," Schilling said. "They didn't have to do it. It was a stupid, stupid move. They could've had a World Series berth locked up right now with those two guys at the top of their rotation."

    This is almost verbatim to the things I've said immediately upon the completion of the trade.

    Perhaps I should approach Schilling about an alliance.

    Yes. An alliance. Of course, once world domination was complete, we'd likely attack one another. (I'd win.) But it's all to the greater good, my friends. All to the greater good.

• Viewer Mail 4.2.2010:

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

Yup. The Angels will be there again (Matsui will do his usual 100 RBI thing). The Mariners were very aggressive in the off-season, but it won't be enough.

    I don't understand those that underestimate the Angels given their history over the past ten years. It's to their own peril.

    The Mariners did a lot of "stuff", but didn't appear to improve anywhere aside from their rotation (and it was a massive improvement with Cliff Lee); but hinging one's hopes on Milton Bradley is a foundation built on quicksand.

Peter at Outside The Phillies Looking In writes RE Cliff Lee, the Phillies and me:

I just think your like a dog with a bone on the Cliff Lee saga, maybe it's time to bury it till later when you need to feed again.

    I have to keep banging away at these themes so when people continue agreeing with me long after the fact, that it's understood that I was the one who was so outspoken and adamant about it first. It's not done with an overt agenda to be contrary; I believe with every fiber that it was a gaffe that they're going to pay for in spades.

PairFace writes RE my NL East/NL MVP predictions:

Tough to not call you biased when you:

A) Identify yourself as a Mets fan.
B) Pick the Mets to win the division, coming off last year.
C) Pick Reyes, who hasn't played in nearly a year, as NL MVP
and
D) Pick Jerry Manuel, who's probably sitting in the hottest seat in the NL right now, as NL MoY.

The Mets are a mess, and will be missing 3 starters in their lineup on Opening Day. Pelfrey and Perez just demoted, and KROD now MIA.

Any accusations of bias or "homerism" are justified, imo.

BTW, I also have the Angels in the AL West. At least we agree on something.

    So, based on your fractured logic, I'm supposed to:

A) Hide my team allegiance based on a surreptitious attempt to appear objective to those who are unfamiliar with my work.

B) Make my picks due to what I feel will be more readily received and accepted; and ignore my own in-depth analysis (which you've clearly disregarded) in the hopes that I won't be attacked as a "homer" or fool.

C) Concern myself with what others are going to think and say about what I write.

    I make my judgments and calls not by personal feelings, but on cold-blooded and ruthless analysis, like them or not.

    No offense, but I couldn't care less whether you or anyone agree or disagree with me about the Angels, Mets, Phillies or whoever. We'll know by October who was right or wrong. Until then, attacking me without context or having read me regularly is the epitome of ignorance and that's on you.

• Paul Lebowitz's 2010 Baseball Guide:

• Let's find some context:

    I'm just curious, since I was under such relentless attack for picking the Mets in the NL East due to some misinformed allegation of bias, why are the stat zombies not under similar scrutiny for their annual selection of the Moneyball Athletics as their AL West winner? Between the two of us----me and the zombies----I think they have far more reason to be examined with the jaundiced eye of an agenda than I do.

    Let's look at the AL West:

American League West

                                                                     Wins      Losses        GB

1. Los Angeles Angels                             92             70         ---                    
   
2. Seattle Mariners                                  86             76          6                                   
3. Texas Rangers                                     85             77          7
   
4. Oakland Athletics                                73              89         19

Los Angeles Angels:

    Every year the Angels are underestimated.

    Every year they rise to the top of the AL West.

    As foolish as it seems to repeatedly do the same thing over and over again, it's still going on. The Angels are widely expected to fall to the bottom of the division. Presumably, the losses of Chone Figgins, John Lackey and Vladimir Guerrero are so devastating that they won't be able to compete.

    I don't see it.

    As always, the Angels run the club based on a set of principles they don't deviate from. They have a well-balanced lineup; a deep pitching staff from top-to-bottom and spend money on pitching. The signing of Joel Pineiro to replace Lackey, in retrospect, will be seen as one of the smartest and most economical moves of the off-season. Pineiro will slide seamlessly into the Angels way of doing things and continue the trend he showed with the Cardinals of pitching to contact and going deeply into games.

    Hideki Matsui was signed to replace the declining Guerrero and is a clutch player and solid clubhouse guy. (One thing I don't get is why the Angels are insisting on giving Matsui a glove at all; let alone trying to play him in the outfield.) 

    With manager Mike Scioscia calmly steering the ship, the Angels are always a threat; always competitive not matter what happens, injuries or unspeakable tragedies. In addition to that, they're always ready to make an aggressive trade to bolster their club as they did with Scott Kazmir last season. If Carl Crawford ends up on the market, you can bet the Angels will be neck deep in trying to get the Rays left fielder. 

    The cream rises to the top and that's what's going to happen with the Angels again in 2010.

Seattle Mariners:

    GM Jack Zduriencik is the "genius" of the moment. 

    Not to diminish the work Zduriencik has done, but Cliff Lee basically fell into his lap due to the Phillies' idiocy. He's banking on defense and pitching trumping the lack of a big power bat; he's hoping Milton Bradley behaves himself and produces; and that the expensive signing of Chone Figgins adds to the run scoring punch sans power. 

    The Mariners have a great defense, but I don't see how they can contend with Ken Griffey Jr. and Mike Sweeney as their primary DH combination. It's possible that pressure from above forced Zduriencik to bring back Griffey; the Mariners would be a serious playoff contender if they'd signed Jim Thome instead. 

    As it is, with Zduriencik's aggressiveness, the Mariners will be looking for offense for the entire season; if they get it and Lee and Felix Hernandez are healthy; if the defense saves as many runs as it's expected to; if the bullpen performas as it did last season; and the back of the rotation is serviecable, they're in the mix for the playoffs.

    I don't see it happening. They'll hang around contention and fall late due to their holes.

Texas Rangers:

    After rebuilding the club and his reputation by crafting one of the most productive minor league systems in baseball and making some brilliant trades, GM Jon Daniels had a strange off-season. Replacing Kevin Millwood (whom he gave away to the Orioles) with the always-injured Rich Harden is a head-scratcher. Now, they've taken a reliever, C.J. Wilson, and inserted him into the starting rotation. 

    The offense is always going to be solid with their power bats; it's a good bet that Vladimir Guerrero will experience a renaissance playing in the hitter's heaven of Rangers Ballpark; and they always play hard; but the Ron Washington cocaine controversy and the repeated injuries to Josh Hamilton are hanging over the club's collective heads.

    The Rangers organization is loaded with prospects, but the lack of starting pitching depth and the repeated off-field issues will relegate them to the outskirts of contention with a bright future if they make the right decision and get rid of Washington.

Oakland Athletics:

    Again in certain circles, the Billy Beane "brilliance" is being credited for the Athletics being in contention. They have a load of young pitching and splurged to bring in Ben Sheets to anchor the rotation. It was part of a very questionable off-season for the Athletics in which it appeared as if Beane was throwing things together like a weird amalgam in the hopes that it would come out looking good. 

    Are they a defense first team with Coco Crisp in center field?

    Are they a two fisted bashing team with Jack Cust?

    Are they relying on pitching with the oft-injured Sheets and a bunch of talented youngsters who could still experience growing pains?

    It strikes of desperation backed up by out-of-context stats.

    The bloom is off the Moneyball rose and this is going to be the final straw for Billy Beane. The Athletics will fall to last place and Beane will depart Oakland once and for all.

    E=MC^2 genius; and by my admittedly rudimentary calculations, that comes to...73-89.

• Viewer Mail 4.1.2010:

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

Forgive me, but I really think the Phillies will be tough to beat, barring major injuries.

    Of course you're forgiven.

    I state my case clearly. The thing I find hysterical is the amount of ridicule I'm receiving by those who are looking at the projected standings, calling me a "Mets blogger/apologist" without knowing anything about my writing or me at all.

    We'll see who's right in hindsight and I stick by my picks.

Jeff (Acting Boss) at Red State Blue State writes RE the NL East:

Hmmm. I dunno. I saw the Mets play the Redbirds in that spring training game yesterday. Gary Matthews running the bases was scary... so was Daniel Murphy. Reminded me of last year with all the boneheaded mishaps. And the pitching was downright awful (Igarashi anyone? Yikes!). Just one meaningless spring training game, I know, but it's the sort of thing that gets stuck in one's head... that and Johan isn't blowing people away like he used to.

That all being said, I trust ya. So let's see how this thang goes.

    I don't put much stock in spring training as long as most everyone stays healthy (and as ruthless as it sounds, the team's probably better off without Daniel Murphy and with Mike Jacobs playing first base). We'll see what happens when the games count. It's routinely been unwise to bet against my gut feelings. 

Peter at Outside The Phillies Looking In writes RE the NL East:

I agree unbiased assessments are possible from die-hard fans, some get it right and some get it wrong, I guess come October we'll see who's wrong and who's right.. Reyes as MVP though, that is a bit out there, even before the Thy..thingy.

    I wrote it before that and the same thing happened with Alex Rodriguez last year as I picked him for the MVP and he got hurt immediately thereafter. Like I said yesterday, hopefully it's a good omen since the Yankees won the World Series. 

    I take offense when someone says I'm being a "homer". It diminishes everything I've tried to do and built with my work. Then, when I'm right a substantial number call me "lucky"; it's best to ignore them and let things play out.

• Paul Lebowitz's 2010 Baseball Guide: