Prince of New York Baseball Blog

The Saga of Scott Kazmir

2012-02-01T10:06:00.000-05:00

Drafted, disciplined, traded, lionized, traded, released, finished.

The saga of Scott Kazmir is summed up neatly with that order of words.

With the news in this Jayson Stark piece on ESPN that his fastball is puttering in at 84-85 mph, he might be better-suited to begin throwing sidearm and marketing himself as a lefty specialist.

Because he was such a high-profile player and representative of so many different things—a questioned draft pick and trade; a falling star; trading a name player sooner rather than later; an attitude problem—it’s easily lost that Kazmir, with his draft status and subsequent salaries in mind, has been mostly a bust.

The Mets drafted Kazmir in 2002 and it wouldn’t have been as noteworthy had the process not been detailed in Moneyball. The Mets were going to draft Nick Swisher if Kazmir wasn’t available—and they didn’t think he would be—but he was and they took him.

In the minors, Kazmir had a reputation for swaggering arrogance and off-field mishaps. It drew the ire of the Mets’ influential veterans Al Leiter and John Franco when, in the team’s weight room, Kazmir changed their radio station and they told him to change it back.

Mets’ pitching czar Rick Peterson advocated the ill-fated trade the Mets made for Victor Zambrano in July of 2004 not because of disciplinary issues, but because of the cold, hard data that Peterson relies on in judging his charges. Zambrano would help immediately and Peterson felt that he could repair his mechanics and make him more effective; Kazmir was small, had a stressful motion and wouldn’t be a durable rotation linchpin for at least another 2-3 years and only that for a short period of time.

The Devil Rays acquired him while still being run by Chuck LaMar and brought him to the big leagues later that season. Opposing hitters were impressed and writers eagerly used the array of power stuff displayed by Kazmir to hammer the Mets decisionmakers for trading him. It was that Mets regime’s flashpoint and death knell. Zambrano went on the disabled list after three starts and the Mets came apart leading to the demotion of GM Jim Duquette in favor of Omar Minaya and the firing of manager Art Howe.

Peterson survived the purge.

Kazmir was impressive over parts of the next five seasons with his best and most durable year coming in 2007 with the rebuilding Rays. He struck out 239 hitters in 32 starts and made the All Star team. But there were warning signs. He had elbow and shoulder woes and, under the pretense of financial constraints and falling from playoff contention in August of 2009, the Rays made him available via trade.

The Angels came calling and dealt three prospects for Kazmir and the $20 million+ remaining on his contract.

In reality, the Rays saw that Kazmir was declining and an injury waiting to happen, so they dumped him and his salary and got some useful pieces in Sean Rodriguez and two minor leaguers in exchange.

Kazmir had a mysterious “back injury” in 2011 that was more likely a face-saving gesture from the Angels to let him try and straighten himself out while not enduring the embarrassment of a former All-Star being sent to the minors. While trying to come back, he got pounded in 5 minor league starts and the Angels released him.

After his release, teams considered Kazmir, but no one signed him.

As much as the Mets are rightfully criticized for that trade, it turned out that the mistake wasn’t dealing him, but what they dealt him for. Following that season, there was every possibility that they could’ve centered Kazmir around a deal for Tim Hudson, Mark Mulder or inquired about Ben Sheets. Instead, they got Zambrano; Zambrano got hurt; and there was a regime change in Flushing.

Kazmir is about done now. The next step is either have a surgery that he may or may not need to “fix” a problem that doesn’t exist and “prove” that he’s on the comeback trail and will again have that velocity and movement that made him such a coveted prospect to begin with.

My advice to Kazmir is, as I said earlier, become a sidearming lefty specialist. He’ll always have a job and might even be effective in that role.

But will his ego be able to handle it? Unless he’s remarkably stupid and wasteful, he has enough money to live the rest of his life, so it comes down to whether or not he wants to continue playing baseball.

It won’t be as an All-Star starter because that pitcher, along with the one who’s immortalized in print and perception for the right and wrong reasons, is gone forever.

Share|

Ryan Howard's Contract Doesn't Look So Bad Now

2012-01-31T08:03:00.001-05:00

Will the contract Joey Votto eventually signs make the Prince Fielder and Albert Pujols deals look obsolete? Will it put an exclamation point on how prescient the Rays and Rockies were when they locked Evan Longoria and Troy Tulowitzki up to long term deals so early in their careers? How will Tim Lincecum’s decision to bet on himself and take short-term payouts rather than long-term security and wait for his free agency look?

Criticism of a contract at the time it’s signed is easy but the power of hindsight puts them into greater perspective and diminishes the impact.

Ryan Howard’s contract extension looked atrocious when he signed it because it was done so far in advance (almost 2 years) of his potential free agency and the market was going to be flush with other, better options—Pujols and Fielder among them.

Howard’s extension begins this season and, if he were a free agent this winter and signed it, the criticism for his representatives would be loud and endless.

5-years and $125 million?

Fielder is 4 1/2 years younger than Howard and is a more productive hitter, but they’re in the same realm and Fielder received 9-years and $214 million.

Of course, in reality, the deals are pretty much the same thing. But agents don’t want to hear about age and other factors when hawking their players to the highest bidders. Fans and analysts with an agenda don’t want to hear about the breakdown of the dollars equating identically. They’ll focus on $214 million vs $125 million as the common denominator even if it’s not so common.

The final number is the way they keep score in spite of it being inaccurate and twisted.

Pujols is another story.

He received the $240 million contract from the Angels—a contract that will pay him $30 million on 2021 at age 41—coming off of his worst season in the big leagues. In fairness, Pujols’s worst season still landed him fifth in the NL MVP voting in a season in which his team won the World Series, but that doesn’t alter the fact that it was his worst season.

As much as Phillies GM Ruben Amaro Jr. is lambasted for the way he lavishes long-term contracts on his players, signs free agents and has gutted the farm system to try and win immediately, I’m starting to think he’s savvier than any of us realize.

The market was going to be stacked with first baseman this winter. Had Amaro waited Howard out, Howard might’ve wanted a contract commensurate with Pujols—not close to what Pujols received, but certainly not half the guaranteed money that Pujols received either.

For Howard, he got paid, is staying in one place for essentially his whole career and the Phillies didn’t have to enter into protracted and contentious negotiations to keep Howard or consider alternatives.

It’s idiotic to savage the contract based on Howard’s torn Achilles tendon suffered—adding injury to insult—when he made the last out in the Phillies’ NLDS loss to the Cardinals. This isn’t a degenerative injury to a joint that was known to be a potential issue before he signed; it was a freak occurrence that could happen walking down a flight of stairs or getting out of bed. It happened and it’s no one’s fault.

The simplicity that outsiders place on running a club is astounding. To believe that front office people are “stupid” because they make a decision that some disagree with is the height of arrogance and I’ve done it myself.

Perhaps both sides weighed the pros and cons and made the conscious decision to avert what happened with the Cardinals and Pujols where a negotiation that was fait accompli (“Pujols isn’t going to leave the Cardinals”—something I also said repeatedly) and turned out to be completely wrong.

Putting a financial value on a player in an open market is a fruitless endeavor. Few teams stick to a stated budget if they have a choice and as Fielder and Pujols proved, there will always be that one owner who has a reason to spend a perceived loony amount of cash to get the player he wants. The best a GM can do is to make his recommendations to his bosses, come to conclusions of the best way to move forward and deal with the fallout if it fails or accept the accolades if it works. No matter how many people try to find a way to calculate what a player is “worth”, it has little to do with what he actually winds up getting.

Market dictates salary. Not the other way around.

Share|

Beware the Rejuvenated Rays' Castoffs

2012-01-30T09:05:00.006-05:00

The Orioles are said to be considering signing Casey Kotchman.

What they’re going to do with him is a mystery since they just signed Wilson Betemit, have Mark Reynolds and Chris Davis for first and third base. None are defensively adept at any of the positions although Reynolds occasionally makes a spectacular play to make it appear as if he’s better than he is. It’s similar to a weekend in which he’ll hit 6 home runs---many of the “ooh” and “ahh” variety in distance and hangtime to make it appear as if he’s better than he is. Then he reverts to hitting .200 and striking out every 2.6 at bats.

Kotchman is a very good defensive first baseman and had his career year at the plate for the Rays in 2011 with a slash line of .306/.378/.422 and .800 OPS.

That’s what should concern any team making a serious investment in Kotchman.

Considering the lateness of the date and that spring training is approaching along with the availability of better hitters on the market like Derrek Lee, it’s doubtful the Orioles or anyone else is going to overpay for Kotchman, but a team considering a former player for the Rays who had his best season with the Rays needs to examine history and look at the decline of Jason Bartlett, Scott Kazmir, Rafael Soriano, Akinori Iwamura and just about every scrounged screapheap salvaged detritus from their patched together bullpen who’s been used for a brief time and dispatched only to revert to the performance that led them to winding up on the scrapheap to begin with. Sometimes, as with Lance Cormier and Carlos Pena, they wind up back with the Rays.

Is Kotchman as good as he was in 2011?

History proves he’s not. Even when he was at his best with the Angels and Braves in 2007-2008, he wasn’t a force at the plate. He was useful if surrounded by a few power bats and has always been a good fielder, but teams tend to want better power production from first base than what Kotchman provided. If they can make up for it in other areas, then fine; but setting a limit on the amount of money they’re willing to pay Kotchman is a wise move.

Was the issue with his eyes that Kotchman referenced in this NY Times piece and its repair the genesis of his struggles in 2009-2010?

Clearly.

But that doesn’t make a Rays' castoff any more of a guarantee to continue the work he did with the Rays as he reestablished his value. They seem to know which way the wind is about to blow and how to judge a player and determine whether he's "figured it out" or is enjoying his career years in Tampa. That’s a reason for interested teams to look at these players with a jaundiced eye and wonder if they’re getting the pre-Rays or post-Rays player and if they’ll be overpaying to do it.

Share|

Oswalt as the 6th Man

2012-01-29T09:43:00.002-05:00

When the Blue Jays were one of the frontrunners for---and in fact were widely expected to get---Yu Darvish, I wrote that their intention might have been to use Darvish in his familiar 6-man rotation to both make him comfortable and manage his workload while holding down the innings counts of their young pitchers Henderson Alvarez, Kyle Drabek and Brandon Morrow.

The Blue Jays missed out on the Japanese/Iranian righty and the Rangers eventually got Darvish.

After shifting Neftali Feliz into the starting rotation and signing Joe Nathan to take over as closer, the Rangers’ rotation appears set.

But their interest in Roy Oswalt lends another option into the mix along with questions as to why they need another established starter.

Could it be that the Rangers are also considering going with a 6-man rotation, but for different reasons?

Because the Rangers have gone so far against the new conventional orthodoxy of babying their starting pitchers and are telling them as they make their way up through the minor league system that six innings and 100 pitches (whichever comes first) aren’t going to cut it, they’ve been the subject of resistance from the Rick Petersons of the world who are invested in the “scientific” study of pitchers (along with selling their theories to information-hungry and desperate amateurs).

What would a team that specifically pushes their starters deeper into games have to do with a 6-man rotation?

If they implemented such a plan, the Rangers would be diminishing the workload of their pitchers in a different way than limiting their innings and pitches. The extra day of rest would allow the pitchers to go even deeper into games than the 7-8 innings and 120 pitches that are now seen as extreme. They’d be able to rest their bullpen periodically while not putting forth the perception of abusing their pitchers in some random experiment that has no basis in the hard (and ineffective) data that has led the Yankees to placing the likes of Joba Chamberlain in a plastic bubble and simultaneously destroying any chance he ever had of fulfilling his potential.

The Rangers, staffed by Hall of Fame former pitchers Nolan Ryan and Greg Maddux along with the highly respected pitching coach Mike Maddux, can look at a pitcher and use their own experiences to say, “his back leg is dragging”; “he’s not following through completely”; “his hips aren’t turning with the same force they were earlier in the game”; or “he’s not showing the same ferocity” and determine that the pitcher is tired because of fatigue, not because he’s reached a previously prescribed number that they pulled out of the air and are referencing a series of studies to justify their paranoia.

Thinking one is tired and being tired are two different things. If a pitcher knows beforehand that he’s only expected to put in a certain amount of work, that’s how his mind will focus and he might think he’s got nothing left when he does have something left.

Not everyone is a Roy Halladay and wants to finish what he starts.

As pitchers, Greg Maddux and Ryan weren’t babied and stayed out on the mound in good health and effectiveness to a remarkable degree.

This isn’t to suggest that the pitchers should be told to toughen up and stay out on the mound if they’re not feeling right---Greg Maddux was criticized late in his career for pulling himself out of games after a certain number of pitches---but it’s understanding what they’re looking at and taking into account everything that goes into throwing a baseball in a repeated and stressful manner every 5 (or 6) days.

These men are in a unique position to say what they’re doing and why without adherence to outsiders telling them they're wrong.

Shunning the armchair experts like Keith Law, who vomit scouting terminology and say things to make it sound as if they’re insiders when they’re only putting forth a pretense of such; or looking at the specious and self-indulgent reasoning behind writer Tom Verducci’s so-called “Verducci Effect” aren’t indicative of resistance to an ever-changing reality, it’s actual analysis without cowering amongst the masses in an effort to avoid criticism if it doesn’t work.

Calculating an individual on a chart, graph or by sputtering randomness because it sounds good and having the hypnotized sheep take every word said as gospel doesn’t make one an expert. For all of his down-home, country simplicity in a pleasant Southern drawl and known old-school Texas conservatism, Ryan was one of the first pitchers to lift weights; he paid close attention to his mechanics and was willing to listen to others like the late Angels coach Jimmy Reese, who showed him the value of vitamins and good nutrition. Ryan trusted his own instincts and understanding of his body and he’s transferred that to his work as an executive.

In certain circles, a 6-man rotation would be seen as a concession to the times. Some would probably twist it to validate themselves. But if the Rangers consider it, it will be because they have a method behind doing it and not because they want to place their pitchers in a sealed sarcophagus and protect them from the war of attrition known as pitching, preferring failure to the risk of injury and a misinformed public’s vitriol.

Share|

Leyland’s “Principled” Charade

2012-01-28T09:30:00.002-05:00

It’s best to take what a manager says in January and pretty much ignore it. Because of that, when Jim Leyland insists that Miguel Cabrera is going to move to third base---his tone signifying no ifs ands or buts---you should nod politely and expect it to be proved as “baseball”.

That’s not a lie.

It’s “baseball”.

Jim Bouton wrote in Ball Four of the episode in which teammate Mike Marshall received two different stories regarding his demotion to the minors from the manager and GM---both of them nonsense. Bouton explained Marshall’s view of this in the following line:

Now, some people would call that a contradiction. Others might call it a lie. Mike Marshall called it baseball.

Is Leyland “lying” or is he giving Cabrera time to get used to the idea of sharing first base and DHing before he has to report to spring training? Will he give the player a chance to lose a few pounds and have a look at him at the position in March before bowing to the inevitable reality and figuring something else out?

Initially, I felt that was the case, but Leyland is insisting that Cabrera’s going to play third.

Anyone questioning him on this decision will be subject to Leyland’s cigarette-ravaged voice in an extended, “I’m a baseball guy and you’re a dumb writer” tirade. With Leyland being so adamant that Cabrera’s going to third base, Tigers fans should be concerned that Leyland’s going to ignore his eyes and the entreaties of his pitchers and put Cabrera at third base for the sake of being contrary.

That’s not managing. That’s being arrogant and difficult for no reason other than ego and it’s going to hurt the team if he follows through on it.

I still don’t think Leyland will do it, but when listening to the rhetoric and considering the involvement of his “principles” of saying something and sticking to it, I’m not so sure.

But principles are floating just like Marshall’s interpretation of lies.

It’s not going back on them to accept that Cabrera can’t play third and to react accordingly.

It’s baseball.

Share|

Warning Signs Abound for the Phillies

2012-01-19T10:21:00.003-05:00

It’s no secret that the window for the Phillies to continue dominating the National League East is closing rapidly. Looking at their roster, age and contracts, there were concerns before the news that they intend to go with Ty Wigginton as their regular first baseman and a platoon of John Mayberry Jr. and Laynce Nix in left field to replace Raul Ibanez.

(Domonic Brown? What’s a Domonic Brown?)

A left field platoon of Nix and Mayberry should be productive enough. Nix’s good defense and pop will counteract---to a point---his lack of on-base skills. Mayberry deserves the chance to play every day, but GM Ruben Amaro Jr. said there will likely be a platoon.

Wigginton can’t field, Jim Thome can barely move, and Chase Utley’s range is compromised by his physical breakdown. The Phillies strength on the mound will be damaged by porous defense on the right side of the infield.

The National League East no longer automatically belongs to the Phillies. The Marlins have made major free agent acquisitions; the Nationals are improved; and the Braves are being ignored because of their lack of movement, but are still very good.

The Phillies are old, expensive and trapped by a payroll that’s at its limit. Despite assertions to the contrary, Roy Halladay is human and can’t keep up his excellence forever. They can rely on their top three starters for 2012 as Halladay and Cliff Lee are still at the top of their games and Cole Hamels is singing for his free agent supper.Vance Worley is entering his second go-round through the league and, much like Jason Isringhausen proved with the Mets from 1995-1996, it’s not as easy as Worley made it look in 2011 by blasting fastballs and swagger.

The Phillies offense was a problem last season in spite of the pitching carrying them to 102 wins. They didn’t hit in the playoffs and it was the main reason they got bounced in the first round.

They’ve done nothing to improve that offense and will be without Ryan Howard for at least the first two months of the season.

Have they repaired the problems that contributed to their playoff losses in 2010-2011? An upgrade was made by replacing their on-again/off-again closer Ryan Madson with one of baseball’s best in Jonathan Papelbon, but it's not an upgrade so significant that it will account for worsening offense and defense.

Considering their payroll issues and that their farm system is largely gutted, they won’t be able to do anything drastic at mid-season to fix their issues as they have in the past.

Flashing warning signs are everywhere and teams that have had five year runs as the Phillies have tend to come apart quickly. Due to reality, circumstance, personnel errors, desperation trades, overpriced contracts and compromises to the present, the Phillies fall might come a year or two early.

That fall will be rapid. Don’t be stunned if it begins in earnest in 2012.

PaulLebowitz.com.

Darvish is Coming

2012-01-18T19:48:00.000-05:00

Totaling up the posting fee and the reported contract for Yu Darvish, the Rangers have made a commitment of $111.7 million over 6-years for what amounts to a talented unknown.

I’ve repeatedly said that I think Darvish is going to come to North America and become a sensation reminiscent to the true trailblazer for all Japanese stars who’ve come to the big leagues in the past 17 years, Hideo Nomo.

He’s not a guarantee though.

While comparisons to Daisuke Matsuzaka, Hideki Irabu and any other Japanese imports are silly and somewhat stereotypical bordering on racist, the questions with Darvish are viable.

In Japan they use a smaller ball. The Major League season is longer. The schedules and workout regimens are different. Pitchers in the majors are used in a 5-man rotation rather than pitching once a week as they do in Japan.

Those are just a few of the differences he’ll have to overcome before getting to culture and comfort.

But stuff is stuff and Darvish’s stuff is legit. The Rangers are a smart organization with one of baseball’s most respected pitching coaches, Mike Maddux and the newly added front office assistance of his brother, the future Hall of Famer Greg Maddux. Plus Nolan Ryan is running the place.

Darvish has a two-seam and a four-seam fastball, a wicked off-speed curve, a forkball and a slider. His motion is reminiscent of Tim Lincecum and he hasn’t been overused and abused as Matsuzaka was. He’s pitching in Texas and not New York as Irabu was and his boss won’t be calling him names as George Steinbrenner did with Irabu. Ryan will be able to understand why he’s struggling and take steps to help him rather than screaming and ripping him in the press with no means to an end other than expressing his frustration that his high priced investment isn’t an immediate superstar.

Looking at it under a financial and practical microscope, would the Rangers have been better off having spent that money to keep their own free agent C.J. Wilson or signed a free agent such as Hiroki Kuroda, Edwin Jackson or Mark Buehrle?

Maybe.

With those pitchers, you know what you’re getting. With Darvish, he’s not quite an amateur draftee; nor is he an established commodity who’s done it in the big leagues before.

The posting fee for Darvish doesn’t count against the luxury tax. That’s a consideration for a team with financial limitations like the Rangers. But the total is still $111 million+.

Saying he might wind up as a Matsuzaka is, as mentioned before, based on nothing other than their Japanese heritage—they’re totally different pitchers. Saying he could be a disastrous free agent signing like Carl Pavano or John Lackey isn’t based on anything other than the risk of giving any pitcher a large check.

It happens.

We don’t know.

Before seeing clips if Darvish, I fell in line with the school of thought that he wouldn’t be worth the fee and the contract. After seeing him, I felt that he had all the tools to be a megastar on and off the field.

Now he’s coming.

Now we’re going to see.

Campos is Cashman's Misshapen Key

2012-01-18T08:02:00.000-05:00

This is a small but striking piece from yesterday’s New York Times---link.

Phil Hughes agreed to a 1-year contract to avoid arbitration. The contract pays him $3.2 million, a raise of $500,000.

There’s nothing notable about a four-year veteran receiving a contract with those dollar figures. But it was the conclusion that caught my attention. It says:

Teams are likely to inquire about Hughes, and the Yankees will be willing to listen to trade offers.

It was only four years ago when Hughes, Joba Chamberlain and Ian Kennedy were in the nascent stages of redefining the Yankees developmental apparatus. They were to be homegrown talent providing competence-to-brilliance at an affordable price.

Of course it didn’t work out that way.

Kennedy was traded and fulfilled expectations in a Diamondbacks uniform. Chamberlain was shuttled between the starting rotation and bullpen and is now recovering from Tommy John surgery, a mere shell of the dominating force and sensation he was on his arrival in 2007. And Hughes was also used as a starter and reliever, saw his velocity drop to levels where he couldn’t get anyone out in early 2011 and returned to some semblance of effectiveness late in the season.

Hughes is a tradable commodity fighting for his spot in the starting rotation with non-existent on-field value. Other teams will be attracted by his age and the hope that he can fulfill that potential away from the usage guidelines imposed upon him by the Yankees, but aside from their own headaches or projects, they’re not going to give up much of anything to get Hughes.

This is why it’s so ludicrous to think that the same Yankees front office is suddenly learning its lessons as they acquire Michael Pineda and Jose Campos from the Mariners for Jesus Montero and Hector Noesi.

The concept that Campos is the “key” to the trade---at 19-years-old and having spent last season in low-A ball---is either delusional or a transparent attempt at propaganda to assuage the anger that Montero was traded at all.

Have the Yankees proven that they’re able to assess pitchers under Brian Cashman? The same GM who signed the likes of Kyle Farnsworth, Steve Karsay, A.J. Burnett and Pedro Feliciano?

There are some instances in which Cashman gets a pass. Carl Pavano was a disaster that, had it not befallen the Yankees, would’ve hit someone else because there were about four other teams prepared to pay Pavano the same amount of money the Yankees did.

But these examples of dropping the lowest grade haven’t happened often enough to warrant deferring to his or anyone in the organization’s judgment when it comes to pitchers.

Now they’re waiting and following the same trajectory with Manny Banuelos and Dellin Betances as they did with Kennedy, Chamberlain and Hughes. They point to studies---both medical and historical---to validate the babying that’s gone on since both joined the organization.

Is it paranoia?

Is it fear?

Is it arrogance?

Is it a calculating desire on the part of the GM to accrue the credit that the likes of Theo Epstein has for being a “genius”?

Any reason is an explanation.

I’d be very concerned if Cashman is doing these things because he thinks they’re the right way to go about nursing a pitcher to the majors. That would indicate a total obliviousness to what's happened right in front of his eyes to all of these starting pitchers who will go on his ledger as, at best, disappointments. The mandates on innings and pitch counts not only hindered the development of the three pitchers from 2008, but both Hughes and Chamberlain got hurt in spite of them.

They couldn’t pitch effectively and didn’t stay healthy, so what was the point?

Some refer to the development of Ivan Nova as “proof” that the Yankees can nurture pitchers. But Nova was never considered a prospect and the Yankees repeatedly left him exposed to other clubs. Nova was selected by the Padres in the Rule 5 draft of December 2008 only to be returned to the Yankees the next spring. They didn’t know what he was and as recently as last season, they sent him to the minors as the odd man out when they had too many starting pitchers.

Was it so hard to look at Nova and see something different? Didn’t it impress the organization when he buzzed Jose Bautista and Bautista took a few steps toward the mound attempting to intimidate the rookie and Nova didn’t back down an inch?

There are aspects to pitching more important than high draft status a dazzling array of stuff. Nova's fearless. That counts for something.

Is it poor recognition skills or did they want to bolster the pitchers that were “supposed” to be the centerpieces?

Cashman was once adept at speaking to the media, saying three notebook pages worth of stuff, yet saying nothing at all. As he’s aged, he’s dispatched the circular dialogue sprinkled with non-committal corporate terminology to allocate blame and place the onus on players in an unfair manner.

Feliciano's shoulder injury was left at the door of the Mets when Cashman said the pitcher had been “abused”. Mets pitching coach Dan Warthen shot back asking how the Yankees didn’t know about Feliciano’s workload before they signed him.

A few days ago ESPN’s Jim Bowden revealed this Cashman analysis of Pineda:

Brian Cashman told me last night that Michael Pineda better improve the change-up & develop into a #1 starter or he will have made a mistake

Cashman also compared Montero to Mike Piazza and Miguel Cabrera.

Is Cashman really putting that yoke around the neck of a 23-year-old as he enters a new clubhouse to stand behind CC Sabathia in the starting rotation, pitching for a team and fanbase to whom anything less than a World Series win is considered disastrous?

I would not have traded Montero and Noesi for Pineda and Campos. I would have done as the Yankees did simultaneously to the trade being announced and signed Hiroki Kuroda and moved forward with what I had. Unless Cashman has something else on the burner, his reservations about Pineda and blustery proclamations about Montero made it too high risk a decision to feel good about. If he doesn’t feel cocksure about Pineda, how does he justify trading a bat he valued so highly?

Those who are trying to play up the inclusion of Campos as important had better look at the Yankees history of pitchers and how many of them have fulfilled the hype---not the promise, but the hype.

It’s right there in black and white, on the medical reports and in the trade buzz.

If you’re thinking that Campos is their new discovery and saving grace for a risky trade, you’d better look at history and think again.

Share|

Boras Doesn’t Play Defense

2012-01-17T13:40:00.002-05:00

The only reason I can think of for Francisco Rodriguez to have accepted the Brewers $8 million offer rather than go to arbitration is that K-Rod and his agent Scott Boras were told that if they went to arbitration and, as expected, were awarded something close to the $11 million+ he would probably have gotten, they would simply have released him. If that scenario came to pass, he’d have been completely helpless and gotten a fraction of that $8 million to pitch for someone looking for a bargain.

There’s no other logical explanation for the decision to take what amounts to a lowball offer for someone with K-Rod’s resume who’s not even going to be closing for the Brewers in 2012.

K-Rod’s hiring of Boras has turned out to be an unmitigated disaster.

First, he made the overtly stupid decision to hire a new agent in July just as the Mets were looking to dump K-Rod, his salary, his baggage and his onerous contract kicker that would’ve been activated if he’d finished 55 games---which he was well on the way to doing. K-Rod would’ve been paid $17.5 million in 2012 had he reached the incentive.

Then when the agent change was made, Mets GM Sandy Alderson acted swiftly and like a ruthless combination of a corporate lawyer (which he is) and a Marine (which he was) by dealing K-Rod before Boras had the chance to submit a list of teams to whom he could not be traded. The Brewers would’ve been one of those teams.

K-Rod, wanting his free agency, had Boras nullify the contract kicker even though it had been rendered moot when he joined the Brewers and was functioning as a set-up man for John Axford. His buyout on the deal had been $3.5 million, which the Mets paid. The Brewers added $500,000 and K-Rod was a free agent after the season.

But the market was flooded with closers leaving K-Rod and Boras scrambling. There were so many closers available, not enough landing spots, nor clubs with the money to pay them that he could either wait or take arbitration. Rather than do what his Boras agency stablemate Ryan Madson did and see if he could find a multi-year deal only to wind up taking a 1-year contract, K-Rod accepted the Brewers offer of arbitration.

At least Madson is going to close for the Reds. K-Rod’s going to spend another year setting up for Axford and he’s doing it for far less money than anyone could reasonably have expected given his accomplishments and far, far, far less than what he could’ve expected when he made the retrospectively stupid decision to hire Boras in the first place.

Share|

Ryan Ludwick a Good Signing for the Reds

2012-01-17T10:17:00.002-05:00

The difference between the Padres having Ryan Ludwick and the Reds having Ryan Ludwick is that the Padres were relying on him to be one of their main run producers and the Reds aren’t.

Following the trade of Adrian Gonzalez, the Padres offense was predictably horrific. Acquisitions made to counteract Gonzalez’s departure---Jason Bartlett, Orlando Hudson and the retention of Ludwick---were supposed to help them at least stay reasonably competitive. Built on strong pitching, the logic sort of made sense.

Of course it didn’t work in practice.

Ludwick had been a pretty good journeyman bat before he had his career year in 2008 batting mostly between Albert Pujols and Troy Glaus. Before and after that, he’d either been an extra bat who had some pop or was surrounded by unintimidating mediocrity in the batting order.

As a Padre in 2011, Ludwick batted .218 at home with 5 homers and a .302 on base percentage. Overall, he wasn’t much better on the road so the cavernous PetCo Park can’t be blamed for his lack of power. When he was sent to the Pirates at the trading deadline, he went from the team that finished 15th in the National League in runs scored to the team that finished 14th.

He didn’t help the Pirates either.

Is that Ludwick’s fault?

No.

He is what he is and what he is will help the Reds.

Ludwick will function much better as an “oh yeah, him” batter in the bottom of the order who’ll hit 20 homers in a power-friendly park and have the opposing pitchers saying, “oh yeah, him” rather than rolling their eyes that he’s batting 4th and a team actually expected to compete with that the case.

Bear in mind that this is Dusty Baker we’re talking about as Reds manager so there’s every possibility that he’ll find a way to write Corey Patterson’s name in the lineup despite the fact that Patterson is not on his team. But with Joey Votto, Jay Bruce, Scott Rolen, Brandon Phillips and Drew Stubbs, there won’t be any overwhelming expectations for Ludwick to repeat that 37 homer, .966 OPS performance he posted in 2008. It was a great season that won’t happen again.

But the Reds needed a veteran outfielder and they got one cheaply ($2.5 million) and on a short-term basis (1-year) in Ludwick.

They’re going for it in 2012 and this is a good move.

Share|

The Sale of a Story and the Yankees' DH

2012-01-16T11:12:00.004-05:00

The White Sox went into the 2010 season with the intention of keeping the DH spot unclogged so manager Ozzie Guillen would have more flexibility.

With that flexibility, they wound up using Mark Kotsay as their DH in 49 games. In addition to Kotsay, they also used Andruw Jones in 14 games as the DH.

That’s not the kind of flexibility they were looking for when they decided not to reunite with Jim Thome, who wanted to return to the White Sox and signed with the Twins after the White Sox chose to go in another (wrong) direction.

The why is relatively unimportant, but the fact that it failed is one of the litany of reasons the Yankees have zero intention of entering the season with Jones and Jorge Vazquez as their primary DHs any more than they intended to go into the season with A.J. Burnett, Phil Hughes or Ivan Nova as their number 2 starter.

What you’re seeing now as the “idea” is floated in the media is the give and take that goes on between clubs and media to control the message and do what amounts to market testing to see how a concept will be received.

In essence, they’re putting out the question of, “can we get away with this?”

The Vazquez/Jones platoon combination is not being well received because it won’t work.

Clubs and media have a working relationship that creates this dynamic. In collaboration with the editors of websites and newspapers, there’s a separation between nuggets, actual news, non-stories and editorial mandates.

An example of a nugget is the idea of a strange decision like Vazquez and Jones starting the season DHing for the Yankees. Practically, Jones is a player from whom a club will get production for 50-70 games as a defensive replacement, giving a rest to their everyday outfielders and hitting the occasional home run. Vazquez is a journeyman minor leaguer who, for some reason, has captured the fancy of those who apparently have never seen him play, don’t know how to interpret stats or are enamored of his “story”.

In today’s game, if a player is productive at any level he’ll find a place to play.

Vazquez hasn’t found a place to play other than Mexico and the minor leagues. The reason for this is he strikes out a ridiculous amount of the time, doesn’t walk and has no position.

But we see people mentioning him as an “option” at DH.

For the Oakland Athletics he’s an “option” at DH.

For the Yankees, he’s a name they’re using as a litmus test to see how far they can push their fans with the similar type of nonsensical propaganda that played up Brian Bruney and other Yankees “finds” that eventually revealed themselves as what they were as they disappeared from the landscape.

If a player bounces around or never gets a chance in the big leagues despite some aspect that would indicate he should receive an opportunity, most of the time there’s a reason that we haven’t been informed of.

Actual news stories such as the Yu Darvish posting fee are relatively straightforward and easy to write and understand. It is what it is. He's a star player from Japan who wants to come to North America. He has an interesting heritage and personality. He’s a wonderful talent.

Easy.

Non-stories are the things you see (and I’ve done this myself) when a posting is needed but there’s nothing to write about. I happen to be better and finding things to write about and making them interesting than others, but much of that is contingent on what would garner some attention to baseball in the dead of winter.

Editorial mandates play a part too.

Do you think Tim Kurkjian wanted to write an ESPN piece about Tim Tebow as a baseball player?

Of course not. But ESPN does careful study in what the visitors to their site and stations are looking for and serves their desires by presenting content about Tebow. It’s got nothing to do with a tacit approval of Tebow’s Christianity. It has to do with his popularity. People want to read about him, so ESPN tells their people to write about him.

Simple.

If you think the Yankees---the Yankees---are going into the 2012 season with Andruw Jones or Jorge Vazquez as their DH, forget it. They’d reunite with Hideki Matsui or Johnny Damon before doing that not only because those players would be willing to take a short-term contract and have proven that they can handle New York and the Yankee nuthouse, but also because they know Jones/Vazquez wouldn’t work much better than Kotsay and it’s salable to the fans.

It's nothing more than that.

Share|

Bobby V from Stamford

2012-01-15T12:31:00.003-05:00

We’re seeing the Bobby Valentine package exposing itself in his comments about the Yankees and it’s not a good look for him. Clearly his time out of the Major League managerial ring hasn’t taught him that he needs to temper his rhetoric to suit his situation. There’s nothing to be ashamed of if he restrains himself by saying the stock things designed to prop up their rivals even if he doesn’t believe them.

If you missed the Valentine analysis of the Yankees trade for Michael Pineda and signing of Hiroki Kuroda, click here to see The Providence Journal.

It’s pure randomness over the short term and fan-style nonsense to say that Pineda looked “ok” in the second half and that the Mariners “saw a lot of him and traded him” as if to imply they dumped him for whatever they could get before he was exposed.

The Mariners got a top power-hitting prospect that Yankees GM Brian Cashman (somewhat ludicrously) compared to Mike Piazza and Miguel Cabrera.

Is Montero a Piazza or Cabrera? Those are pretty lofty comparisons, but he certainly could hit 20-30 home runs and provide solid overall offensive numbers.

Saying Kuroda is moving from a great pitchers’ park to “not a great pitchers’ park” is the type of ignorance one would expect from a fan calling into a Boston radio program to rip the Yankees regardless of fact.

Kuroda’s numbers are slightly better at home than on the road---link, but the difference is so slight that it’s a ridiculous notion to say that he was taking advantage of the friendly dimensions of Dodger Stadium to any notable degree. That’s before looking at his other numbers like a substantially greater number of ground balls to fly balls and that most of the balls hit against him have gone back up the middle---link. Dodger Stadium had little, if anything, to do with that.

If Valentine is going to stoke the fires of the rivalry, he should at least have facts (to an extent) on his side. He doesn’t, so he sounds like he’s looking for a fight while he’s unarmed---a fight he isn’t in a great position to win anyway.

For a manager who hasn’t run a big league clubhouse since 2002, is on a “trial contract” of two years and has a roomful of players who are wary of him at the outset because of his reputation, this is not a smart way to begin his tenure. It might be part of a method to take the pressure of the players and put the focus on him, or he might just be doing the Bobby V thing and looking for attention.

Either way, he sounds like a talk radio caller and that’s not what a manager with Valentine’s baggage taking over a team coming off a collapse and drastic changes, needs.

Share|

Ken Phelps is a Punch Line of Circumstance

2012-01-15T11:06:00.002-05:00

In today’s NY Times, Tyler Kepner discusses the maneuvers the Yankees made on Friday night in acquiring Michael Pineda from the Mariners via trade and signing Hiroki Kuroda to a 1-year, $10 million contract.

Because the Yankees traded one of their top prospects, catcher Jesus Montero, there is concern that Montero will eventually become a historic mistake. Kepner writes:

Years from now, the trade could be a punch line on some latter version of “Seinfeld,” if Montero slugs like Jay Buhner and Pineda fizzles like Ken Phelps.

Phelps is considered the epitome of Steinbrennerean stupidity because the Yankees traded a young prospect who became a feared power hitter and Phelps was a recognizable and unneeded name the Yankees added as they were in the midst of a mid-season shakeup that resulted in Billy Martin being fired (again) and replaced by Lou Piniella.

When the trade was made on July 21st, the Yankees were only 2 games out of first place. Phelps would’ve been a help if they’d needed him at all.

But that’s the problem.

The Yankees didn’t need Phelps---they had Jack Clark as their DH and Don Mattingly as their first baseman---and Phelps only had 145 plate appearances from his acquisition through the end of the season. Unsurprisingly, Phelps hit 10 homers in those 145 plate appearances. The team wound up in 5th place in the AL East and Piniella was fired at the end of the season as well.

What was ironic about the Phelps acquisition isn’t that Buhner became a star with the Mariners or that the Yankees didn’t use Phelps correctly, but that Piniella was Buhner’s manager with the Mariners from 1993 on and benefited from that trade as Buhner was a producer on the field and a fiery leader off it.

The Yankees continued their charade with a parade of managers, GMs and “strategies” that didn’t work. Only when Steinbrenner was suspended and Gene Michael was able to build the team correctly did the team regenerate itself to what they are today.

But what of Phelps?

Is he a punchline?

In looking at his numbers, Phelps’s biggest obstacle was the era in which he played. As simplistic as the George Steinbrenner method of finding players was, in this case he was right---Phelps hit a lot of home runs in relatively few at bats---but Phelps was caught in the Yankees turmoil and that there were 12 hitters who deserved a place in a lineup with only 9 spots.

The value of a player who had power and walked a lot was yet to be widely understood, therefore he was pigeonholed as a poor defender who couldn’t hit lefties and didn't deserve a chance to play more than he did.

Phelps was a prototypically perfect DH, but never played in more than 125 games for one season in his career.

Not surprisingly in those 125 games, he hit 24 homers, had a .406 on base percentage and .526 slugging.

Had anyone recognized what Phelps was and given him an opportunity to play regularly, there’s no reason he couldn’t have been a David Ortiz-type who got better hitting against lefties the more he faced them. In addition to that for a power hitter, Phelps rarely struck out.

If he were playing today, Phelps would be a slugging bat in the middle of the lineup for a contending American League team like the Red Sox or Yankees and have a lucrative, long-term contract. Instead, he’s used as an example of a mistake the Yankees made in 1988. But the mistake wasn’t in trading for him. The mistake was in not telling him he was going to be in the lineup every single day when he got to the park. If that had been done, he’d have been more than a joke for something out of his control, a joke because of the player he was traded for.

He exemplifies a Yankees mistake, but for the wrong reasons.

Share|

Yankees-Mariners-Stupidity

2012-01-14T10:09:00.002-05:00

You can find analysis of the trade that sent Jesus Montero and Hector Noesi from the Yankees to the Mariners for Michael Pineda and Jose Campos anywhere.

Some of it makes sense and some of it doesn’t.

For instance, there are some criticizing Pineda are basing their judgments on such short-term circumstances as the one game he pitched against the Red Sox and got shelled; that he didn’t do as well in the second half as he did in the first; that he was pitching in a pitcher-friendly home park and gives up a lot of fly balls---all agenda-laden bits of silliness.
The same people who try to tear apart every single aspect of a baseball game are doing the exact same thing they accuse those who don’t buy into their stat-based dissections by picking and choosing what suits their arguments. They don’t like the Pineda deal, so they’re finding reasons to criticize it.

So many factors affect a pitchers’ performance that one game is absolutely meaningless. The Pineda critics should know this, but it's not stopping them.

The Yankees signed A.J. Burnett in part---so it was said---because he’d been very good in his career against the Red Sox. As a Yankee, Burnett’s gotten brutalized by the Red Sox repeatedly. It was an excuse that the club could sell to fans for signing a pitcher who was injury-prone and consistently inconsistent his entire career. For the Yankees, he’s been healthy…and consistently inconsistent. As I’ve said before about Burnett: this is what they bought.

So let’s see what people were saying about the trade.

From Bob Klapisch via Twitter:

Brian Cashman stressed, "huge risk" in deal w/Mariners. "I gave up a ton (for Pineda). To me, Montero is Mike Piazza. He's Miguel Cabrera."

This is Cashman playing up the value of Montero. No one in their right mind would trade a bat they think is going to develop into Piazza or Cabrera for a pitcher short of a Pedro Martinez.

And Pineda is not Pedro Martinez.

---

From Jon Heyman via Twitter about Felix Hernandez:

#mariners probably could have had 3 of montero/banuelos/betances/nova for felix. But sea people say king is off limits

There’s holding onto one’s star player and there’s being willfully blind and dumb. Is Mariners GM Jack Zduriencik that stupid to hold onto Hernandez when he could’ve three young, cheap starting pitchers and Montero?

I don’t care who the pitcher or player is, the Mariners are not contenders in 2012 and would be free to let the pitchers develop away from the Yankees idiotic and paranoid constraints that ruined Joba Chamberlain. The Mariners have shown they know how to build pitchers---three pitchers and a power bat for Hernandez? They had to make that deal if it was available. If the Yankees were this desperate for Hernandez, maybe the Mariners could’ve gotten them to take Chone Figgins’s contract as well. To flatly say “no, off-limits” is foolish.

---

Then we get to Jose Campos---the pitcher who assuaged the fears of the social media experts and stat guys who obviously know more about pitching, hitting and prospects than the Yankees and Mariners do.

Campos made it all okay.

"Oh, they got Campos. Then I'm onboard."

This is fine except for the fact that most of the people discussing Campos wouldn’t know him if he mugged them.

Do you know who Campos is?

He’s a 19-year-old right-handed pitcher who completed 2011 in low-A; he had a low ERA and plenty of strikeouts.

So what?

He’s 19 and won’t be in the big leagues for at least 3 years and, judging by how the Yankees baby their pitchers as if they’ll disintegrate when the first strong wind comes along, won’t seriously contribute for 5 years.

That’s 2017.

But he’s the key to the trade. He makes it worthwhile.

---

Here’s the bottom line: the Yankees needed a young arm who was already ready for full-time big league action and wouldn’t have to be nursed through the phase of innings-limits and imposed pitch counts. Pineda threw 171 innings last season and will be ready for 190-200 this season. That’s what the Yankees needed. That's what the Yankees got.

This criticism of Montero is absurd. “He doesn’t have a position,” etc.

He can hit and hit for power. He’s considered poor defensively behind the plate, but maybe he’ll improve; if not, they can move him to the outfield or to first base or third base. Or he can DH. Is a DH irrelevant? No.

---

As much as Brian Cashman is being lauded for this deal, his pitching judgment hasn’t been notable in recent years apart from how bad it's been. From the way Chamberlain was ruined to the decision to sign Burnett among other glaring mistakes, to say that Cashman is a “genius” or is the “best GM in baseball” because he made a bold trade is ignoring history. Would the Yankees have been better off simply doing as they did later by signing Hiroki Kuroda, keeping Noesi and Montero and waiting to see what happened?

Maybe.

Kuroda at 1-year and $10 million is a brilliant signing for the Yankees.

Pineda’s a great arm and the Yankees are in better position to contend in 2012 than they were before last night. Given the sudden weakening of the division and the balance of power shifted to the AL West, there was no longer an automatic playoff spot for the Yankees and Red Sox.

Of course, Yankees fandom exited their cages and began with the obnoxious arrogance that had been quieted by their lack of movement this winter. Now they want Prince Fielder to DH.

That’s not happening.

All of the after-the-fact stuff you’re getting about the trade is partisan, twisted, stems from whispers and mostly lacking in knowledge.

It’s not a “this trade is stupid” move upon its completion. Both sides got what they needed and everything that happens should be interpreted based on that. In that case, it’s a good move for both sides even if the prospects falter.

Share|

Compromised Cardinals

2012-01-13T10:05:00.000-05:00

By themselves, the departures of such important cogs in the Cardinals run of success would be manageable. But any team losing a Hall of Fame manager, a Hall of Fame pitching coach and a the best hitter of this generation is going to have a hard time replacing one of those people. The Cardinals have to replace three.
One is doable. Two is tough. Three might be impossible.
Tony LaRussa’s retirement was surprising yet understandable.
Albert Pujols’s departure for Anaheim was a punch in the stomach.
Dave Duncan’s leave of absence is family-related and sad.
Can Mike Matheny step into LaRussa’s role having never managed before in his life?
Will the offense withstand Pujols’s defection?
And will Derek Lilliquist successfully forge the bonds, concoct the strategies and tweak the mechanics of his pitchers as Duncan could and did?
Of the three, the most dramatic and stunning loss is the easiest to navigate.
As great as Pujols was, the money the team is saving in not having to pay a player listed at 32 (but suspected to be older) $250+ million is a long-term benefit. They didn’t force him out. He left. They’re cheaper and more flexible with Lance Berkman shifting to first base and the two-year contract given to Carlos Beltran. Their pitching is going to be their strength with the return of Adam Wainwright to an already solid starting rotation.
Once they come to grips with Pujols’s absence---this should happen in spring training---they’ll be fine.
But what of the dugout?
Matheny’s leadership and toughness are known, but he’s never managed before. In a veteran-laden clubhouse overseeing the World Series champions, he and the Cardinals walk into 2012 with a bulls-eye over the head of the redbird on their jerseys. Matheny is going to make mistakes as another former catcher who became a manager without any experience, Joe Girardi, did. In his first stop with the Marlins, Girardi bickered with ownership and was fired despite winning Manager of the Year---an award that was due more to the perception that the 2006 Marlins were supposed to lose 100 games and didn’t than anything Girardi contributed. Girardi endured a rough transition managing former teammates and contemporaries with the Yankees in 2008. It took him three years to find his stride as a manager.
It’s not easy to do and with these wholesale alterations, we’re not talking about the same car with a different driver---the entire Cardinals cast is different.
Duncan is the biggest loss. The one thing that was going to truly help Matheny was Duncan’s decision to return. The rapport with pitchers, ability to spot flaws and, most importantly, know how to fix them was what made Duncan the best pitching coach in baseball.
Presumably Lilliquist learned a great deal from Duncan and oversaw a large part of the day-to-day implementation of his strategies, but being an assistant is different from being the one responsible for everything.
Now Lilliquist is responsible for everything.
I’m not an advocate of standing pat. I think it breeds complacency. But there’s a difference between trading one good player for another, bringing in a new manager and/or pitching coach and doing all three not as a matter of choice, but as a matter of necessity.
The landscape is entirely different and drastic changes of this kind are rarely smooth.
All of this leads to warning signs that can’t be ignored and potentially big trouble for the Cardinals.

Share|

Boras Not to Blame for Madson Lowball

2012-01-12T11:26:00.001-05:00

When one is considered the epitome of evil, blame follows that person even when it’s unwarranted.
Because Scott Boras is considered the puppetmaster/hypnotist/Svengali over his clients, he’s being held responsible for Ryan Madson’s fall from a desired multi-year contract worth $40+ million to a 1-year, $8.5 million contract.
But this time, he’s innocent.
In more of an accident of circumstance, Madson was undone by several factors.
Let’s take a look.
---
The flooded market.
This winter the free agent closer market included: Jonathan Papelbon, Francisco Rodriguez, Madson, Heath Bell and Joe Nathan. Papelbon replaced Madson in Philadelphia for $50 million over 4-years; Bell signed with the Marlins for $27 million over 3-years; and Nathan took a 2-year, $14.75 million deal from the Rangers. In other moves, the Red Sox traded for Andrew Bailey and the Mets signed the lower-level Frank Francisco.
K-Rod had also made a high-profile hiring of Boras over the summer and has several legitimate gripes with his agent after the failure to submit a list of teams to whom he could not be traded by the Mets; for getting him to waive his 2012 option for free agency and needing to accept arbitration from the Brewers for lack of good offers---he didn’t need an agent to make this array of gaffes.
There are only so many teams that needed a closer and had the money to pay Madson or K-Rod. Like other free agents like Prince Fielder, Madson wasn’t helped by the Dodgers, Yankees and Mets not entering the bidding.
---
The altered landscape financially and strategically.
For every team like the Phillies that values their closer and is willing to pay him big money, there are eight teams that have decided a closer can be found cheaply or developed.
I don’t believe that the prototypical “anyone” can close---the statistics of clubs winning 95% (or something to that effect) of the games that they lead after eight innings no matter who their closer is can be misleading---but the reluctance to pay someone a huge amount of cash because he racked up saves is growing more prevalent.
In the future, the more thoughtful pitchers who are capable of starting or relieving are going to prefer starting strictly for financial reasons. There’s more money in being a starter.
Teams are shunning the concept of a big money closer. The Rangers in particular decided that Neftali Feliz would have more value as a starter and determined that he could make the transition, so they signed Nathan to replace him and shifted him into the rotation.
Some pitchers are addicted to the rush of being a reliever, but others who are more practical and are capable of doing both will prefer to start for the money.
---
The reality for Madson and Boras’s calculation.

Boras isn’t stupid. It probably dawned on him after the Phillies deal fell apart and the other dominoes fell that he and Madson might have to take a shorter term deal somewhere. Could he have given this offer to the Red Sox and would they have taken it? Probably. But Madson will put up better numbers in the weaker hitting National League---where’s he’s comfortable and familiar with the hitters---than he might dealing with Fenway Park and the power hitting lineups he’d have to face. With the Reds, he has a great chance of having a big year for a contending team. Apart from Mariano Rivera and K-Rod, there are no big name closers entering free agency after 2012 and Rivera, if he pitches in 2013, will be pitching for the Yankees.
With a great year in Cincinnati, Madson will be back on the market and poised to make a free agent killing again. Will he let his agent use the same strategy that failed this time though? Or will he tell him to get a deal done fast?
---
This is the world we live in now and blaming Scott Boras for Madson is easy, convenient, ignorant of facts and completely wrong.

Share|

The Shady Non-Story of Keith Law and the Astros

2012-01-11T09:46:00.007-05:00

How is it possible when any tiny little bit of baseball news on and off the field is reported by multiple outlets that---during a relatively slow time---no one has any details of the job Keith Law was supposedly offered by the Houston Astros?

What you’re telling me is that Jon Heyman, Richard Justice, Tracy Ringolsby, Ken Rosenthal, Jerry Crasnick and Jayson Stark (both of whom work for ESPN with Law) don’t have any details on this bit of “news”? On a baseball news day in which MLB Trade Rumors was posting stories entitled “Phillies Release John Bowker”; “Cardinals Shopping for Right-Handed Reliever”; “Phillies Interested in Jeremy Accardo”; and “Mets Re-Sign Miguel Batista”, the Law-Astros story received no attention and no digging apart from what Law himself said on Twitter?

Really?

What would be said if Sergio Mitre came out and said that he’d chosen to leave the Yankees rather than be the number two starter behind CC Sabathia?

Or if Grady Little said he’d chosen not to return to manage the Red Sox to replace Terry Francona?

They’d be ridiculed.

But because of his status as a former assistant in the Blue Jays front office who has carved out a snarky niche for himself as something other than a stat guy and is now a TV analyst and scout, his pronouncements are given credibility.

Do they warrant credibility?

It’s circular.

Highly educated at Harvard and other fine institutions of higher learning>>writer for Baseball Prospectus>>former Blue Jays assistant>>ESPN analyst/scouting and draft guru>>interviewing with the Astros.

But is it real?

Should we believe him?

It’s hard to tell.

Weeks ago, it was reported that Law interviewed for several front office positions with the new Astros braintrust led by Jeff Luhnow.

Luhnow proceeded to hire Sig Mejdal as his “Director of Decision Sciences” (whatever that is); and Stephanie Wilka as his Coordinator of Amateur Scouting.

But no Law.

Yesterday Law said the following at about noon Eastern time on his Twitter feed:

I have chosen to stay with ESPN. It was a difficult decision, and I'm very grateful to the Astros for the opportunity.

The opportunity for what is unclear.

Did they offer him a job or not?

The tweet was so opaque and laden with ambiguous phrasing and plausible deniability that it looks like a political cover story to protect Law’s reputation as the ultimate baseball insider; someone who knows his way around front offices, crunches the numbers and travels around doing “scouting”. He has a breadth of experience and knowledge, thereby according him as an "expert" in the media.

But is he?

Where is this story and why doesn’t anyone with inside informers and leaks have the details of the job that Law implies---doesn’t say, but implies---the Astros offered?

The only reporting I can find online ends up back with Law’s pronouncement. Here on Hardball Talk, Aaron Gleeman reports what Law said on Twitter.

No one knows what job he was offered?

Circular.

And back to Law.

Law has me blocked on Twitter. Why? Probably because I call him an armchair expert who regurgitates scouting terminology. I don't call people names or curse at them; his decision to block me is indicative of a skin far too thin to say the things he does in the tone he says them.

Blocking me on Twitter was, retrospectively, a bad idea. Truth be told, I don’t remember if I ever even followed him (I don’t think I did), so blocking me informs the world at large that he knows who I am. That’s unless he scours Twitter during his off hours and blocks random people. With (at the time of this writing) 364,584 followers, that’s highly unlikely.

Law strikes me as someone who’s very conscious of how he’s perceived and is desperately seeking to maintain and bolster his reputation; but when one is caught in prevarications or twisted facts as he was when he had his somewhat embarrassing slap fight with Michael Lewis over Law’s negative review of the film Moneyball and then backtracks like a trapped waterbug, his agenda reveals itself.

Later, in what was clearly an effort to say, “look, the Astros aren’t done hiring after Mejdal and Wilka”, Law tweeted:

Astros have received permission to interview Cardinals regional cross-checker Mike Elias for a Special Assistant role in scouting

Someone asked if that was the same job Law was offered and he replied:

no, I don't think it's the same job.

Here’s what I suspect: the Astros interviewed Law as a courtesy without any intention of hiring him; the story of said interview was leaked (possibly by Law himself); this was either an attempt on the part of Law to extract a better deal from ESPN or to shoehorn his way into a front office job with a GM in Luhnow who believes what Law believes in building an organization; the Astros may or may not have offered him a position, but that position was such that it was either designed for him to turn down because it was so low on the totem pole or didn’t happen at all and they're letting him kindasorta say they did in a face-saving gesture; and now he’s made a great show of “choosing to stay at ESPN” when he really didn’t have much of an alternative to leave from the beginning.

How is a story that begins and ends with one source---the subject of said story---to be taken at face value?

It can’t.

If I’m wrong, I’ll admit it.

But through the principles of deduction, what we’ve learned so far and from whom we’ve learned it, I don’t think I am.

Share|

Outside Interference

2011-06-19T09:38:00.002-04:00

In the past I've compared Scott Boras to Bobby "The Brain" Heenan.

As the evil wrestling manager with a penchant for chicanery, Heenan was the dastardly villain behind the heel in the wrestling ring; Boras has taken the same role for his clients with his skill at wrangling every single penny out of desperate club owners.

Both are brilliant at what they do.

The concept of "outside interference" has several connotations. In the wrestling ring, it entailed Heenan hitting the opponents of one of his charges with a folding chair, distracting the referee or forcing a disqualification to hold onto a title.

With Boras it comes from commenters, analysts and observers who feel it's within their realm to advise players---like Jose Reyes---as to what they should and shouldn't do in terms of his career.

The presumption inherent with opining that Reyes should stay with his current agents or leave them for Boras is beyond the scope of arrogant. It's inexplicable.

Who or what gives them the insight, the knowledge, the audacity to say where a player should go; who should represent him; what his parameters should be in signing a contract?

After relentless stories and rumors that Reyes was "talking" to Boras, Reyes has chosen to stay with his longtime agent Peter Greenberg. It doesn't sound as if he ever had any intention of leaving; it sounds as if Boras wanted to plant the story---in a Heenan/Pro Wrestling Illustrated sort of way---to pressure Reyes.

Reyes would have had reasons to go with Boras; he had reasons to stay with the Greenbergs. He chose to stay with the Greenbergs.

Outsiders weighing in is perfectly acceptable in this era of everyone having a viewpoint and a forum to express it; in the time of instantaneous gratification via the internet, but in reality, it's no one's business but Reyes and those close to him.

Had he switched to Boras, he would have been roasted for being "greedy" and looking for dollars above all else. The same "experts" will either criticize Reyes for his lack of business savvy in staying with the Greenbergs or credit him for the perception of money being secondary.

Who knows what the truth is?

And more importantly, apart from insinuating yourself into the debate, what business is it of yours?

---

On another note regarding Reyes's decision to remain with the Greenbergs, the Mets now have a window of opportunity that they may or may not want.

Had he gone with Boras, there was no chance of the Mets keeping him. Since he's staying with his current representation, the impression of "money, money, money" isn't as prevalent.

If the Mets truly intend to let Reyes leave, then they're probably quietly unhappy that he didn't switch to Boras. Had he done that, the public may have turned away from the "keep Reyes" brigade.

With Boras, he was going to go wherever the dollar figure was highest. Period.

Mets GM Sandy Alderson is skillful at pulling the levers and greasing the political axles; had Reyes chosen to hire Boras, Alderson would have framed it as an excuse for his departure.

Blame Boras.

But Reyes didn't hire Boras.

If the Mets intend to make a competitive offer for Reyes---as opposed to a "show-me" offer to assuage the fans---the agent decision could play into a slightly lower price-tag to remain.

I get the idea he wants to stay.

Whether that translates into the team doing everything possible to make that happen will be made clearer as Alderson approaches the agents---the Greenbergs---with an offer, their response and how the leaks to the media are handled.

It could get messy.

Or it could be smoother than anyone anticipated.

We'll see.

---

Please log onto my main site, PaulLebowitz.com.

Muddled

2011-01-12T11:22:00.002-05:00

Trevor Hoffman retired yesterday and the Hall of Fame argument as to his worthiness has already begun.

While he was playing there was a debate in judging his career with some calling him an automatic Hall of Famer and others---some former players among them---scoffing at the notion based on the perceived easiness of what it was Hoffman and the other closers of the era did.

So which is it and are we going to have to listen to the back-and-forth for the next five years? Let's look at the pros and cons, defenses and indictments of Hoffman's career.

Should he be punished or rewarded because of strategies?

Tony La Russa has been unfairly blamed for the proliferation of the "one-inning closer". Naturally, it's a misapplication of blame. When he was managing the White Sox, La Russa used his closers as closers were used in the late 1970s-early 1980s. They pitched multiple innings and were worked hard.

It was when he got to Oakland and installed Dennis Eckersley that he ushered in the era of the "specialist"; middle-men, set-up men, closers backing up a pitcher who was generally only asked to give 6-7 innings fostered the notion of La Russa altering the game.

The truth is that La Russa used Eckersley that way because that was how Eckersley was best suited to be used as he made the transition from starter to closer. The truth is, Eckersley pitched more than one inning somewhat regularly during his heyday of the late 1980s; he didn't pitch 2-3 innings as Goose Gossage, Bruce Sutter and Dan Quisenberry did in the early part of the decade, but no short reliever does that anymore. Brian Wilson does it occasionally and he's an anomaly.

Managers who don't have La Russa's nerve to innovate---the Jeff Torborgs---took the theory to its logical conclusion. Such was evident by Bobby Thigpen's 57 save season in 1990 pitching for Torborg with the White Sox. The hollowness of the save stat became highly pronounced just as Hoffman and John Franco were beginning their careers.

Putting it into context---with Gossage's lament---it's not the same as it was; you can't compare what the relievers do today to what they did before.

Just as players like Wade Boggs shouldn't have been punished for using the Green Monster in Fenway Park for target practice, how do you blame Hoffman for the way he was used? This was the game when he was pitching; he did as he was told and did it well. The save stat has been made less than what it was when it was created and that's not Hoffman's fault.

But maybe he shouldn't be rewarded for it either.

Was it him or was it the song?

This isn't a joke.

Did the echoing of AC/DC's Hells Bells influence the thought that, "Oh no, Hoffman's coming in!"?

Or was his stuff such that opposing teams and fans threw their hands up in the air or packed their belongings when his name was announced as the new pitcher?

Hoffman wasn't style over substance, but it was a cool thing to hear the tolling of the bell in the song. That his out pitch wasn't a Gossage 100-mph fastball; a Sutter split-finger; or a Mariano Rivera cutter lends credence to the idea that teams were more fooled than devastated by Hoffman's money pitch change up.

Again, not his fault; but something to think about.

There was no "moment".

Hoffman's case would be made easier if he'd won a World Series. In his one chance in the Fall Classic, the Padres were swept away by the 125-50 Yankees; but the series wasn't as much of a washout as the four game sweep suggests.

In game 3, the Padres were clinging to a 3-2 lead in the top of the eighth inning when manager Bruce Bochy called on Hoffman with a runner on first and no one out. Bernie Williams flew out to deep right; Paul O'Neill walked; then series MVP Scott Brosius homered to give the Yankees a 5-3 lead. A lead that Mariano Rivera held giving the Yankees a 3-0 series lead.

Had Hoffman saved the game, could the Padres have won the series? Probably not; but the longer it went, the more of a chance they would've had; if they'd gotten it to game 7 with an in-his-prime Kevin Brown ready to pitch, who knows?

But Hoffman gave up the big homer rather than getting the big out.

It's not a small blip for a borderline Hall of Famer.

Accumulation is not the mark of a Hall of Famer.

Hoffman accrued stats. The one closer of today, Rivera, who's going to waltz into the Hall of Fame accrued championship rings and the reputation as unflappable because he got the outs in the post-season.

The argument that Rivera had a better team and more opportunities in the playoffs is not without merit, but that has nothing to do with what Hoffman accomplished.

The "woulda, coulda, shoulda" isn't the same as looking at a Bert Blyleven and examining his career based on the teams he played for and his contemporaries.

I've always wondered why the "woulda, coulda, shoulda, argument was enough to get Kirby Puckett into the Hall of Fame when his career ended because of glaucoma, but not good enough for Don Mattingly, who was a far more dangerous hitter than Puckett---was in fact the dominant player in baseball position for five years---but didn't get the same treatment because his back problems ruined his greatness.

The magic number of 300 wins and 500 homers is being ignored now because the game has changed. Jamie Moyer and David Wells have more wins that some Hall of Famers, but aren't getting in; members of the 500 club aren't receiving the honor because of PED allegations. And the save stat has been diminished because of the one-inning save.

You have to put eras into perspective if you're going to compare them at all.

Will Hoffman get in?

I honestly don't know.

I've gone back-and-forth on the subject myself. Will his numbers be enough when the vote comes around? He's not going to have the passionate support that Blyleven had from stat zombies; nor is he going to get the old-school support.

If you examine Eckersley---a deserved Hall of Famer---his candidacy was only made viable by the fact that he was a great starter and a great closer. I feel that same thing will push John Smoltz over the top.

Hoffman?

Is he a Hall of Famer?

Right now, I put him in a similar category with Lee Smith, Jeff Reardon and John Franco; based on that, I'd vote no.

PaulLebowitz.com

2010-12-25T09:55:00.001-05:00

I'm phasing this site out. Please go to PaulLebowitz.com.

Hot Stove Loo-zers----2010

2010-12-24T09:00:00.001-05:00

They don't have plans and schemes...

...and they don't have hopes and dreams.

Or maybe they do have hopes and dreams.

Maybe that's the problem.

Let's have a look at the hot stove losers...so far.

New York Yankees:

Desperately in need of pitching, they had their sights set on Cliff Lee as far back as a year ago and they didn't get him.

Andy Pettitte is still undecided as to what he's doing----I'm not prepared to sign off on the idea that he's "leaning" toward retirement; I think the closer it gets to spring training without a decision, the better it is for the prospect of him pitching.

Having not been helped by a weak/unsuitable market, they're biding their time and hoping to stay within striking distance of a playoff spot to make a bold maneuver at mid-season 2011. But that doesn't diminish the horrible winter they've had.

They kept Derek Jeter after a contentious and embarrassing negotiation for both sides; they retained Mariano Rivera.

On the surface, signing Russell Martin to take over behind the plate may solve the issue of Jorge Posada's declining defense, but Martin's not exactly Charlie O'Brien and his offense has declined on an annual basis for the past three years with injuries a concern. In 2007, Martin appeared to be developing into a Mike Piazza-lite with speed; now he looks more like Paul Lo Duca.

And don't think for a second that Posada's going to put on a happy face about DH relegation.

Pedro Feliciano will be a boost to the bullpen; Mark Prior probably won't even pitch.

The Yankees are accustomed to buying whatever they want; that hasn't worked and they're scrambling with nowhere to go.

Minnesota Twins:

One of the keys to the Twins being the Twins over the past ten years has been their liberal use of their bullpen. That bullpen has lost Jesse Crain and Matt Guerrier----two workhorses----and is now relying on Joe Nathan's successful return from Tommy John surgery and a cast of thousands to replace the valuable innings eaten by Crain and Guerrier.

Orlando Hudson, Jim Thome and J.J. Hardy have been jettisoned with only Hardy's departure a positive.

Alexi Casilla will take over at second base after he lost the job with lackluster play in 2009. Tsuyoshi Nishioka was imported from Japan. Do you know what they're going to get from either? Because I don't know what they're going to get from either.

Nor do the Twins.

The starting rotation isn't impressive and they're trying very hard to keep Carl Pavano.

Carl....Pavano.

Los Angeles Angels:

The Angels made what they thought was a competitive offer for Carl Crawford; it turned out to not be a competitive offer for Carl Crawford.

They were in on Cliff Lee and had no chance whatsoever of getting him. They wanted pitching and a bat and have gotten nothing. Rafael Soriano and Adrian Beltre may still be on their radar, but so far all they've done is sign Scott Downs and Hisanori Takahashi.

Their starting pitching is still deep, but there's something profoundly off with the Angels; something that's hard to pinpoint.

With the Rangers still solid and the Athletics drastically improved, these fault lines in Anaheim are a portent of dark times in 2011.

Seattle Mariners:

Eric Wedge is a good hire to manage the team, but they traded for Brendan Ryan; re-signed Erik Bedard (if something's working, why mess with it?); and signed Jack Cust.

These moves alone should catapult them from 61 wins to at least 67.

GM Jack Zduriencik must be a genius judging from the fact that he's still employed.

New York Mets:

New GM Sandy Alderson is using an Indiana Jones-style machete to slash through the tangled vines left by years of mismanagement, disorganization, warring fiefdoms and short-sightedness.

Because of this, the Mets have done almost nothing and are preaching patience to a disgusted fan base; it's going to get worse before it gets better.

Washington Nationals:

If you check the Nats official website, you'll see they have a picture of Rick Ankiel's dramatic homer in San Francisco in the NLDS while playing for the Braves----link.

He won't have to worry about dramatic playoff homers while playing for the Nats.

They overpaid for Jayson Werth; they traded Josh Willingham for the "future"; they have no pitching and no plan.

The team slogan should be "Waiting for Strasburg----Again".

St. Louis Cardinals:

Signing Lance Berkman to play right field might do as much harm defensively as it promises to help the lineup----and I believe Berkman will thrive at the plate.

They acquired the mediocre Ryan Theriot to play shortstop and surrendered the useful Blake Hawksworth to get him; they re-signed Jake Westbrook; their bullpen is still a question mark at best.

I also have to wonder how the Albert Pujols contract situation and that Chris Carpenter is due for an injury (as is his history) will affect them as the season moves along.

San Diego Padres:

Suffice it to say that this team is not going to win 90 games again.

They traded Adrian Gonzalez for the future and got some high-end prospects----none of the offense-generating variety----that won't help them in 2011; they acquired Jason Bartlett who isn't any great shakes; they signed Orlando Hudson who's becoming the Kurt Bevacqua of the new millenium. They're looking at Derrek Lee. Big deal.

Does anyone know what they're going to get out of Cameron Maybin?

They signed Aaron Harang who, if he was the "Aaron Harang" from 2007 would not only have had his option exercised by the Reds; as a free agent, he'd be looking at a $90 million deal.

Don't think that I've forgotten or am ignoring the rest of the clubs in baseball; I'll have some things to say about them and not in a "Gilligan's Island" off-handed "and the rest" variety in adding the Professor and Mary Ann at the conclusion of the credits in the black and white version of the show.

I'll have some stuff to say. Plenty of stuff. Tomorrow.

I'm considering changing the format of my postings; rather than one long deal published once, I may start stretching them out intermittently. Instead of bulletpoints, there will be separate postings.

It's under consideration.

I'll keep you informed; don't panic.

The Prince on the Podcast:

I was on a week ago Wednesday with Sal at SportsFan Buzz talking about the winter thus far. Click here to go to his site and get it from I-Tunes and here—-The SportsFan Buzz: December 15, 2010—to get it directly.

PaulLebowitz.com:

I've redesigned my personal site, so please go there to comment. I'm in the process of spreading the word and will eventually phase out the Blogspot site, which will only be used in emergencies and server failure.

Hot Stove Winners----2010

2010-12-23T09:16:00.000-05:00

In no particular order:

There are still a couple of "name" free agents available, but I highly doubt that any team's acquisition of Carl Pavano or Adrian Beltre will catapult them from one category into another.

As for trade possibilities, it's been all quiet. I believe----without inside information----that the Yankees have started laying the groundwork for a mid-season deal for a Chris Carpenter or Ubaldo Jimenez.

It's bizarre that my speculation is generally more on the money than those with inside information, but that can stem from the hand-in-hand nature of executives, agents and writers all using one another to get their messages out there.

I'm not hand-in-hand with anyone.

Let's have a look at the winners.

Tampa Bay Rays:

On the surface, one wouldn't think a team that is dumping salary and in a nightmarish division could be considered a "winner", but the Rays looked at their circumstances both financially and practically and acted accordingly.

Carlos Pena was a leader in the clubhouse and despite his on base ability, defense and power, he batted under .200 last year; they'd gotten everything they could get from him.

Carl Crawford was not staying in Tampa no matter what and the Rays had no chance to come within $50 million of the offer the Red Sox presented.

They've also allowed Rafael Soriano, Grant Balfour, Dan Wheeler and Joaquin Benoit to leave. Ordinarily, one would say that has gutted their bullpen, but no club in baseball has been better at finding the refuse of other teams and inserting them successfully into their bullpen mix than the Rays.

They traded Jason Bartlett to the Padres for four prospects----all young, cheap and with big strikeout numbers on the mound or on base numbers at the plate. After his career year in 2009, Bartlett reverted to what he is in 2010: an okay player who can catch the ball well enough at shortstop.

The Rays have replacements in hand (Reid Brignac, Desmond Jennings) for the departed; and they have a LOAD of compensatory draft picks.

One of the reasons I'd love to see teams allowed to trade draft picks is to see what the Rays would do with such an opportunity----it's be Jimmy Johnson-esque.

The Rays will be competitive. Watch.

Boston Red Sox:

They improved both the lineup and defense with Adrian Gonzalez and Carl Crawford. Their bullpen is deep, experienced and playoff-proven with Dan Wheeler and Bobby Jenks joining Jonathan Papelbon.

They re-signed Jason Varitek to keep the clubhouse in order despite his rapidly declining skills, but with that lineup, they can carry Varitek and Jarrod Saltalamacchia as the catcher as long as they handle the pitching staff.

The Red Sox set lines in "trying" to retain Beltre and Victor Martinez and I'm of the mind that they knew all along that unless the market crashed completely they weren't going to be able to keep either, nor did they truly want to.

With this flurry of imports, the Red Sox are head-and-shoulders above the rest of the American League and that includes the Yankees.

Chicago White Sox:

"James Bond Villain" Kenny Williams needed a power bat? He signed Adam Dunn.

He needed to keep Paul Konerko? He kept Paul Konerko.

He'd grown tired of watching Bobby Jenks gack games? He dumped Bobby Jenks.

There is no one more aggressive and gutsy in baseball than Kenny Williams; what makes him more impressive is his utter disregard for what anyone says or thinks of him. He just does things and, for the most part, the things he does work out just fine.

Detroit Tigers:

Ignoring that they overspent for Joaquin Benoit and Victor Martinez, they filled two holes with the signings. My main concern regarding finances has never been the amount of money spent, but whether the money spent for "wants" precludes that which is left for "needs". But the Tigers filled two needs in the bullpen and lineup with Benoit and Martinez.

They kept Magglio Ordonez on a 1-year contract and also retained Johnny Peralta. They'll be ready to move at mid-season as well.

Long term, these decisions may prove costly; but for 2011, they're winners.

Oakland Athletics:

I've often torn into A's boss Billy Beane for using Moneyball and his reputation as a "genius" to shield him from ghastly personnel moves; but he's quietly had a terrific off-season and brought the A's into legitimate playoff contention.

He used the organizational depth he'd accumulated in prior deals to acquire the underrated bats David DeJesus and Josh Willingham to bolster a putrid lineup; he signed Hideki Matsui to a team-friendly contract; and they still have a very deep pitching staff.

Even if the staff takes a step back from their league-leading ERA, the lineup will account for any fallback.

They're still hanging around trying to get Adrian Beltre too.

Philadelphia Phillies:

Two words: Cliff Lee.

As my Phillies fan friend said in an overnight text message informing me of the Lee signing----"Mwaahahahahaha."

Atlanta Braves:

They needed a bat and got that bat in Dan Uggla; to make it even more of a steal, they got him for almost nothing.

Scott Linebrink helps the bullpen and while they're still in flux at the closer's spot, one thing I'd keep my eye on is a potential Billy Wagner return at mid-season.

The Phillies are loaded, but the Braves are very, very good.

Milwaukee Brewers:

The Brewers went from having Randy Wolf as their number 2 starter to having Yovani Gallardo (their erstwhile number 1) as their number 2 behind former AL Cy Young Award winner Zack Greinke; they also acquired Shaun Marcum from the Blue Jays.

Having not surrendered anything of note from their powerful lineup, their only question is the bullpen and I'm wondering if they're making a stealth move on Rafael Soriano.

The Brewers are ready to contend for real.

Los Angeles Dodgers:

Amid the lunacy surrounding the warring McCourts, GM Ned Colletti has quietly and relatively inexpensively improved both the entire Dodgers roster.

Jon Garland was signed to provide innings; Matt Guerrier is a highly underrated and durable reliever; and Juan Uribe provided pop and clutch hits.

The Dodgers also kept Ted Lilly, Hiroki Kuroda and Rod Barajas and might be in on Johnny Damon.

In an under-the-radar fashion, the Dodgers are again a team to watch for on-field stuff rather than courtroom drama.

Viewer Mail 12.23.2010:

Jane Heller at Confessions of a She-Fan writes RE my new site and the Washington Nationals:

Love the new look of your blog! Very easy to use with great graphics. Kudos. As for the Nationals, they’re surreptitiously becoming the new Yankees.

Thanks for the compliment about the site.

I dunno if the "new Yankees" stuff is exactly a compliment considering how the off-seasons of both clubs has gone so far. And the Nats may be after Carl Pavano!!

Caveat emptor.

Jim Downs writes about me and the Nats:

A couple of mistakes in your post. Scott Olsen is not longer a National, he signed with the Pirates on 6 December and the Nationals had a .500 record in their first year in Washington (not in Montreal). Only time will tell if the rest of your post has any merit. I would only point out that they do have some decent young prospects for pitching within their organization. Pitchers such as Jordan Zimmermann, Colin Balestar, Garrett Mock, Aaron Thompson, Yunesky Maya, and Ross Detwiler all have some potential to become good starters.

Jim's right about my mistake. I checked MLB.com and their transaction listing for the Nats and Olsen was listed as having signed a contract. It didn't specify where, but I knew Olsen had signed with the Pirates. It's an inexplicable mistake and I should've fact-checked.

Regarding the status of being at or over .500, I meant over .500, but that's not a big deal.

As for the Nats pitching prospects? You're asking a lot from that group if they're going to be part of a team that has visions of contention in the NL East as they clearly do with the deranged contract they gave to Jayson Werth.

Jordan Zimmerman is still returning from injury and could be serviceable; Balester was consistently blasted as a starter and may be a good reliever; Mock is another reliever; Thompson's minor league numbers are not promising; I saw Maya pitch against the Mets----he's a right-handed cunnythumber and is awful; Detwiler's put up good minor league numbers and maybe they can get something from him.

But this is the point. What are they? If they had a powerful lineup to account for the building starting rotation filled with mediocrity and question marks, then okay; but they don't.

They have a good bullpen that was abused trying to win as many games as possible early last season; they can't really hit. As I said yesterday, they're waiting for Stephen Strasburg (again) and for Bryce Harper to come and save them.

Is this the plan? Relying on the pitchers you mentioned and Jayson Werth?

I can't see how it can possibly work.

Jeff at Red State Blue State writes RE the Nats:

I really don’t understand the Nat’inals either. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: I really feel sorry for Ryan Zimmerman. He’s loaded with talent and promise… talent which is wasted, and I assure you that THAT ain’t promising.

Ryan Zimmerman should be rightfully annoyed that Werth is getting paid so well. Zimmerman signed a long-term deal, but he's far superior to Werth and plays a more difficult position to fill.

Gabriel writes RE the Nats:

I think the Nationals just want to make money through ticket sales on the days Strasburg pitches. There's no logic on that team.

Washington is such a promising venue for a team; access to fans and political power. I've often said that if I were going to run one team in baseball, it'd be the Nationals. Current ownership deserves credit for aggressiveness and because they're willing to spend, but they need to think about what they're doing before they do it.

PaulLebowitz.com:

National Catastrophe In The Making

2010-12-22T09:31:00.001-05:00

A non-partisan nightmare:

The factional disputes inherent in Washington politics are generally put aside when a true catastrophe occurs. Of course there are always----in every situation----those who will take any kind of disaster and twist it to suit their own needs, truth be damned.

In a baseball sense, the Washington Nationals have the potential to be just such a calamity.

What are they doing?

You can debate the Jayson Werth signing; call it an expensive mistake; say that they'll be paying a good player great player money until he's in his late-30s. But the fact remains that at least Werth is a good player. The assertions that he's a "player who's never driven in 100 runs" as if that's the barometer of the contract are absurd.

But it's the other moves the Nationals have made that are going to exacerbate the hellish fate that awaits them.

They desperately need pitching. Their current number 1 starter is listed as Livan Hernandez; they re-signed Chien-Ming Wang after Wang missed the entire 2010 season recovering from shoulder surgery and hasn't pitched at all since mid-2009; they have the middling likes of Jason Marquis, Scott Olsen and John Lannan on the roster; they're looking at Carl Pavano; and appear to be waiting----again----for Stephen Strasburg to arrive, yank open his shirt, show the "S" on his T-shirt and rescue the franchise.

That didn't exactly work the last time.

As for their offense, are they better with Werth? Perhaps they would be had they not traded Josh Willingham to the Athletics for outfielder Corey Brown and RHP Henry Rodriguez.

This exacerbates the overall point.

What are the Nationals?

What's the plan?

Are they trying to win immediately?

Are they rebuilding and trying to compete simultaneously?

Do they have the young personnel to justify the aggressive, expensive and risk/reward decisions that are currently being made?

The latest is Rick Ankiel.

Rick Ankiel?

Like Werth, I have to ask the question: is he going to pitch?

Ankiel can play the outfield; he's better than what they currently have on their depth chart beside Werth (Nyjer Morgan and Roger Bernadina), but he's not better than Willingham. Willingham's abilities have long be underappreciated and he was inexpensive for everything he did. When he was with the Marlins, all the focus was placed on Dan Uggla and Hanley Ramirez, but the hitter I most feared in a big situation was Willingham. And they dispatched him for the future.

But are they playing for the future or making the mistake of being several things at once?

Well-run teams who are successful are learning the error of their ways as they use dual strategies of winning and maintaining the pipeline. They're correctly altering their strategy. But the Nats? A franchise that has had one .500 season since 2003 (when they were still in Montreal); they're not good. They're not in a financial position to be making such prohibitive signings as Werth for that amount of money.

But they are.

One thing that's glossed over when players are signed to deranged contracts like that of Werth isn't that it's an overpayment for a limited player; it's that it hinders what the club can do to fill out the roster.

Such is the situation the Cardinals are going to face with Albert Pujols as they face the prospect of a contentious negotiation with the Joe DiMaggio of this generation; can the Cardinals maintain competition with Pujols taking up a massive percentage of their payroll so they can barely afford anyone else?

Jayson Werth is not Albert Pujols.

The only answer to my question as to whether there's a plan is this: there is no plan. They're just doing things. Things that aren't going to assist in a leap to contention; things that are going to keep the club in the netherworld of mediocrity and worse. They're in a vicious division, they have no pitching and they can't really hit.

So where's the improvement?

It's not there.

Viewer Mail 12.22.2010:

Matt writes RE the Yankees and Zack Greinke:

If I were the Yank's I'd take Derek Lowe off the Braves hands, presumably for little more than his salary commitment. He'd eat innings per usual and with their offense I could easily see him being a 15 game winner. For what it's worth (not much) I was at Fenway this summer and watched Grienke throw a 1-run complete game loss against Clay Buchholz's gem and obviously came away impressed. I think he'd have thrived in NY or anywhere else.

I actually----and this is 100% true----had mentioned Derek Lowe as an option for them and deleted it. I don't see the Braves moving him now with the Phillies as loaded up with pitching as they are; the Braves are a Wild Card favorite with Lowe; they'd need to bring pitching back to replace him and dealing him makes no sense now.

I love Greinke's talent. What impresses me most about him is the way he can amp it up when he gets into trouble, raising his fastball from 92-93 to 96. His control, command and stuff are undeniable. The big issue is his mentality and handling the pressure. There won't be as much pressure in Milwaukee as there would've been with the Yankees, but he couldn't deal with pitching for a rotten team in Kansas City; there's always a chance of those issues recurring.

I do hope he handles the off-field stuff and shows what he can do on the field in a pennant race.

Max Stevens writes RE the Athletics:

Prince, have you noticed that the Oakland A's have quietly made themselves a much better team this offseason, perhaps even the team to beat in the AL West? They already had pretty solid pitching, and the addition of Willingham and Matsui brings some much needed thunder to their lineup. There's a lot of 'ifs' involved in my thinking about this, but let's say the A's get Beltre, the Rangers don't re-sign Vald or find a suitable replacement for him, and the Angels fail to upgrade their offesne significantly. If all this happens, Oakland will win 90 games or so, which would probably be enough to take the West. What say you?

I think the A's are going to be really good next year. Their pitching is young, but they have a lot of it; I would hesitate to expect young pitchers to repeat their work from one year to the next, but the extra firepower in their lineup will give them the leeway to fall back and still bound into legitimate contention; that division isn't particularly great either, so they have a giant opening to dive through.

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

"Understandable but mistaken."

OH BUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUURN!

Jeff, I bring it sometimes. I....bring....IT!!!!

The Prince on the Podcast:

I was on with Sal at SportsFan Buzz last Wednesday talking about Cliff Lee, Carl Crawford and all the other stuff that's gone on in baseball. Go to Sal's site for the I-tunes link or click The SportsFan Buzz: December 15, 2010 to listen directly.

PaulLebowitz.com:

From Haren And Lee To...Um....

2010-12-21T08:34:00.004-05:00

Mark.....Prior?

I'm only half-kidding when I say that.

The Yankees response to their needs in the starting rotation will not be answered by Mark Prior; I think everyone----the Yankees, the media, the fans and Prior himself----know this.

Even with that, we've come a long way from the heady days of mid-summer when following the Mariners backing out of an agreed upon deal with the Yankees and double-dealing Cliff Lee to the Rangers, and weeks before Dan Haren was traded to the Angels, there was a prevailing notion that the Yankees were going to go after Haren via trade, get him, and then go after Lee following the season.

They were going to get him as well.

At the time, I thought the plan was ludicrous. Haren is owed a guaranteed $29 million through 2012; if the Yankees were getting Lee as a free agent, they would've had to up their offer significantly from what it was----so significantly that it would've dwarfed what he got from the Phillies. Once you add in C.C. Sabathia's and A.J. Burnett's contracts and the raise coming for Phil Hughes, then the Derek Jeter and Mariano Rivera deals, you come to the conclusion that not even the Yankees could do that and stay financially sane.

I doubt anyone thought they'd end up with nothing.

Well, nothing unless you consider Mark Prior to be someone who can provide....something.

I'm not being cruel or sarcastic when I scoff at the notion of the club getting anything of substance from Prior. History has shown that he's not going to stay healthy regardless of his stuff.

So where does that leave the Yankees?

GM Brian Cashman has said that they're "unlikely" to acquire a top pitcher. This is even more stark with the Zack Greinke trade to the Brewers and Ricky Nolasco signing a contract extension with the Marlins.

There's nothing out there.

The Yankees current depth chart in the starting rotation consists of Sabathia, Burnett, Hughes and Ivan Nova.

Venturing into frighteningly new and unfamiliar territory of rejection, the Yankees and their fans are confused and scrambling. They've grown accustomed to being able to purchase whatever they wanted/needed; when someone refuses their money, they have to step back and reassess; move onto Plan B; but Plan B wasn't all that great either with Greinke being considered unsuitable for New York and the pressure of pinstripes.

They have no options other than to wait for mid-season and see which teams might place some pricey and unexpected arms out on the market.

Factoring in the aggression of the Red Sox and White Sox, the Yankees are now in the position of needing----not wanting, needing----Burnett to return to 2008 form (and since he's not a free agent, don't hold your breath).

Like the once wealthy person who looked down upon his contemporaries from a lower class, rather than being above the fray in digging for answers, the Yankees are amongst the rabble without the bounty to go around and the objects of their desires either refusing to take their cash or being sent elsewhere.

A lot can change in five months----backward and forward.

Viewer Mail 12.21.2010:

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

Glad to hear you like the Feliciano signing for the Yankees. Always good to have a guy who will give you innings.

He's actually more of a lefty specialist. The Mets made the mistake of trying him against both righties and lefties and it, um, didn't work.

Justin writes RE Zack Greinke:

You're just plain wrong throughout the article. Greinke was a 5WAR player last year. He doesn't need to bounce back. A transition to the NL will make him even better.

Second, the whole point about facing Pujols in September is kind of moot. It's not like he gets shelled everytime a good batter comes up to the plate because he's scared.

Lastly, the Brewers bullpen morphed as the season went along. Loe, Braddock, Axford is a 7-8-9 inning trio that can stack up to the best.

Don't come at me with WAR when we're talking about more of a mental issue than performance; and he did not pitch up to the standard he set in 2009. His strikeouts were way down and he, bottom line, was on a level with a number 3 starter on a good team. He was the number 1 starter on a rotten team, so it didn't make much of a difference, but now there are actual expectations in a team-concept aside from a talented and frazzled pitcher who's failed to fulfill his potential.

You're missing the point about facing Albert Pujols----the mental aspect has a lot to do with performance and Greinke's mentality is an acknowledged question mark.

Truth be told, I think he's going to do very well with the Brewers, but if you're expecting a Roy Halladay-level of dominance, you're deluding yourself.

Speaking of which----Kameron Loe, Zack Braddock and John Axford "stacking up with the best"? Really?

Bullpen performances are fluctuation, but Loe? Really? Are you expecting him to repeat what he did last season? Good luck there. Braddock walked 19 in 33 innings and his control wasn't much better in the minors. Axford's good. I'd prefer to have an established closer, but they can win with him.

Your expectations appear to be peppered with the enthusiasm from a big acquisition. Understandable, but mistaken.

Joe writes RE the Red Sox:

Everyone has games where they score double-digit runs. The offense was 2nd even with all of the injuries, which you mentioned in your first article, but fail to mention now. That is WAY more important than a few offensive "outbursts."

(T)hey didn't expect "too much" from any players. They hoped everyone could hit like they have, and be average or better. Then, the lineup would be really good up and down, but not necessarily *great*

Their 2009 offseason WAS "fine." There 2010 offseason was great. You can't grab great players in every offseason, that is unrealistic.

You try and decipher the intangibles/unknowns (You just did it with Greinke, as you cannot get in his mind, yet try and speak of how he might handle a big game), yet when I do it, you frown upon it. All I did was bring it up as a possibility that Theo was okay with waiting to acquire Gonzalez for 2011, rather than 2010. And any GM knew that they could also add an impact OF for 2011 through free agency. It is a definite possibility that this was Theo's plan.

Joe's bloviating comments are peppered with quotes from yours truly. You can read the entire context here----link.

Where's the "objective analysis" from which your life is based, Joe? All I see here is explosive defense of that which is, at best, arguable. That you happen to be wrong is irrelevant. If this were any other team I was discussing, you'd comment and move on; since it's the Red Sox, you're taking it as a personal affront for reasons that aren't based in logic, but in emotional response.

And all this time I thought you were Spock.

Max Stevens writes RE the new site:

Prince, the new layout looks great. Congrats.

Thank you Max, we're moving up in the world!!!

Jeff at Red State Blue State writes RE the Cubs and Kerry Wood:

I actually like Kerry Wood coming back to the Chi. As much as I dog the sCrUBS for being... well, dumb... Wood has long been a stand-out in the community and this is a good, cheap PR move if nothing else (I do think he'll help Marmol get a hold of himself... maybe). Wood gives back so much to community and he is a genuinely nice guy. I hope to run into him at Wildfire sometime... maybe I'll even buy him a drink.

I'm amazed he took such a light deal. $1.5 million? It's nothing in today's game; especially for a veteran who did very well with the Yankees and taking into account the dearth of relievers available.

The Prince on the Podcast:

I was on with Sal at SportsFan Buzz yesterday talking about Cliff Lee, Carl Crawford and all the other stuff that's gone on in baseball. Go to Sal's site for the I-tunes link or click The SportsFan Buzz: December 15, 2010 to listen directly.

Bold, Flashy And Flawed

2010-12-20T09:16:00.002-05:00

Holes big enough to drive a truck through:

I tend to look at the positive of what a player can do rather than what he can't, so when it's noted that the Brewers had to take Yuniesky Betancourt in the deal to acquire Zack Greinke from the Royals, I don't harp of Betancourt's poor defense and atrocious on-base percentage; I look at Betancourt's 47 extra base hits in 2010 (a number he's approached in every one of his full big league seasons) and say, "they might get some use from him".

Apart from that, the Brewers have drastically improved themselves from the .500 team they've been in the past two seasons as they acquired Greinke from the Royals for a package of youngsters----ESPN Story.

This comes on the heels of their acquisition of Shaun Marcum from the Blue Jays. The Brewers rotation is now among the top tier in baseball with Yovani Gallardo, Greinke, Marcum and Randy Wolf as a number four----where he belongs.

They can really hit as well.

But their flaws are still glaring and must be addressed as should their questions regarding the new manager and their newest acquisition, Greinke.

The Brewers bullpen has been awful in the past few years; they overspent on the likes of LaTroy Hawkins and David Riske to terrible results; Trevor Hoffman was great in his first season with the club in 2009, but horrific last year and is now gone. His replacement closer, John Axford, showed promise; if they truly intend to contend in the tough NL Central, they need to beef up the bullpen. I'm wondering whether they'll make a bold move on Rafael Soriano now that they've got the starting rotation to go along with their lineup.

Then there are the lingering questions about Greinke. He was masterful in 2009 as he won the AL Cy Young Award. He was shaky in 2010 and until he loses the deer-in-the-headlights look, a jaundiced eye will be cast on his mental makeup.

Will he handle being the focal point even in a mid-market town like Milwaukee? He's never been in a pennant race; he's never pitched in a prototypical "big" game; he's never been anywhere close to a relevant baseball venue. What happens in September if the Brewers are two games behind the Cardinals and heading into St. Louis for a key series with Greinke pitching the opener against Adam Wainwright? When he sees Albert Pujols striding to the plate with two runners on base in the first inning? Will he panic? Or will he rise to the occasion?

These are not small, insignificant questions to ask about a player who's had the off-field mental problems dealing with his station that Greinke has had.

Even if he is the ace he was in 2009, the Brewers bullpen is a problem. If they go after Soriano, then they're legitimate contenders for the playoffs. Could they survive with Axford? Maybe. But I'd prefer to have a proven closer.

Then there's the new manager Ron Roenicke.

His resume is excellent; he comes from stock as a longtime journeyman player who hung around the big leagues on guile more than talent; he paid his dues managing in the minors and was a longtime coach for Mike Scioscia with the Angels.

But other managers have had similarly solid resumes and failed miserably, so you don't know until you know. I think Roenicke will do well, but I also thought Trey Hillman was going to be a big time winner with the Royals, so it has to happen before it's taken for granted.

The Brewers are a playoff contender in the pre-season analysis, but with those questions and the winter only half over, they do have other issues to address. Are they better than the Cardinals right now? I'd say no.

They're among the group of teams who are in the mix for the playoffs; they've been aggressive in getting drastically better, but Greinke is no guarantee and the bullpen is a problem. What maneuvers they make from now on will determine the decision to anoint them as the class of the NL Central or not.

If the players perform as expected, holes can be covered; there are also mid-season deals to be made; but if they don't do as they're asked; if they stumble, someone has to pick up the slack. Do the Brewers have the personnel to do that?

Right now, I'd say I don't know; right now, I'd say hold off and wait.

Viewer Mail 12.20.2010:

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

I hope "Perpetual Pedro" still has tendons and ligaments attached to his arm.

Feliciano has been a gutty and solid performer for the Mets; never complaining and always doing his job. He'll blow a couple here and there, but for the most part in his 80 or so appearances, he'll get the job done. He's an asset to the Yankees bullpen.

Joe writes RE the Red Sox:

I like how you say the Red Sox were plagued by injuries and that is why their plan didn't work. Then say not getting a bat was a "mistake." Their offense was really good. And they had guys up and down the lineup that could hit some. It is actually possible that they wanted to wait to deal for Gonzalez with only a year left, to surrender one or two fewer prospects. Plus, they knew Crawford would be available. And they assigned a scout to follow him around for half of 2010. There have been jokes that Theo's plan began at such a young age, but I have no trouble believing that he had a plan for 2011, before 2010 ever began. The Red Sox 2009 offseason was fine. The team was good enough in what was clearly a "bridge year."

On the surface and without mining deeper into the accuracy of your statement through numbers----supposedly your forte----you're right. The Red Sox offense was "good enough"; but when you look at it in detail, you're selectively picking and choosing numbers to bolster your argument.

The Red Sox offense was second in the AL in runs scored, but that was skewered by some gigantic offensive explosions of double digit runs. They were inconsistent and flawed when constructed as they expected too much from players for whom it was unreasonable to expect too much.

If they didn't want to overpay for Gonzalez, then why have they been pursuing him for the better part of two years (at least)?

Regarding Crawford, I don't see it as a big deal that they were following him for half the year; that could have been a scouting operation not only for the decision of whether or not to sign him, but for a potential playoff matchup. I'm sure they had scouts assigned to keep an eye on Gonzalez and Jayson Werth along with any other player in whom they had an avid interest.

The Red Sox 2009 off-season was not "fine"; it was an attempt to build through stat zombie tenets----like the "closer-by-committee"----that failed in practice.

They're doing it the way they should be doing it now; for that they should be applauded; but don't try to alter history with non-facts as to their thinking that you or I couldn't possibly know.

The Prince on the Podcast:

I was on last Wednesday with Sal at Sportsfanbuzz talking about the winter thus far. Click here to go to his site and get it from I-Tunes and here—-The SportsFan Buzz: December 15, 2010—to get it directly.

New site design:

My personal site---PaulLebowitz.com----has been redesigned. It's still being tweaked, but it looks more professional and there's a preferable commenting section that was lacking in my prior design. Once everything is organized, my postings will be there alone. I'll continue posting here until it's complete.

Sunday Lightning 12.19.2010

2010-12-19T10:31:00.001-05:00

Concepts vs Reality:

While last winter was dedicated to rebuilding via concept, this winter has been exemplified by an adherence to reality.

The Red Sox and Phillies both had "ideas" in the winter of 2009. Ideas that stemmed from overthinking. Both resulted in disappointment.

The Red Sox were determined to use pitching and defense rather than acquire a much-needed bat; they signed Mike Cameron, Adrian Beltre and Marco Scutaro to team-friendly, short-term deals; they signed John Lackey to bolster their rotation.

Beltre was an MVP candidate; Scutaro played as expected; Cameron got hurt; and Lackey was inconsistent at best. It wasn't this concept that undid the Red Sox in 2010, but injuries; that doesn't diminish the fact that they needed a bat in the middle of the lineup and were short in the bullpen.

The Phillies wanted to ensure that they wouldn't gut their farm system if they traded for Roy Halladay; to do that, they made the lateral move of trading Cliff Lee to the Mariners for the prospects that would ostensibly replace those that were going to the Phillies in exchange for Halladay. As 2010 wore on, they teetered on the brink of irrelevance and addressed the shortness in the starting rotation by trading for Roy Oswalt.

This winter, both clubs have learned from their mistakes and addressed needs rather than be all things to all people at all times.

The Red Sox needed a bat and acquired two----Adrian Gonzalez and Carl Crawford. In addition to that, they made the wise decision to augment their bullpen with proven veterans and post-season performers (both former closers) Bobby Jenks and Dan Wheeler.

Seizing on their burgeoning opportunity in the American League, the Red Sox have placed themselves head and shoulders above their competitors----even the Yankees. They have a deep starting rotation; a powerful lineup that can catch the ball in the field; and a power-packed bullpen.

Don't discount that the two pitchers who are going to be handling matters in the eighth and ninth innings, Jenks and Jonathan Papelbon, have closed for championship teams; they've gotten it done in the big spots. This is something very few relievers can say and it's not meaningless. Trevor Hoffman, for all his accumulated saves, doesn't have that. Jenks and Papelbon do.

As for the Phillies, their bold strike to sign Cliff Lee out from under the Yankees and Rangers was a glaring yet tacit admission on the part of GM Ruben Amaro Jr. that you cannot walk the tightrope with a veteran team and restock on the fly. The Phillies are older; they're expensive and built to win now. With the addition of Lee, they're assured of a playoff spot and are a great bet for a deep playoff run.

Both clubs have smart people in their front office----they wouldn't be in their current positions with continuing success if they didn't----but they out-thought themselves in 2009; what's admirable is that they took the steps to fix their problems rather than cling to an ideal. Because of that, they're the early and overwhelming favorites to face each other in the 2011 World Series.

Moderate blasts:

Cubs sign Kerry Wood

The idea of Wood being an "icon" returning to the his first home is a bit over-the-top, but Wood clearly wanted to go back to the Cubs as evidenced by his acceptance of a 1-year, $1.5 million contract. Even if they weren't going to go crazy in an effort to keep him, the Yankees would absolutely have given him something closer to $5 million and possibly more than one year on the deal to be Mariano Rivera's set-up man.

Will Wood be any better this time as a set-up man for Carlos Marmol than he was as a closer before he left? Wood was shaky at times and his injury issues are a concern, but for $1.5 million? It's a great deal for the Cubs.

Yankees sign Pedro Feliciano

Feliciano has been worked, worked, worked and worked some more by the Mets paranoid and overactive managers Willie Randolph and Jerry Manuel. Both wore out a path to the mound and wore out Feliciano in the process.

Since 2006, Feliciano has appeared in 64, 78, 86, 88 and 92 games, hence the nickname Perpetual Pedro. The deal with the Yankees is said to be for 2-years at $8 million. Feliciano is a lefty-specialist and he's been durable; this will give provide the Yankees with something that was lacking in the past year as they overused Damaso Marte and relied on Boone Logan after Marte got hurt.

Will the abuse catch up to Feliciano? He's been remarkably resilient, so I would expect him to be as useful to the Yankees as he was to the Mets when they were in their contending years.

This is a good move for the Yankees.

The Prince on the Podcast:

Matsui Or Matsui

2010-12-18T09:17:00.001-05:00

Which one?

As talented and charismatic as some of the Japanese imports are when they first reach North America, baseball is littered with more failures than successes.

For every Hideo Nomo, there's Hideki Irabu, Kei Igawa and Kenji Johjima. Even players who've been of use like Daisuke Matsuzaka can only be classified as disappointing.

Then there are the two New York acquisitions----Hideki Matsui and Kaz Matsui.

Hideki joined the Yankees, was perceived to be little more than a solid player with a cool nickname (Godzilla) and major marketing possibilities.

Kaz joined the Mets and forced the shifting of Jose Reyes from shortstop to second base.

While Hideki was quiet cool, Kaz was personality and flair. But they each went in opposite directions. Hideki proved himself to be an all-around player; he could hit, hit for power and while he wasn't a great fielder, it wasn't due to lack of effort. He was durable, tough and hit in the clutch.

Kaz, on the other hand, was a disaster. He couldn't field; he didn't hit well enough to justify the contract and shifting of Reyes; and he was injury-prone. It was only when the Mets dumped him on the Colorado Rockies that he played somewhere close to expectations as he was an important contributor for the 2007 NL pennant winners. Kaz left the Rockies for the Astros as a free agent after the 2007 season and was again disappointing.

It's a risk to expect major production from these newcomers regardless of scouting and prior performance.

The Twins are in need of a shortstop after the trade of J.J. Hardy; as I discussed two days ago, they're in flux with their bullpen after the losses of Jesse Crain and Matt Guerrier; and now they've signed Tsuyoshi Nishioka to a 3-year contract to take over at shortstop----ESPN Story.

Nishioka batted .346 in 2010 for the Chiba Lotte Marines; he hit 11 homers and had 206 hits and stole 22 bases. But that essentially means nothing in coming to the big leagues. The power players---and not all of them are Japanese----have shown in Japan has not translated to the majors. Hideki Matsui hit 50 one year in Japan; his career high in North America was 31.

How Nishioka's game will translate remains to be seen, but judging from history and the Twins needs, they should probably not expect much in terms of similar production. Given the players they've lost so far, they're going to need him to produce as well.

New site design:

The Prince on the Podcast:

I was on last Wednesday with Sal at Sportsfanbuzz talking about the winter thus far. Click here to go to his site and get it from I-Tunes and here----The SportsFan Buzz: December 15, 2010---to get it directly.

Freed From The Shackles

2010-12-17T07:55:00.002-05:00

The cage of expectations; the confinement of lies:

Despite the ancillary benefits of fame, fortune and idol worship, one has to think that Billy Beane would prefer to not have had his name so irrevocably attached to Moneyball. The Moneyball concept (without the book) has validity; it makes sense to take advantage of market inefficiencies to discover unappreciated attributes that can be exploited; the book itself is ridiculous.

Because Beane took part in the Michael Lewis project with such enthusiasm, on some level it appeared that his failure as a player could somehow be compensated if he made his name as an executive.

And he did make his name as an executive.

But in retrospect, I would think that he would probably have preferred that the narrative not been as twisted as it was; that he wouldn't have been canonized as the infallible expert whose every breath, every utterance, every move was to be recorded and mimicked.

Does Beane regret the way he's made to look like a bully?

That Art Howe was made into a fool?

That other baseball executives were portrayed as buffoons?

Only he knows the answer to that question.

With the Moneyball movie being filmed, it's interesting to notice the distancing currently taking place. Background characters from the book----Sandy Alderson, J.P. Ricciardi and Paul DePodesta to name three (the Mets new front office)----have taken steps to either shake the infestation Moneyball has inflicted upon their careers and reputations or to "explain" them away.

One would assume that the whole debate of the veracity of the book and the inevitable caveats will start again once the movie comes closer and closer to release; but that doesn't remove the reality that all participants have subtly altered their strategies to suit their needs----and the biggest need is to keep their jobs.

Directly as a result of Moneyball, Beane was able to do essentially whatever he wanted for years.

He wanted to clean house after his team came within four games of the World Series and reload for the future? Fine.

He wanted to fire his manager for basically no reason apart from a petulant whim and pay off an expensive salary? Whatever.

He had corporate speaking engagements galore and a part ownership of the team.

But that didn't diminish the increasing belief that perhaps Beane wasn't the "genius" the book made him out to be. The Athletics on-field failures could no longer be chalked up to a lack of funds. If he was a "genius" for winning with less, for finding players regardless of circumstances and obstacles, then this had to extend far beyond Moneyball; far beyond Tim Hudson/Mark Mulder/Barry Zito; far beyond Ken Macha; past the halcyon days of, "Well, Billy knows what he's doing".

After an annual finish at the bottom of the AL West standings and rightful allegations that his "best friend", manager Bob Geren, was only holding onto his job because of the subjective nature of that friendship----any other manager would've gotten fired after two years of win totals in the mid-70s, let alone three----Beane has quietly put a team together that is poised to contend in 2011.

I mean legitimately contend; not simply having the remaining "believers" of Moneyball continually picking the Athletics because of an agenda to have the book "proven" to be accurate as if one thing has anything to do with the other.

No.

The A's have a surplus of pitching from several of the trades Beane made in recent years; now they're taking steps to bolster an offense that was rancid in 2010.

Three quiet, under-the-radar maneuvers the A's made have brought David DeJesus, Josh Willingham and Hideki Matsui to Oakland. All are underrated and productive; they're inexpensive and positive clubhouse men.

With an offer out to Adrian Beltre, the A's are still interested in importing a similar non-star, but useful cog into that which they're building. With their pitching, these acquisitions alone will push them onto the outskirts of contention.

The AL West is winnable for the A's. The Rangers are no guarantee to repeat their work from 2010; the Angels are scrambling; and the Mariners are horrific.

Unlike other years where he was the star of the show, it's been a stealth winter for the Athletics. It's something similar to the famous star whose career had fallen on hard times; he took a backseat, reassessed and altered his strategy to suit what he needed to succeed rather than save face.

Could it be that the Moneyball cage has been removed from the likes of Beane, Alderson, et al? That since the ridicule doled upon them for years and years of trying to justify the hype (and failing) has freed them from following the faulty blueprint and they're now able to actually build their teams based on all aspects of finding players----statistically, via experience and through gut reaction?

Possibly.

Considering the way the A's are looking better and better, Beane's reputation could be saved by something other than Hollywood; it could be saved by success on the field.

Viewer Mail 12.17.2010:

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

I hope ESPN is wrong about Kerry Wood. I was hoping the Yankees would bring him back as Mo's heir apparent.

Um....you wanted Kerry Wood to replace Mariano Rivera?

You're talking about replacing Frank Sinatra with Enrique Iglesias.

Joe writes RE Jayson Werth and Cliff Lee:

Lee was a better player than Werth. But it isn't easy to replace Werth's production in the outfield (even in a bandbox). They were able to do this because Domonic Brown may replace a few of those wins. And they could have signed Lee and let Werth walk, then signed an OF too. But outside of Carl Crawford, no one is replacing Werth straight up in the outfield, unless a trade were to be made. It's simple: Lee + Brown is better than Werth + no one (or a crappy fifth starter).

Here's what I was thinking for the Phillies a week or so ago----Manny Ramirez.

Of course this would be contingent on Manny Being Reasonable rather than Manny Being Manny; that Scott Boras wouldn't try to extract every single penny remaining on Manny's value; that he'd be willing to take a one-year deal with heavy incentives to go to a World Series contender and play for a manager in Charlie Manuel with whom Manny has had a father-son relationship.

With Lee and Werth, the Phillies were slick and smart as they struck. There's no question about that.

Na writes RE Carlos Zambrano and the Yankees:

The Zambrano rumors started with Bill Madden in the Daily News and Madden was making his own assertion without so much as an "unnamed source." It was a piece of bad journalism, with no reporting whatsoever. Madden needed to fill space, and figured since Rothschild was the pitching coach in Chicago, maybe cool hand Zam' would come along for the ride.

Hey, I don't blame Madden, a guy like that would be a dream player for the NY Press.

That would explain it. It really didn't make sense that they'd preach patience and then start pursuing an expensive headache like Zambrano.

You bring up an interesting point about the media and what they need rather than what would be wise for the team. It was the same way with the Mets as they were interviewing managers and the media pushed and pushed for Wally Backman based on little else than his Mets ties and that he's a potential explosion at any moment.

Sometimes teams are smart enough to resist this pressure; other times they're not.

The Prince on the Podcast:

I was on with Sal at SportsFan Buzz on Wednesday talking about Cliff Lee, Carl Crawford and all the other stuff that's gone on in baseball. Go to Sal's site for the I-tunes link or click The SportsFan Buzz: December 15, 2010 to listen directly.

Gutted

2010-12-16T07:53:00.002-05:00

You can't dance through the raindrops forever:

Every year the Twins are contenders based on intelligence, execution and some luck. I've repeatedly lauded the "Twins Way" as a strategy for teams to emulate. Not copy, but emulate. Much like the Jesuit teaching techniques learned and espoused by Vince Lombardi----tweaked slightly and transferred----of "freedom within structure", there are baseline attributes all teams must have; they can deviate in their methods as diverse clubs like the Yankees, Marlins and Cardinals do, but the foundation remains the same.

The Twins have always been built on the operation running as a whole; individualism and selfishness is at a minimum for the team goals and their roster has reflected that. One of the most successful clubs over the past ten years, they've justified certain questionable decisions by winning. Although that has yet to translate itself into a pennant, they've been more consistent in their performance----under a similarly limited budget----than the acclaimed Billy Beane with the Athletics.

Even after the atrocious return they got on the Johan Santana trade after badly overplaying their hand, they still managed to win 88 games and make it all the way to a one-game playoff with the White Sox in 2008; they lost, but simply being there was an accomplishment in and of itself. They achieved similar heights in 2009, defeated the Tigers in the playoff game and were dispatched by the Yankees in the ALDS. In 2010, they spent some money on veteran players----albeit short-term reasonable money----won 94 games, coasted into the playoffs....and were dispatched by the Yankees again.

Despite the playoff failures, doing it the "Twins Way" has worked.

But now there are questions as their off-season has been limited to losing veteran players----especially in the bullpen----and replacing them with nothing. Yesterday dealt two potentially devastating blows to that which was the foundation of the Twins success----the aforementioned bullpen.

Relievers Jesse Crain and Matt Guerrier both signed elsewhere as free agents. Crain joined the division rival White Sox on a 3-year deal; Guerrier went to the Dodgers for 3-years.

The Twins strategy has always been to have competent innings-eating starters who threw strikes; a deep and durable bullpen; a solid defense; players who did the right thing situationally at the plate and in the field; and a club that won because of execution.

That bullpen has been badly compromised by losing the hard-throwing Crain and under-appreciated workhorse Guerrier.

Add in that they've lost or are resigned to losing Orlando Hudson, J.J. Hardy (no great shakes), Brian Fuentes, Jon Rauch and Ron Mahay and you see that the team is going to have a hard time maintaining competition with these departures alone. They haven't replaced them and sat by as the White Sox and Tigers have improved themselves drastically.

For the bullpen they still have Matt Capps and the returning from Tommy John surgery Joe Nathan, but it's rarely been discussed how important those cogs----Crain and Guerrier----were to the workmanlike Twins. When you factor in the concussion problems of Justin Morneau, the holes look even larger.

Their main focus now appears to be keeping Carl Pavano and presumably, they're going to have to overpay to do it.

Just as the "Twins Way" led them to those above-and-beyond results in 2008 and 2009, it only takes a slight deviation----an error; a bad bullpen performance; a shaky series of starts; an injury to a key player----to reduce the number of wins from 88 and a date in a one-game playoff down to 81 and relegation in mediocrity.

The Yankees have had a bad off-season so far, but one need only look towards middle America to see a team that has had a worse off-season----and much less margin for error----the Minnesota Twins.

Jayson Werth as Anakin Skywalker...

...and we know what happened to him as he made the self-righteous decision to eschew his friends and his teachings (who were using him just as much as the beckoning power of the Emperor and the Dark Side) for his own interests.

Jayson Werth eerily resembles Hayden Christensen and the machinations of the Nationals, Phillies, Werth and Cliff Lee make the analogy more apropos.

No one can blame Werth for leaving the Phillies for the ridiculous contract bestowed upon him by the Nationals; he wasn't going to get anything close to that deal anywhere else; but we also saw the Werth negatives that I've been cautioning about for quite awhile: he was angry about the Phillies signing Lee.

Sure, it can be covered by the shadowy assertion that he's upset because he's leaving a championship caliber team that added the jewel of this year's free agent class; he can say that he wanted to play with his good friend Lee; but does anyone really believe that given Werth's reputation for being angry about his late-blooming status? His bouncing from the Orioles to the Blue Jays to the Dodgers before finally getting his chance to play with the Phillies? His chafing at the Phillies refusal to give him a long-term contract when they overpaid to keep Ryan Howard?

I don't believe for one second that Werth is angry about not being able to play with his friend; he's mad because the Phillies repeatedly said they didn't have the money to sign Werth, then mystically found the money to sign Lee.

Here's a flash for Werth: the Phillies didn't have the money to pay him but had the money to pay Lee because he's not Cliff Lee. Lee has proven that he's a worthwhile investment for that cash; Werth isn't. You can find an outfielder to stick into the Phillies lineup to replace Werth with the unstoppable pitching staff they've built; you can't find an arm like Lee and one that was willing to be reasonable in his contractual demands in length and dollars simply to rejoin them.

When he hired Scott Boras, Werth made it clear that he wanted to get paid and paid handsomely; he went to a club that is not good; and as egotistical as Werth (and baseball players in general are), Werth can't possibly believe that he and he alone is going to lead a transformation in Washington from 69 wins to contending status.

The Phillies had the money. They just didn't want to give it to Jayson Werth.

Rightfully so.

Ah, ESPN:

I'm not spending too much time on this, but I read the following on ESPN this morning regarding Kerry Wood:

Source: Cubs close to bringing back icon Wood

Icon?!?

Who writes this stuff?

Viewer Mail 12.16.2010:

Joe writes RE Cliff Lee:

I posted a comment yesterday but it did not go through. Anyway, I agree about Lee; It's his choice, let him go where he wants to. And yes, Cashman did what he could. He presented the best offer, and it was turned down. I guess some fans think that he should have offered Lee his own statue already or something to lure him.

It's a conspiracy, Joe. A conspiracy against you!!!

The ripping of Cashman died down relatively quickly. What I find idiotic is the Yankees preaching patience...then the rumors popping up that they're considering making a move on Carlos Zambrano.

Carlos Zambrano?!?

That'll work.

(No it won't.)

Matt writes RE Cliff Lee:

It's not at all a sure thing that Lee won't some out financially ahead when all is said and done. Look how much the Yanks have paid Andy Pettitte for his late 30's. Lee will only be 37 or so when this deal is up and he is a lefty.

Matt's right. Regardless of injuries or missed time that Lee is likely to have during his second stint in Philadelphia, career-ending injuries to pitchers are rarer and rarer these days. The dearth of pitching isn't going to be solved anytime soon and if Lee pitches well, he's going to be in position to make a lot of money once this contract concludes.

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

I love the idea of Dallas Braden as a Yankee! Then he could move to Manhattan, change his area code and say, "That's how we do it in the 212."

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

Braden would have to pay a lot of money for a 212 area code in New York these days. Those all got used up years ago, which bred the 718 and all that followed.

(I believe the above was also the plot to a Seinfeld episode but I could be wrong.)

He's got the personality for New York. I'll say that.

Alex Rodriguez may----may---be allowed to venture into Bradenia if it's an absolutely necessary negotiation for a bunt play or something similar; he'd have to have all his paperwork in order and receive diplomatic immunity, but it's coming to the table that's the first step in true reconciliation and re-establishing ties.

The Prince on the Podcast:

The Yankees Don't Need To Panic

2010-12-15T10:32:00.005-05:00

Concerned? Yes. Panicked? No:

With the "do it now" nature of the sports world these days, there's a movement to respond immediately when one plan doesn't come to fruition.

Whether or not it's intelligent is irrelevant; at least they did something. Only when the reactionary response is calculated----sometimes years into the future----is there a true judgment to be made as to its wisdom.

The Yankees lost out on Cliff Lee. Certain circles of Yankee fandom are playing the blame game----it's the fault of GM Brian Cashman; Lee's wife; Hank and Hal Steinbrenner; Lee himself; the fans who supposedly spit on Lee's wife----anyone and everyone.

Someone has to pay they say. But it's like an earthquake or a volcano eruption----it happened and nothing can be done to change it, so it's best to move forward as best you can.

It's not Cashman's fault. He did all he could. As much of a nebbish he's seemed to be at times, he's proven himself to be a cunning wheeler-dealer and at least as adept at hustling free agents (as he did with a reluctant C.C. Sabathia two years ago) as the late Boss, George Steinbrenner was when he romanced the likes of Reggie Jackson with dinners at 21 and guided tours around the city.

It's not Kristen Lee's fault. She's from the South; she may have preferred a Southern sensibility or at least an atmosphere in which she was familiar like Philadelphia where they had friends from Cliff's time there in 2009. But we don't know if she was adamantly against New York; we don't know anything regarding the couple's private wants, needs or preferences. And what if she didn't want to live in New York? So what? That's what free agency is all about; it's more than money, it's going where you want to go.

Hank and Hal Steinbrenner authorized a massive amount of cash to be offered for Lee. They're running the Yankees as more of a business than their father did, it's true. If George were still alive, Lee would be a Yankee. I don't doubt that; but it's not as if they lowballed Lee.

As for the fans who supposedly spit, cussed at and threw beer on the wives of the Rangers players' families, Lee has been a professional baseball player for 11 years----he's seen it all. The fan stuff was a minimal part of the decision at most. It's not as if the Phillies fans are known for their delicacy; in fact, they torment their own players worse than they attack opposing players.

All of this is epilogue to the saga of Cliff Lee's Free Agent Foray.

Lee's a Phillie again; the Red Sox have made two gigantic moves to get much better; and all the Yankees have done is engage in a somewhat brutal negotiation with their team captain, Derek Jeter.

What now?

Cashman is preaching patience.

This is the smart, well-thought-out decision. Capricious maneuvers lead to mistakes. The Yankees are still a good team. They're a good team that is coming to grips with the concept that players won't take every single penny on the table; that the Yankees don't simply get what they want because they're the Yankees; and that there are arenas where players feel they have a better chance to win.

Cashman implied that they can go into the season with the team as constructed and improve on the fly. They've done it before. Who can say which pitchers might be made available at mid-season? What happens if the Cardinals have a down year and they start a sell off; Chris Carpenter might be on the market.

How about the Rockies? Perhaps if they have a bad year, they'll listen on Ubaldo Jimenez. Jimenez is signed through 2014, but he'd command more on the market because of that.

I mentioned other names yesterday. Chad Billingsley might be out there; if the Angels fall from contention, there's Joel Pineiro or Ervin Santana; hey, this would be funny----Dallas Braden!!

The Yankees have historically been able to make championship moves at mid-season. Some have been bold, others under-the-radar. Cecil Fielder, David Weathers, Graeme Lloyd, Chad Curtis, David Justice all came at mid-season. Other contributors were unexpected and arrived from the minors----Aaron Small, Orlando Hernandez and Shane Spencer for example.

It's not a dire situation in which they've been shunned and all hope is lost.

That said, they do have concerns; not worries, but concerns. They're not young; they're very short in the starting rotation and the bullpen is questionable also; right now, they're the third best team----on paper----in the American League behind the Red Sox and White Sox; they're not much better than the Tigers or Twins either.

But it's December and winning or losing the Hot Stove title is meaningless once the games start. The Mets won so many Hot Stove championships in the past 25 years that it's hard to keep track of them; but they only won one title in reality and it's reality that counts.

Viewer Mail 12.15.2010:

40ozLiz writes RE the Yankees and my assertion that the Derek Jeter negotiations were a bad off-season omen:

Bad omen indeed!!!

I admire the lack of bluster or savagery towards anyone in your to-the-point comment.

Jeff (Street Boss) at Red State Blue State writes RE Ruben Amaro Jr. and the Yankees:

Wow. Impressed by Amaro. Very, very impressed. And to think I called that guy every derogatory term in the book.

Also, I think I speak for every non-Yankee fan when I say:

GO HARD FOR PAVANO.

The irony factor alone would be worth the disaster that would surely unfold.

It would be worse than the Mets bringing back Bobby Bonilla because at least Bonilla----for all his problems with New York and the media----performed close to his career numbers as a Met; the first time around anyway.

Mike Fierman writes RE Cliff Lee and what he could've bought with the extra $$ from the Yankees:

but what of that sad empty space on Lee's wall where that Chagall or Picasso might have gone?

I don't think Lee is into priceless works of art. I believe he likes to hunt; so one would assume his walls would've been adorned by creatures that are only available for pursuit on an exclusive enclave for the super-rich.

I'm talking a zebrapotomas or a monkeyshark.

Kevin Mogee writes RE Cliff Lee:

Somehow Lee doesn't seem like a collector of fine art, but who knows? As far as turning down the money, who are we to judge? $40 Million is a LOT of money no matter how much you have. I think he does deserve some credit for turning down the Yankees on principle and signing with the Phillies. Would anyone blame him for taking the extra 40? I hardly think so. It's easy for us to say that once you have that much money, "what's another few million?" But in reality which job would you take; same job function, but almost 40% more money? I don't think I need to answer that.

It is a lot of money, but it's really hard to blow that kind of cash even if one is remarkably stupid of wasteful and Cliff Lee doesn't seem to be the type. The old adage of, "if you do something strictly for the money, you earn every penny of it" fits perfectly here; especially since there were clear ancillary issues coming into play as he made his choice.

The Prince on the Podcast:

I was on with Sal at SportsFan Buzz today talking about Cliff Lee, Carl Crawford and all the other stuff that's gone on in baseball. Go to Sal's site for the I-tunes link or click The SportsFan Buzz: December 15, 2010 to listen directly.

Stone Cold

2010-12-14T10:11:00.003-05:00

The Phillies nab the Killer:

Beyond the admission of a mistake is the act of taking steps to correct it.

A year ago, I unloaded on the Phillies for the lateral move of trading one of the best pitchers in baseball for another of the best pitchers in baseball due to specious reasons and self-justifying logic.

The idea that they were going to be all things at all times and field a championship level team while replenishing the farm system to keep the pipeline moving was theoretically and practically walking the tightrope without a balance pole or net. As I said at the time, there are two strategies for a club to take in the off-season if they have designs on contending for a championship----strengthen weaknesses or bolster strengths. In their trade of Cliff Lee to the Mariners to acquire prospects to replace those that were sent to the Blue Jays to get Roy Halladay, the Phillies accomplished neither.

Scoffed at for the assertion that the Phillies were going to struggle due to a lack of depth in the starting rotation, my prediction was proving to be eerily accurate as the shortness in pitching and rampant injuries had the Phillies stumbling at 48-46 on July 22nd; 7 games behind the Braves in the NL East and even trailing the reviled Mets.

Because his plan had gone so horribly awry, Phillies GM Ruben Amaro Jr, was rightfully savaged by astute baseball analysts. In addition to a rickety construction, the championship team that had been built by Pat Gillick was put in greater jeopardy by the insane contract Ryan Howard received to preclude free agency after 2011.

The talk was that the Phillies were teetering on trading Jayson Werth and bagging the season.

But they didn't.

Ably assisted by fate as Shane Victorino's injury sabotaged the ability to trade Werth, the Phillies instead decided to go for it by acquiring Roy Oswalt. Truthfully, Oswalt fell into their laps because the Astros were desperate to move him; had a Philly-friendly GM in Ed Wade who was willing to take limited return for his ace righty; the Astros ate a chunk of Oswalt's contract; and Oswalt agreed to forgo a demand that his 2012 option be exercised as a precondition to waiving his no-trade clause.

They blazed through the rest of the season, won the NL East easily and dispatched the Reds in 3 straight games in the NLDS before losing to the Giants in the NLCS.

Now, as the questions swirled about how much money they had to spend and whether they'd be able to keep Werth, they made a perfunctory effort that they knew would fail to keep their right fielder; they saw him sign a deranged contract with the Nationals....and struck like lightning to nab Cliff Lee.

Amaro had been noticeably prickly in his responses to the continuous questions as to why he traded Halladay for Lee. "Wouldn't it have been better to have both?" "Are those prospects that good?" "Are you more concerned about winning or your legacy?"

The questions about the trade of Lee were viable and unanswered aside from the pat response that Amaro proffered when he made the deal in the first place. Lee wanted to explore free agency; Halladay wanted so desperately to get out of Toronto that he was willing to sign a long term extension for a far shorter duration than a pitcher of his stature would've gotten on the open market; the prospects are top tier; they saved money, guaranteed that they'd have an ace at the top of the rotation for 2010 and beyond and replenished the farm system. Blah, blah, blah.

But it wasn't working.

In addition to the prospects struggling on and off the field, the big league team was staggering as well with problems both on-field and off.

Amaro, to his credit, took steps to fix it. Rather than protect his own ego as more than one GM/owner would to preserve his initial assessment, he traded for Oswalt in July and now he swooped in and nabbed Lee.

It was brilliant in its stealthiness and quick-strike decision-making; it's placed the Phillies head-and-shoulders above the rest of the National League.

Don't credit a guy for taking $120 million:

One thing I don't want to hear is how benevolent a soul Lee is for choosing to take the $120 million from the Phillies rather than the $160 million from the Yankees and whatever the Rangers offered.

This is nothing to credit him for.

How many more cars was he going to buy?

Houses?

Priceless works of art?

Whatevers?

It's utterly absurd to purse one's lips and nod approvingly because Lee eschewed being "rich" by going where his heart wanted to be. He's $120 million richer than he was yesterday.

Who knows what played into the decision? Did the Yankees fans treatment of his wife during the ALCS have an influence? Did his familiarity with the Phillies and a more stable climate lead him back to the team that traded him? Is he more comfortable in Philly? Did he not want to pitch in New York?

Does it matter?

The bottom line is that he chose to go to Philadelphia. Lee deserves credit for using his free agency as it was intended----to sign with the club in the city in which he wanted to play. The MLBPA has been notorious in trying to force players to go where the money is highest in a gesture of solidarity and trickle-down economics. Presumably Lee experienced this pressure. But he resisted and went back to the Phillies.

For that, he does deserve credit; but for taking "less" money? Please.

Short-term blast, long-term questions:

Obviously Amaro has recognized that he needs to try and win now with a veteran roster and older, expensive players. Could it have been the issues the big league club and young acquisitions had that led to this realization?

Possibly.

It takes an intelligent and courageous man to accept a flaw in his strategy and correct it. Amaro did the right thing.

That said, the Phillies are highly expensive and very old. Aside from Cole Hamels, the rotation has logged a lot of innings and is making a lot of money; Lee has had injury problems in the past as have Hamels and Oswalt; they have to worry about lingering questions in their bullpen; they signed Howard to that prohibitive contract; don't appear to trust Domonic Brown as their everyday right fielder; and don't know what to expect from Jimmy Rollins.

But the team is loaded for at least 2011 and probably 2012. What happens in 2013 and beyond will happen, but for now they've created a team that is terrifying. Even if the offense isn't what it's been in recent years, they have a starting rotation that could win 90 games with the Padres popgun attack; with the Phillies offense?

It's the stuff that dreams are made of.

Or nightmares.

And what of the Yankees?

I'm not going to start discussing the Rangers because they probably had a better back-up plan in mind if, as expected, Lee departed as a free agent. It's one thing to hope to sign the player as the Rangers did; it's another to expect to sign him as the Yankees did as early as spring training.

So what now for the Yankees?

One would assume that the Yankees had some things in mind if Lee decided to refuse their money. But if they think that getting Kevin Slowey will fix their old and questionable starting rotation, then they're in for a rude awakening.

Forget that the Phillies, right now, can easily be penciled in to win north of 100 games; the Yankees problem is that the Red Sox can reasonably have similar expectations.

The Yankees rotation is weak, period and not simply in comparison to that of the Red Sox.

Following a disappointing loss in the ALCS to Lee and the Rangers, this winter has been notoriously rough on the Yankees; in fact, it's bordering on disastrous. The ugly negotiations with Derek Jeter were a bad omen and now they're scrambling. Rather than spending money to get Lee, they're going to have to make a trade because the next "biggest" free agent pitcher is Carl Pavano.

Somehow, I don't see the Yankees going there.

So what's out there via trade to fill the hole for a top of the rotation starter? Zack Greinke wouldn't work in New York and would cost a fortune in prospects; Mark Buehrle was mentioned, but the White Sox aren't giving him away to the Yankees----Kenny Williams will want a ransom. A year from now, they could approach the Cardinals about Chris Carpenter, but today? No way. Matt Garza? Maybe. Chad Billingsley? Perhaps.

Regardless of the names that are going to be bandied about, the Yankees are going to have to gut their system to get one of them and teams that are willing to help the Yankees are almost non-existent. All that's left is for them to overpay for a top-tier pitcher or go after mediocrity like Slowey.

They're probably already begging Andy Pettitte to come back.

The Yankees don't always get what they can buy; nor do they get what they want just because they want it.

It's a positive day for baseball in every sense and an ominous off-season for the Yankees just got a whole lot worse.

The Prince on the Podcast:

I'll be on with Sal at SportsFan Buzz tomorrow.

Guess what I'll be talking about?

With The Passage Of Time

2010-12-13T10:48:00.002-05:00

Genius is fleeting:

As the cumulative damage from years of abuse took their toll on Muhammad Ali and he was stricken with boxer-related Parkinson's Syndrome, Joe Frazier claimed to have been the "winner" of their three epic battles.

It took years and years for him to be able to make that claim after losing two of the three fights, but it's not an absurd thought to suggest that the true nature of "victory" can't be immediately determined; nor can it be stated with a finality based on little other than the transitory assessments of others who may or may not have a stake in the result.

Such is the case in baseball trade.

While any deal may seem to be brilliant when it's initially consummated, it can take years for the true results to be established.

Did Doyle Alexander for John Smoltz look good for the Tigers when Alexander was unhittable for a month and led them to a division title in 1987?

As bad as the Larry Andersen for Jeff Bagwell trade ended for the Red Sox, Andersen did help the Red Sox win the 1990 AL East.

And would the Marlins want to re-do the Ugueth Urbina deal to get Adrian Gonzalez back? Even after the Marlins won the World Series in 2003? I'd always take the World Series title over a player's career regardless of how great the player is----there are so many variables in development that Gonzalez might never have become what he is now had he stayed with the Marlins; you can never, ever take away that championship ring.

It's a little different in the case of the J.J. Putz trade to the Mets.

Because of the perceptions of the architects of both clubs----the Mariners and the Mets----there was immediate ridicule doled on the Mets and accolades on top of accolades for Mariners GM Jack Zduriencik. Because he received a lot of stuff and cleared salary, Zduriencik was again portrayed as a the perfect blend of scouting experience and stats as he rebuilt the Mariners after a 100-loss disaster in 2008. It was made worse when Putz got hurt for the Mets and the allegations that the Mets GM Omar Minaya didn't perform due diligence in making sure Putz was healthy before completing the transaction.

At the time though, was it that big of a mistake----in theory----for the Mets?

And has it been, with the passage of time, a gigantic win for the Mariners?

Let's take a look at all the participants and what the teams have ended up two years after the fact.

The Mets received RHP J.J. Putz; RHP Sean Green; OF/1B Jeremy Reed.

Putz was a good idea that plainly and simply didn't work. He whined incessantly about not getting the buzz as a set-up man that he did as a closer and, as said earlier, was not healthy. What was interesting was that he took a job with the White Sox after the 2009 season to be a set-up man; I suppose need supersedes want when you have little choice after a terrible year.

He was hurt and miserable; the Mets were savaged for not examining Putz prior to signing off and taking him, but it was more agenda-driven vitriol aimed at the Mets. It's not customary for teams to perform in depth medical examinations before trades are made.

One would presume that Minaya asked Zduriencik and Putz if he was healthy and received an affirmative response. Considering Zduriencik's shady behaviors since----backing out on the Yankees in trading Cliff Lee; the Josh Lueke fiasco----his credibility isn't stellar.

Putz was recently signed by the Arizona Diamondbacks to be their closer.

The Mets bullpen was the impetus of their twin downfalls in 2007 and 2008; Minaya took steps to rectify the situation. On paper, it was a good move for 2009. It didn't work.

As for Green, he'd been a solid enough reliever in the American League. He pitched poorly for the Mets and was non-tendered.

Reed is a journeyman.

In the end, the Mets have nothing remaining on their roster from the trade and Minaya's gone.

The Mariners received OF Endy Chavez; LHP Jason Vargas; RHP Aaron Heilman; 1B/DH Mike Carp; OF Ezequiel Carrera; RHP Maikel Cleto; and from the Indians, OF Franklin Gutierrez.

Chavez blew out his knee. That's no one's fault. He is what he is----a brilliant defender and speedy hitter with a flair for the dramatic.

I'm no fan of Vargas; he was atrocious with the Mets----atrocious----and the biggest mistake Minaya made with Vargas wasn't trading him to the Mariners.

No.

The biggest mistake Minaya made was trading Matt Lindstrom to get Vargas in the first place.

Vargas was bad for the Mariners in 2009; serviceable in 2010. He's a cunnythumber who gets away with his average (at best) stuff because he's lefty and throws across his body.

Heilman was traded to the Cubs for infielder Ronny Cedeno and LHP Garrett Olson. Heilman isn't good. Cedeno was traded to the Pirates in a multi-player deal for RHP Ian Snell and SS Jack Wilson----both expensive disasters.

Olson is a lefty who's gotten hammered by hitters from both sides of the plate; like most relievers, he could eventually have some use.

In an intensely odd call, Zduriencik traded Carrera (a minor league talent with speed) to the Indians to reacquire Russell Branyan after letting Branyan leave as a free agent following the 2009 season.

Carp is a bat who, one would think, should've gotten a chance to play in the midst of the Mariners horrific 2010 season just so they could have a look at what they have. He didn't. Carp's shown pop in the minors.

Cleto is 21, is still in the low minors and has gotten blasted everywhere he's been. Zduriencik traded him to the Cardinals over the weekend for Brendan Ryan. Ryan was terrible in 2010.

One excellent maneuver was getting Franklin Gutierrez from the Indians as the Mets sent Joe Smith to Cleveland. Smith is a sidearming righty reliever who's pitched well at times, but Gutierrez is considered one of the best, if not the best defensive center fielder in baseball. He has pop too. Zduriencik signed him to a long-term contract.

It's easy to pile on after the 2010 nightmare endured by the Mariners on and off the field, but that's not what I'm doing. I'm putting everything into perspective. Zduriencik----lauded as a new thinking "Amazin' Exec" by none other than Joel Sherman as he went into one of his familiar rants against the Mets----has seen his reputation as both a baseball man and as a human being brought down to earth to a remarkable degree.

The Mariners signed Jack Cust to improve the offense; they're closing in on Miguel Olivo to catch----two imports that will make a rotten offense better; they hired a quality manager and man in Eric Wedge; but the bloom is off the genius. Zduriencik is teetering in Seattle and if there's anything close to the gaffes he made in 2010, he'll be out of a job a year from now.

That's objective reality in full context.

Viewer Mail 12.13.2010:

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

I'm sick of hearing about Cliff Lee too. What's worse is I'm sick of writing about him!

Normally, we'd be happy that there's something so easy to squeeze out a posting, but it's enough. More than enough.

Mike Fierman writes RE Melky Cabrera:

was wondering if you could give an example of one of melky's strengths.

Asking me complicated questions at this hour of the morning is dirty pool.

NapLajoieonSteroids writes RE Cliff Lee:

This is one Yankee fan who hopes that he goes to Texas. This has all the trappings of the Giambi contract and not the Mussina contract. Lee's back problems are a huge warning sign and the Yankees would be better off without, what will surely be, another albatross-like contract.

I'd still want him if I were a Yankees fan, but I see what you're saying. The big question has to be what the Yankees have in mind as a back-up plan. Brian Cashman has to have something on the burner ready to go if Lee stays in Texas; the options are limited, but there are some quality pitchers out there available via trade.

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

Oooooh boy watch out! Barbecue ain't the only thing on the KC menu! The Suck Train is goin' full steam ahead!

It's out of control at this point.

Linking the Prince:

My postings regarding the failings of Moneyball has been a topic of discussion in the following forum----Baseball Fever----check it out.

The Prince on the Podcast:

I was on with SportsFan Buzz on Wednesday talking about the Red Sox; Cliff Lee; Carl Crawford; Jayson Werth; the Yankees; the McCourts; Zack Greinke; and the ESPN broadcasters.

I'll be on again with Sal this Wednesday as well.

Get the link directly here----The SportsFan Buzz: December 8, 2010----or on I-Tunes; you can go to Sal's Twitter feed and site as well.

Sunday Lightning 12.12.2010

2010-12-12T11:57:00.003-05:00

What's a Cliff Lee?

You know it's gotten ridiculous when laymen are able to explain the various tax ramifications of Cliff Lee making the choice between the Yankees and Rangers; how much money the Yankees would have to go above the Rangers offer to account for the tax codes of New York in comparison to those in Texas.

Similar to a 6-year-old who doesn't know how to spell able to describe an ACL tear for his favorite basketball center, Lee's free agency foray has gone to unexpected places----even in today's absurd atmosphere of news or non-news at the click of a button.

But what of Cliff Lee?

As tiresome as the story has become, the one striking thing is that Lee, plainly and simply, is being treated as if he's the on-field equivalent of Sandy Koufax in his prime.

And he's not.

Years ago, during the O.J. Simpson trial, the famed prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi stated with finality and exasperation that the coverage of the Simpson trial had reached proportions that could never be surpassed regardless of whom was on trial. If it was the President of the United States; the Queen of England; or the Emperor of the Galaxy, the 24/7 reporting (and this was when the Internet was in its infancy) couldn't have been any more insane.

It's at that point with Lee.

Could the pursuit be more intense if it was Koufax? Babe Ruth? Steve Carlton? Randy Johnson?

No.

Truth be told, as good a pitcher as Lee is, he's not even Mike Mussina or Curt Schilling.

Cliff Lee is the man who happened to be talented enough to have one great year and another two with huge post-season success and is in the right place at the right time in terms of availability and need.

It's not winning the lottery, but it's close. He's a good pitcher with great timing.

Lee is not a blow-away pitcher like Johnson, Koufax and Carlton; he's not durable to the degree of Mussina; he's not a young free agent who was in the big leagues at age 21, pitched his six years and jumped into the market in his prime. He's had injury problems to his back as recently as September; he's had problems with his oblique; and his performance----in 2007----had him back in the minor leagues.

These are facts.

Lee deserves credit for recognizing his failures in 2007. Unlike some other pitchers, he accepted the demotion to straighten out his game; he dedicated himself to physical fitness and responded with a Cy Young Award in 2008; he had ice in his veins during the post-seasons of 2009-2010 that led to my dubbing him as the "Stone Cold Killer".

As the big name and assisted by the factors that the Yankees have the money and the desperate need, he's the prize catch in the feeding frenzy; this doesn't eclipse reality that he's a good pitcher who's had spurts that make him appear great.

But he's not Koufax, Johnson or Carlton----dominant to the point of devastation.

He's not Mussina----durable and steady.

He's not Schilling----a post-season ace whose career had a similar twist and turn nature to Lee's as he battled injuries, missing major chunks of seasons at 32-33.

Could Lee be Carlton, Schilling, Johnson or Mussina? Pitchers who maintained their durability into the mid-30s, pitched on good teams and won plenty of games?

Whoever gets him had better hope so. But it has to be understood that Lee is not young and these $100+ million contracts rarely pay off fully and this one is going to be $160+ million.

Either way, it'd be nice if he signed somewhere already, because I'm sick of hearing about it.

Your 2011 Royals:

It remains to be seen what the Royals are going to do with Zack Greinke, but if this is their idea of improving an offense that was 10th in the American League in runs scored and traded one of their better offensive players in David DeJesus, then they're in for another year of 67 wins.

The Royals signed Jeff Francoeur and Melky Cabrera to 1-year contracts in the past week.

This would be acceptable if either were brought in for their strengths (and they do have them) and not to be centerpieces of the 2011 plan. But they're not.

Francoeur is slated to be the everyday right fielder; Cabrera the center fielder.

Never mind that the Royals pitching staff has the potential to be pretty good (contingent on whether or not they trade Greinke; which Greinke they have if he stays----the 2009 or 2010 version); but they can't win if they don't score. And unless Alex Gordon plays to the potential that made him the number one pick in the draft; Kila Ka'aihue gets a legitimate chance to play in the big leagues and takes advantage of it; Billy Butler moves from cog to mid-lineup basher, how are they to account for the bad-to-foolish consistency of Francoeur, Cabrera and Yuniesky Betancourt ?

A lineup like the Red Sox could carry one among the group of Francoeur, Cabrera, Betancourt and Jason Kendall; but the Royals?

GM Dayton Moore is said to have built up a great farm system, but what good does it do if none of the players develop or enter a big league clubhouse where they aren't expected to be the saviors? These signings are not "hold-the-fort" types. They're expected to play and contribute and they, historically, haven't been able to do that.

As talented as I think Francoeur is, it's obvious that he's more interested in his playing time and doing things his way than going to a place in which he might----might----find a voice who could get through to him. Charlie Manuel may have been engaging in fantasy when he said he believed he could straighten Francoeur out, but the Phillies would've been a great spot for him. No, he probably wouldn't have gotten the playing time he'll get in Kansas City, but he'd have been on a contender and working under a proven manager and former hitting coach in Manuel who had a chance of penetrating his thick skull and thicker ego.

If you ask a lot of players who only have a little to give, you're setting yourselves up for disaster.

That's the key word: disaster.

Disaster has been the Royals template for the past fifteen years and with these decisions that continue to be made by a clearly overmatched and wrong-thinking GM, that's not going to change anytime soon.

Fake Jon Heyman, meet gullible Michael Kay:

On Friday, a blogger started a media fire when he posted on Twitter that the Phillies had acquired Zack Greinke from the Royals. What made it worse and appear credible was that he'd started a fake Twitter account under the name of Sports Illustrated writer Jon Heyman and it was taken as fact by ESPN's Michael Kay and announced as such----Crossing Broad Blog.

People were unloading on Kay for reporting it; goofing on Heyman for his reaction calling the blogger a "sick fake person" and endlessly laughing at the ruse.

I'm not a fan of either Kay or Heyman, but put yourself in their positions. Like him or not, Heyman is a credible writer; he's weak, but I don't see him as malicious and for his job at which he works very hard to be undermined in such a way lends credence to his thin-skinned reactions on Twitter in blocking people for literally no reason (as he did with me).

As for Kay, of course he should've verified the information before reporting it, but that's more a byproduct of the need to be "first" in announcing big happenings---that's a cultural issue. This isn't fodder to abuse Kay. This was a mistake he made and he shouldn't be ripped for it.

Heyman was impersonated.

Kay made a mistake.

I'd have been as upset as Heyman and Kay were. My reaction and response would've been more memorable in its brutality, but Heyman and Kay shouldn't be ridiculed for this at all.

The Prince on the Podcast:

I was on with SportsFan Buzz on Wednesday talking about the Red Sox; Cliff Lee; Carl Crawford; Jayson Werth; the Yankees; the McCourts; Zack Greinke; and the ESPN broadcasters.

I'll be on again with Sal this Wednesday as well.

Get the link directly here----The SportsFan Buzz: December 8, 2010----or on I-Tunes; you can go to Sal's Twitter feed and site as well.