2010 Stories To Watch, Part V

• I keep churning out the sequels from my mill of schlock:

The stories never end!!! It's a shame the mainstream writers can't combine finding them and writing about them interestingly. Never fear. I'm here.

Jose Reyes's thyroid:

From what's popping out of Mets camp and the medical community's reaction to the news that Jose Reyes possibly has an overactive thyroid, it doesn't sound too serious----NY Times Story----but the club is being extra-cautious; the fans are panicking; and the cheap shot artists are wading even further into the depths of revulsion than I thought possible.

Given the disaster/train wreck/nightmare of 2009, the Mets aren't taking any chances with their players. Any and all medical issues will be treated as conservatively as possible. This will only be a negative if the paranoia leads them to overdoing it and yanking a player for a paper-cut ; aside from that, it's spring training and even if Reyes misses a week or two, he'll be ready to start the season. He's not a pitcher; the only things a regular player works on in spring training are his timing at the plate and being in game shape and Reyes has been exercising with a trainer for months; he's in game shape already.

With the laughter that's emanating from the fan bases of opposing clubs, while it's on a lower level given the severity of other off-field happenings, this is in the same ballpark of finding humor in Jon Lester's cancer or Cory Lidle's plane crash. Reyes has a medical issue that for all they know might be career or even life threatening, but they revel in it anyway.

When the news first came out of a concern about blood tests, who knew what it was or how serious it could be? But it didn't prevent any ridicule; the newfound ammunition to attack the Mets.

You have to seriously consider the mentality of someone who feels it's appropriate to laugh at a person's health problems. This isn't a hamstring pull; it's something else; and those that feel it's more of a reason to indulge in over-the-top hilarity are playing with fire because the ludicrous way in which things came apart for the Mets in 2009 can happen to them and their clubs just as quickly.

Will they be laughing then? Jumping for joy? Probably not, but then I'm assuming they're bright enough to make the connection to begin with, which is a drastic fault in my premise for which there's no repair.

Youngsters, hype and managerial factors:

Jason Heyward is being greeted with star stricken awe at the mere sight of his power displays in batting practice. There's a lot to love about the Braves young right fielder and many reasons for the club to shut their eyes and let him start the season as a big leaguer.

That said, he's only 20 and the pressure on him to be the one basher the club needed this winter----and didn't get----will be enormous. No one will know whether Heyward could handle said pressure except in retrospect; but there's been a history of overreaction over prospects in Atlanta and a penchant for rushing them to the big leagues when they still had holes in their game.

Jeff Francoeur's rise and fall with the Braves has been well-documented here. Francoeur was brought to the big leagues at 21 as the homegrown savior. He played well----but not as well as he could've had the club reined him in slightly from his go-go-go attitude of wanting to swing the bat from the dugout while the pitcher was still warming up to start the inning.

Would Francoeur be a better player today had they disciplined him just a bit so he wasn't overaggressive to his detriment? Absolutely. And this is before even getting to the way the club and fans soured on him as his inevitable struggles began.

Jordan Schafer got off to a hot start at the plate; hit 2 homers in his first week and was being treated as a burgeoning star; but was quickly overmatched as it became clear that he couldn't catch up to even an above-average fastball. Watching Schafer, I don't know what can be done about that. He simply doesn't have the bat speed to be more than a fourth or fifth outfielder or Triple A filler.

They did get use from Andruw Jones in the 1996 World Series when the 19-year-old homered in his first two at bats; but he struggled overall in his formative big league seasons; and it wasn't slumps or a lack or an absence of physicality----it was that he wasn't ready. If you examine his play, you see mistakes that were due more to being polished and prepared than his talent being great enough that he could compete.

He struck out too much; he was impatient at the plate; and a real gauge of his intuitive baseball skills----caught stealing----show that he was wanting in readiness. He did become a star and MVP candidate, but he might've been better, faster had he been allowed to develop in the minors rather than rushed to the majors.

Those Braves teams were able to make mistakes in advancing their youngsters too soon because the All Stars in the lineup and especially the three Hall of Famers on the mound (Tom Glavine, John Smoltz and Greg Maddux) covered for a multitude of developmental sins and crafted an image of "genius" in the front office where none existed. It's easy to cover mistakes with a great team.

Such is no longer the case for the Braves.

That margin for error is gone because the current club needs Heyward to be a mid-lineup terror; and it's not fair. He might be able to handle it; to stand up to it; to produce. He's far more talented that Schafer and Francoeur; but he's still only 20 and the lust he's engendering from a few spring training games and hype isn't going to help. In fact, it might hurt.

Another important aspect in the promotion of youngsters is the agenda of the club and the manager. Braves manager Bobby Cox appears to be pushing hard for Heyward to be with the big league club to start the season. In Mets camp, manager Jerry Manuel sung the praises of 20-year-old righty Jenrry Mejia yesterday making it sound as if he not only wants him on the big league roster at the start of the season, but is willing to use him as a set-up man for Francisco Rodriguez.

I have concerns about managers who are retiring (Cox) or know their jobs are on the line based on how well their club gets out of the gate (Manuel). The Braves made a short-sighted and desperation trade in 2007 as John Schuerholz was moving from the GM chair to the club presidency. In sending a giant package of prospects including Elvis Andrus; Neftali Feliz; Matt Harrison and Jarrod Saltalamacchia to the Rangers for Mark Teixeira and Ron Mahay to win another title and cement Schuerholz's "genius", they gave up a chunk of talent. I have to wonder whether Schuerholz's last two months as GM factored into the decision to go for it in such a way.

It didn't work as the Braves stumbled down the stretch and were an also-ran and if they had that deal to do over again, I'm sure they'd hesitate and probably not do it.

With Heyward, if he's ready, he's ready. Let him play. With Mejia, I have no problem with a club incorporating a youngster into the majors out of the bullpen (Mejia's seen as a starter, long term). It's a great strategy to get a young pitcher accustomed to the majors and learn how to escape jams under short pressure. That's what the Cardinals do; but the Cardinals have an entrenched manager/pitching coach combination with Tony La Russa and Dave Duncan and don't have the history of abusing their relievers as Manuel does.

I wouldn't let Mejia get anywhere near the big leagues as anything other than a secret weapon late in the season if the Mets are contending. Aside from that, he's in the minors as a starter. Period.

The Phillies might be prepared to rush the centerpiece to the stupid trade of Cliff Lee to the Mariners----Philippe Aumont----to the majors not only because they'll want to prove that they didn't make a mistake, but because their bullpen might be so awful that they'll need Aumont.

And it'll be a mistake.

Managers and executives who might be trying to win one last time; save their jobs; or justify something they've done have to have their agendas questioned and possibly overruled for the long-term future of the club.

• Barry Zito picks up the spare:

Giants pitcher Barry Zito hit Prince Fielder with a pitch in the first inning of the game between the Giants and Brewers on Thursday in retaliation for Fielder's over-the-line celebration of a game-winning homer on September 6th of last season----Article.

This was a non-story for a few reasons.

Could Barry Zito hitting someone with his 86 mph "fastball" be considered as retaliation? Prince Fielder shrugged it off because he didn't even feel it; because it created as much of an impact on Fielder's well-cushioned body as a butterfly landing on his shoulder; and because I think even Fielder realized that his game-winning homer and teammates' "bowling pin" reaction wasn't just bush league, it was little league and beyond over-the-top in celebration.

Bottom line: had it been Tim Lincecum drilling Fielder with a 98-mph fastball that could've actually done some damage, he might not have shrugged it off as easily; in fact, he would've charged the mound and used Lincecum as a toothpick. At this point, Zito's "fastball" can't break through a piece of wet toilet paper. That's not that hard to dismiss by Fielder because Fielder was barely aware that he got hit to begin with.

In the end, Zito got his "revenge" which was more for pubic consumption and to save face with his teammates than any legit retaliation. Retaliation only works if it achieves a desired effect; and presumably Zito's teammates approve of what he did and respect him for it and Zito feels better about himself.

But I can tell you that if it was Lincecum, Matt Cain or Brian Wilson on the mound, the exchange would've been something like the following:

Fielder (pointing his bat at the mound): "What the fuck?!? You throw at me, you better knock me out, motherfucker!!"

Pitcher with an actual fastball: "What's the problem? I'm pickin' up the spare you fuckin' cocksucker!"

Then, my guess is there would've been a fight. Just a guess.

• Viewer Mail 3.6.2010:

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

Yur boy Beane came in at the arbitrary number 10 position! What has he done? What has he won? How many league titles? How many World Series?

The Rays had one good year. It's gonna take more than just one good year to convince me.

And Jocketty is too far down. I'd have him in top 5.

"drenched copies of Moneyball"...?

Ew.

I didn't get past the naming of Friedman as number one. After seeing that, there wasn't much point in reading further.

The Rays have a load of talent as I documented yesterday, but a vast chunk of it was in place when Friedman arrived; how does he get credit for that?

I thought the "drenched copies of Moneyball" line would get a reaction. Heh.

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

Good move by Joe with that EOW. Sounded plausible to me.

Agreed. In case anyone missed it, I was almost sent into a blind rage with the following Twitter tweet from Joe regarding Friedman's ascent to the top of the pops:

The stat 'EOW', efficiency over wins, gives him a 96.2 on a scale of 100.

I must admit, I didn't think he had it in him. There's hope that I can still rehabilitate him from the stat zombie infection.

Joe at Statistician Magician writes RE the GM rankings:

I thought ten was fair for Beane.

I don't want to get into ranking them from 1-30 because there are so many factors that go into such an arbitrary list that it's a waste of time. Once you get past the top 10 or so, it's negligible as to what's "right" and "wrong".

Just like Ruben Amaro Jr, Omar Minaya, and Jon Daniels----who all have black marks against them heading into the season----the only way Beane will be judged is if his moves work or not. If the defense-oriented shift he made; the signing of Ben Sheets; and the reliance on young pitchers is a success, he'll be seen as "smart"; if they don't pan out (and they won't), the luster will be diminished even more in the post-Moneyball sobering up that's taking far too long. We'll know by mid-May at the latest.

It's a fleeting assessment that relies on factors that are too hard to quantify, especially coming from a stat zombie.

I Introduce You To Baseball's....Um....."Best" GM(?)

• Not only is it hard to quantify, but it's wrong:

I love it when stat zombies try to escape their numerically oriented and narrow worlds to venture off into the unknown to quantify the unquantifiables and only serve to provide more reasons why they should stay in their little worlds immersed in reams and reams of papers; surrounded by calculators; Bill James posters; drenched copies of Moneyball; and no human contact whatsoever.

Such a venture is documented as Sports Illustrated's Tim Marchman ranks the 30 MLB General Managers from best to worst in this article.

I'm not getting into a critique/argument of who should be 6th, 15th, 18th, etc. It's a worthless endeavor that many times has as much to do with luck and money as it does with evaluative skills. There are good GMs in bad situations; there are bad GMs in good situations; there are GMs with positive and negative attributes that make them hard to judge accurately. But when you do as Marchman does and anoint one GM as the "best" based on nothing, it has to be addressed.

According the Marchman, the "best" GM in baseball is...Rays GM Andrew Friedman.

Um.

Okay...

By way of reasoning, Marchman writes the following:

For as much praise as the Rays have received over the last few years, they've probably deserved even more. Over the last three years they've spent just a million dollars per marginal win, the sort of thing that gets baseball wonks to draw hearts around pictures of Friedman. Maybe the best example of their method is the preposterous contract to which they signed Evan Longoria during his first days as a major leaguer -- if the Rays exercise all the options in the contract, they could end up paying him less than $50 million through his age 30 season, which makes him the single most valuable commodity in baseball. Friedman has also won a pennant and maintains one of the game's best farm systems. It may seem absurd to say of a 32-year-old whom few people had heard of a year and a half ago, but he and his braintrust are the best in baseball.

Ugh.

Okay. Let's dissect this.

Here's the reality of Andrew Friedman as the Rays GM. When he first took over the club he and the neophyte ownership didn't have the faintest clue what they were doing. A rotisserie baseball fanatic who came from the banking industry, Friedman was the latest in a long line of fans who were thrust into the spotlight to run a club because a friend purchased a club and it was a fun thing for them to do. He was a stat geek who'd actually played baseball at Tulane and was immersed in numbers to the point that it was somehow a qualification to run a team.

When the new Rays braintrust took over, Friedman was seemingly afraid to make a mistake and did little to nothing to improve the club after he took over for former GM Chuck LaMar in late 2005. Friedman showed little capacity for handling the player personnel; but what was worse was that he was unable to deal with the players as people in a way that was best for the organization.

It was a free-for-all. The Rays had drug addicts (Josh Hamilton); players with anger issues (Elijah Dukes); a coach that was busted for DUI (Jim Hickey); and a former top draft pick who flung a bat at an umpire in anger (Delmon Young).

They did absolutely nothing to address these issues in the proper fashion. And that proper fashion was to tell these people straight out that if they were unable to behave in an appropriate manner with a baseline code of conduct imperative to an organization, then they'd be gone. Period. It's vital for an organization to tell their employees that if they don't want to be part of that organization, then they'll be accommodated; and that includes behavior on and off the field.

Was Friedman able to handle the big league player? The highly-priced bonus baby? The coach who did something stupid?

Clearly not at first.

The team was atrocious on the field (they lost 101 games in 2006; 96 games in 2007); and in utter disarray off the field. Then the magical season of 2008 happened.

Let's take a look at the way the players from that club were acquired, whether it was brilliance, luck or circumstance that created the dramatic turnaround from a laughable organization into the American League Champions and, a year-and-a-half later, the anointing of Friedman as the "best" GM in baseball.

Smart moves by Friedman:

He acquired Dioner Navarro in a trade with the Dodgers for Julio Lugo; J.P. Howell in a deal for Joey Gathright; and Jason Bartlett and Matt Garza for Delmon Young and Jason Pridie.

He drafted Evan Longoria and David Price.

He acquired Ben Zobrist from the Astros for Aubrey Huff.

Navarro was a prospect who'd been traded twice. The Yankees sent him to the Diamondbacks in the Randy Johnson deal; the Diamondbacks sent him to the Dodgers for Shawn Green; getting anything of use for Lugo was a great move.

The Bartlett/Garza move was excellent in two ways. One, it shored up the defense (and no one----no one----could've expected Bartlett to put up the offensive numbers he did at age 29 in 2009). Garza's main problem in Minnesota was a temper that he's still yet to fully control, but there was never denying his ability. Two, it got Young----immature and insubordinate----out of town.

The drafting of Longoria could be seen as lucky, but he's turned out to be a star and credit has to go to the person doing the drafting.

The trade for Zobrist was a stat move. Zobrist's numbers in the minors were absurdly good and despite not performing adequately as a big leaguer until 2008 and developing into a star in 2009, his acquisition also has to be recognized.

Baseline discipline moves:

It was easy to rip the way the Rays gave Josh Hamilton away, but what were they supposed to do? He hadn't played a full season since he'd been a pro; there was no indication that he was ever going to clean up and even if he did, who knew whether the years of self-abuse had robbed him of his prodigious skills that made him the top pick in the draft in 1999? As a matter of discipline and saving the roster space, Hamilton had to go.

Elijah Dukes has MVP-talent; but he was violent; he was threatening; and he was unstable. They couldn't keep him around especially with a weak manager like Joe Maddon running the club on the field.

The aforementioned Young was another high draft pick whose behaviors might have been bridled at some point, but getting Bartlett and Garza while weeding the organization of a potential problem was necessary.

Lucky moves by Friedman:

Carlos Pena is a stat zombie's dream. He hits a lot of homers and walks a lot and was a journeyman's journeyman before joining the Rays on a minor league contract in 2007. He'd bounced from the Rangers to the Athletics to the Tigers to the Red Sox to the Yankees. He'd played regularly on occasion; hit his homers; put up his high on base numbers and was expendable.

In 2007, the Rays were ready to release him at the end of spring training, changed their minds and got 46 homers, 121 RBI and a .411 on base.

Was this any foresight on the part of the front office? If it was, it was a remarkable bit of gazing into crystal ball; so remarkable that it's ridiculous to believe it was anything more than hitting the lottery.

Gabe Gross had never been able to hit. Always solid defensively, but known more for having been a college quarterback at Auburn than for his baseball skills, Gross was acquired from the Brewers early in the 2008 season...and started hitting home runs. He hit 13 homers during the Rays run, many of them clutch. This was a dart thrown while wearing a blindfold.

Grant Balfour is an Aussie with a power fastball and no clue where the ball was going. The Rays signed him, stuck him in the bullpen and he learned to throw strikes having a fantastic year in 2008 before reverting to what he was in his Twins/Brewers days in 2009.

Eric Hinske is an on-base/power bench player who's always going to have a job because he can hit the ball out of the park, but signing him was a flier that turned out well.

Were these moves lucky or smart? Did it take any intuitive baseball abilities to find these players and have them work as well as they did? Is luck a justifiable reason to consider someone the "best" at what they do?

The foundation:

People are quick to credit Friedman and co. for what the Rays have supposedly become; but what was there when they arrived? No one thought much of former GM Chuck LaMar or owner Vince Naimoli, but there were, um. some pretty good pieces in place when the new crew arrived.

Here's the list:

Carl Crawford (2nd round, 1999)
B.J. Upton (1st round, 2nd pick, 2002)
James Shields (16th round, 2000)
Scott Kazmir (acquired from NY Mets for Victor Zambrano, 2004)
Andy Sonnanstine (13th round, 2004)
Reid Brignac (2nd round, 2004)
Jeff Niemann (1st round, 4th pick, 2004)

Would the Rays have improved so quickly without Crawford? Upton? Shields? Kazmir?

What did Friedman do in these cases?

Nothing.

Stupid moves by Friedman:

It may not seem like much, but they dumped Jorge Cantu and Joe Beimel for nothing; and traded Edwin Jackson for Matt Joyce after 2008. Jackson was a horse for the Tigers that the Rays could've used; and Joyce was a disaster.

To sit there and declare Friedman as the best GM in baseball is offensive on so many levels that in a similar fashion to the bewildered countenance I exhibit every time another zombie emerges from the crypt to defend Paul DePodesta's time as Dodgers GM (complete with the unanswerable and apoplectic: "Are you really gonna sit there and defend this guy?!?"), I didn't know how to respond at first.

Ruminating created the above evisceration of Marchman's try at quantifying such a thing as the "best" not because it's stat zombie-ing, but because it's stupid. To make it worse, he's wrong!!!

In a world with Larry Beinfest doing the job he does as Marlins baseball boss, how dare he name Friedman as the top guy. Friedman's developed into a smart and gutsy executive (evidenced by the trade of Scott Kazmir late last season); but to say he's the number one guy? Based on what? Based on nothing. That's what. And it's a farce.

• Pushing the Prince's button highly effectively:

When this ranking list first popped up, I was openly wondering what Marchman was thinking in a different----albeit reactionary way----on Twitter. Joe at Statistician Magician came up with a clever and slick way to send me *teetering* on the edge of a total meltdown with the following:

The stat 'EOW', efficiency over wins, gives him a 96.2 on a scale of 100.

My eyes bulged.

My hands shook.

My teeth clenched.

My blood boiled.

I started strangling my laptop...until Joe let me know that it was something he made up.

But doesn't the EOW sound like something they'd come up with? Doesn't it?

Well played.

• Viewer Mail 3.5.2010:

Larry writes RE Me:

Hey Prince, you may be waaaaay over the top at night on Twitter (and during the day too) but this baseball blog of yours is sensible, interesting and readable. I'll be reading. Take care @HeartyLarry

PS: Tell anyone I had something nice to say and I'll deny it.

BWAAA-HAHAHAHAHAHAH

Larry may be a habitual line-stepper, but he's essentially harmless.

All kidding aside, thanks for the compliment. I think that the borderline explosiveness----the duality as it were----helps me in both venues. One aspect of a person's personality doesn't supersede the other. They can exist simultaneously. If I lost the "over the top" Prince, the cogent, organized and sensible Prince would be compromised.

Plus it's entertaining. Not on purpose. It just is.

Jane Heller at Confessions of a She Fan writes RE Fantasy Baseball:

So not into rotisserie/fantasy bb.

If I got involved, it...would...end....badly.

Jeff (Street Boss) at Red State Blue State writes RE Teddy Ruxpin and Fantasy Baseball:

The worst thing about Ruxpin, let us not forget, is where ya have to insert the tape.

As for fantasy, I play it -- a lot and well... meaning, I make $$$ doing it, and it's fun for me -- but I realize the most boring thing in the world is listening to some jagoff talk about his fantasy team. Therefore, I keep mine to myself.

But I will say this: the good fantasy players have known who Kyle Blanks is for some time and he is definitely getting drafted in the late round roto leagues. Believe that.

I was too old when Teddy Ruxpin came out to ask for one without looking like a total loser. I wanted it anyway.

I briefly considered Fantasy Baseball a couple of times before deciding that I enjoyed my own fantasies more. And they got nothin' to do with baseball. (Don't ask.)

John Seal (Prospective West Coast Spiritual Advisor for The Family) writes RE Teddy Ruxpin and Fantasy Baseball:

I recently quit one of my two fantasy leagues. It's time consuming, so unless you're super dedicated, it's not really worth playing.

That said, I'll bid $2 for Teddy Ruxpin. Is Rainbow Brite still available?

I might have to start considering Fantasy Baseball now. It's be a powder keg, but it'd be hysterical in a deadly sort of way. The best comedy comes from potential for destruction; that's why I'm on this earth I'm afraid.

They reference Rainbow Brite frequently on Robot Chicken. I was more a Mego Super-Heroes man myself----at least until a couple years ago. Yes. I know. I'm 38. I like my superhero toys.

2010 Stories To Watch, Part IV

• This is a sequel factory...

But they're good sequels.

I'm entertaining myself endlessly with this stuff. Let's have a look at more 2010 Stories To Watch.

Managerial common sense:

I'm not talking strategy.

Here's something I don't get: if a club is rebuilding and knows----knows----that their current manager isn't going to be at the helm when they turn the corner, then why keep him on?

After the way the Blue Jays collapsed last season and appeared to quit, I would've either fired or requested a resignation from manager Cito Gaston. I've said before I can take a team that plays poorly if their talent level is substandard or has outside issues that are negatively affecting their results; but for a team to pack it in as the Blue Jays did was totally unacceptable.

Ignoring that, the Blue Jays are moving forward into a new era without Roy Halladay; without dispatched GM J.P. Ricciaridi; they've imported a load of new players and young pitching in addition to what they already had. Gaston, age 66, is not going to be managing the club when they turn the corner----nor should he be. His contract is up at the end of the season and he's not going to be back unless the Blue Jays contend. Suffice it to say that such an event would only be achieved by some miracle or baseball-wide plague rendering most of the players from the Yankees, Red Sox, et al incapacitated. In other words, forget it.

So, with all those marks against him, why bring him back?

New GM Alex Anthopolous had to trade Roy Halladay, which was far more of a traumatic break than firing the manager would be. The Blue Jays fans are presumably happy that Ricciardi's gone. The re-hiring of Gaston was done to try and create some goodwill with the fan base for whom Gaston was still quite popular after managing the team to back-to-back World Series wins in 1992-1993. Would they revolt if he was replaced? It seems as if they were revolted enough by the repeated controversies fostered and expanded exponentially by Ricciardi; what difference would it make to them if the club hired a new manager?

What I would do in the case of the Blue Jays, the Nationals, the Orioles and the Padres is to find a younger manager who could grow with the players as they learn to do things correctly and win. It's organic. It can't be forced when nurturing an evolving group. Building trust between the manager and players is important in the formative years of a club that's essentially starting from the ground up. To have a lame duck 66-year old running things makes no sense whatsoever.

Don't forget that Gaston couldn't keep the Blue Jays from bagging the season in August and September in 2009. As if that wasn't unforgivable enough, they needed to bring in someone younger. And they didn't.

What are the Tigers?

It's is a very bizarre conglomeration in Detroit. The combination of hideous contracts; declining and mentally shot veterans; a semi-punchless lineup; youngsters being incorporated; and a manager who wants to win immediately lead to the question: what's the endgame?

They've signed Johnny Damon to provide some veteran stability and leadership along with his production; they're going with a rookie second baseman and two young starters in the rotation with Rick Porcello and Max Scherzer; they're functioning with black holes in the lineup at shortstop and catcher; and they have no idea whatsoever what they're going to get from center fielder Austin Jackson.

At his age (65), Jim Leyland has neither the patience nor the lung capacity for the cigarettes he'll need to handle the growing pains of the youngsters nor to witness the freefall of his veterans.

At the very least with a rebuilding team like the Padres or Blue Jays, you know what you're getting. With a team like the Tigers there appears to be an attempt to be all things to all people at all times. They have enough talent to hover around .500, but can't compete in a rough division. They're not bad enough to do a teardown----a teardown against which the manager would loudly protest----but not good enough to expect to contend.

They're inserting youngsters; signing veterans; dealing movable contracts; and hoping that they can cobble together something viable and that's really hard to do.

In retrospect, the club might've been better off last season had they collapsed completely as many expected them to. They didn't make the playoffs going for it and riding Justin Verlander and Edwin Jackson hard; and they're faced with this current pile of stuff.

Sometimes what "is" is better than what "if". Ambiguity is an enemy in the long run.

The Mets:

There are two ways things are going to go for the Mets this season and their future will be known relatively quickly. Either they're going to galvanize into an "us against the world" philosophy, have a little better luck and try to shove it to the cheap-shot artists for whom they've been a convenient punching bag since September 2007; or they're going to stumble to the depths of mediocrity and worse.

With the cautious optimism in spring training so far; the personality of Jeff Francoeur; the return of Jose Reyes; and the way the pitching has looked; along with the signing of Jason Bay, it's looked like they're on the way to a positive season.

The paranoia still exists after the way everything went wrong last season; and they're inviting themselves to certain jokes that are irresistible even to me (Prevention and Recovery?); but the laughter isn't as primal as it was in the winter especially at the time the Carlos Beltran-surgery controversy blew up and the organization was shunned by Bengie Molina.

Now, there seems to be a conscious tamping down of the ludicrous "Mets as a laughingstock" rhetoric that was prevalent going back to last summer. The reluctance among opponents and opposing fans stems from the talent in camp and the quiet enthusiasm that's palpable. As long as nothing catastrophic happens to tumble the house of cards that this good vibe has created, the Mets will play well and shut a lot of people's mouths.

• Roto-baseball and the Prince don't mix:

I was talking to a friend about rotisserie baseball and fantasy baseball and all that stat zombie crap and it became clear that I'm incapable of thinking in such a way to have any success at the game whatsoever.

It's boring to me anyway; I have no interest; but it's funny how the way I think publicly in my attacking of Moneyball and stat zombies is so entrenched in my psyche that I can't move to stat zombie-ing even for a second.

My questioning seemed commonsensical; my argument logical. It centered around the Padres. Everyone wants Adrian Gonzalez because he's a player that's a fantasy sports player's dream because of his production; and he can actually play in reality. But with his potential for being traded sometime this season at about the Ivory Soap pure percentage of 99 44/100%, I thought it would be a good idea to pick up Kyle Blanks; the argument being that he'll be moved to first base when Gonzalez is dealt and it'll be a neat transition and a smart pickup.

Evidently, my logic doesn't translate into any kind of stat zombie-ing because Blanks is listed as an outfielder and will be gettable via free agency, cheaply, as a bench player/outfielder. Once he's actually a first baseman, he'll be listed as a first baseman.

I don't get it.

I don't wanna get it.

Because if I get it, I won't be able to un-get it.

And I don't wanna get it.

Best to steer clear and stay in my own World of Wonder with Teddy Ruxpin.

It's quite the place!!!

Um. Yah.

2010 Stories To Watch, Part III

• I am altering the deal...

Most sequels get worse as they repeatedly focus on the same theme with rehashed ideas, but like The Empire Strikes Back, my sequels with the 2010 Stories To Watch are getting better and better.

Perhaps you think you're being treated unfairly?

Josh Hamilton:

How relieved are the Rangers now that the talks with Josh Hamilton about a long-term contract extension last spring went nowhere?

Combined with his injuries and that he needs an almost 24-hour babysitter, and that his sobriety is always going to be a question, the club would've been insane----and I said this a year ago----to give a player like Hamilton, with all his baggage, a long-term deal.

The injuries are one thing, but I have a problem with the "I'm cured because of Jesus" stuff. That's not an indictment; it's not a judgment; it's simply a cold, hard fact that as long as there's an escape hatch, he's vulnerable to relapse. Leaning on an institution such as the church or the Bible in which anything and everything can be justified and forgiven is a get out of jail free card; there's always the chance of slippage and begging for forgiveness.

And Hamilton did slip over a year ago when he was caught drinking and partying in a bar.

It might've been easier to swallow if he'd played as well as he did in the first half of 2008 when he was an MVP candidate and became a cause célèbre, receiving accolades; writing books; and was held up as an "inspiration".

To me, it was all an invitation to disaster.

He receded to more normal production in the second half of 2008 with only 35 more RBI after having 95 at the break. In fairness to Hamilton, he was playing in the Texas heat; he must've been exhausted emotionally especially after his performance in the home run hitting contest at the All Star Game; and he'd never played a full professional season.

None of that is an explanation for falling off the wagon in the winter of 2008-2009. There's nothing wrong with slipping up, but if you're going to be preaching as Hamilton was; if you're going to be taking part in all the stories of "triumph over adversity and addiction", you'd better stay straight. This is one of the main reasons that it was premature to start canonizing the guy for staying clean for what amounted to a brief time.

In 2009, he had numerous injury problems that sabotaged his season. From his rib to his groin to his abdominals to his back, he missed almost half the season and his numbers dove to a fraction of what they were with 10 homers and 54 RBI. Now, he's bruised his left shoulder after diving for a pop up in a spring drill and is "out indefinitely"----ESPN Story.

It was lunacy for the Rangers to even entertain the notion of giving Hamilton a long-term contract if they really even considered it to begin with; now, with all the injuries, 2010 will be a clear window into what can be expected from the player moving forward. He's 29 now; he's had his addictions; he's come back to baseball; he's risen and fallen; it's time to move past all that and look at the player as an entity unto himself; and if he's continuously hurt, he's not much use to anyone regardless of how much talent he has.

The Stephen Strasburg watch:

The pressure on the Nationals to bring Stephen Strasburg up to the big leagues is going to be enormous; the pressure on the pitcher is going to be absurd; and I think he'll be much better off getting the full year at Double or Triple A to have an uninterrupted professional year under his belt before coming to the big leagues. The Nationals are not going to be good; nor are they going to be much improved from what they were last season. By matter of course, they'll be better because it's hard to be much worse. Bringing him up into a circumstance where he might experience shellshock along with all the pressure is a mistake.

Barring anything miraculous happening in Washington (and I ain't talking governmental), I've said a couple of times that I'd keep him in Double A for the whole season ; the more I think about it, the better it will probably be for Strasburg to spend the year at Triple A Syracuse.

The players in Triple A aren't prospects anymore; more often than not, they're journeymen and insurance to function as the 23rd to 25th man on the big league roster. Since Triple A has become a moneymaker, there are almost all veteran players on the rosters from the ages of 25-33. It would be a good opportunity for Strasburg to pitch to experienced players who wouldn't be starstruck at the phenom; in fact, they'd want to bash him to get themselves some attention. A little adversity wouldn't hurt Strasburg and it's better for him to get it at Triple A than in the big leagues.

We'll see what the Nationals do.

Ken Macha's job status:

He wins. He gets the most out of the talent on his roster. He makes the correct strategic moves. And he's always seemingly on the verge of getting fired.

Billy Beane in Oakland didn't seem all that bothered about letting Macha walk when his manager was asking for too much money after the 2005 season. They broke off negotiations; Beane interviewed a few other candidates before he and Macha reconciled and agreed to a 3-year contract.

In 2006, The Athletics made it further than they ever had before under Beane as they advanced to the ALCS and got swept by the Tigers...then Beane fired Macha citing the ephemeral and oft-repeated reason for a change, "lack of communication"----whatever that means.

Macha was hired to replace Brewers interim manager Dale Sveum after 2008 and got as much as could reasonably be expected from the flawed Brewers roster as they ended at 80-82; but his job was in jeopardy after the season before he was kept on in what was a lukewarm retention. His contract is up at the end of the season (the Brewers hold an option for 2011) and there's a manager in waiting in bench coach Willie Randolph.

It could be that Macha's not the yes man that many insecure GMs prefer; it might be that the players don't like being told the truth from the manager. Not that Randolph is any kind of a yes man either, but he may be better able to relate to the players than Macha.

Under no circumstances is Randolph positioning himself behind Macha to push him over the cliff; but the club would be better off with Randolph managing the team and if they get off to a bad start, Macha's getting fired.

• Viewer Mail 3.3.2010:

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

I have no personal affection for Zito or the Giants, but I hope Zito has a good season and redeems himself. You're right - the contract was what it was.

I can understand Zito's frustration with the way Bruce Bochy yanks him immediately if he gets into trouble; but the team and the manager had no margin for error. Maybe with the offense improved----albeit slightly----he'll be given a bit more rope. And was he supposed to turn down the contract? Give some money back?

I dunno what people want from the guy. His quirkiness does sometimes seem to be crafted for public consumption, but so what? If he pitches well, no one will care. Just like before, it'll be "colorful" instead of "annoying".

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

Excellent piece on Zito. Well put. I think a lot of people lose sight of how that contract came to be (including myself). Considering the facts, I still refuse to stop bashing Zito (for now). His failure is my gain... and I am a sick, sick man. Hahahahahaha!

In case anyone missed it, Zito blocked Jeff on Twitter, which in and of itself is hysterical. Getting blocked is pretty funny; it's happened to me and in some cases, I still dunno why. (Then again, this is me we're talking about, so the odds are I did something to invite it, just by being me.)

Jeff, send me the link to that posting of when he blocked you.

Gabriel (Capo) writes RE Barry Zito:

And after all, if you get anything more than that from Barry Zito it'd be a bonus.

There's no reason at all that he can't be a 200-inning guy; win 16-18 games based on hanging around and getting a little lucky; and being seen as "rejuvenated" and "regaining his form" when he's probably not going to be pitching much better or worse than he always has. It's all got to be put into context. In today's game, the big name pitchers are getting over a million bucks per win, so if he gets offensive support and wins those 16 games, his contract won't be seen as "terrible" anymore.

John Seal writes RE the Giants:

Okay, I'm out of hibernation. As you may recall, Prince, I'm a hardcore Giants-hater, so when I saw you assert that they are 'loaded with prospects' I almost choked on my Billy Beane Geniusburger. Okay, Posey and Bumgarner are special...but what's after that? An exonerated Angel Villalona? Thomas 'Slowfoot' Neal? Okay, maybe Zach Wheeler...but he's pretty far away, and Sabean'll probably flip him for Gary Matthews (senior, not junior).

The...Billy...Beane....Geniusburger?!?!

That made me burst out laughing. I understand there's lots of bread and condiments, but not enough beef.

John, I need you on Twitter as the Prince of New York Family West Coast Spiritual Adviser. I'm thisclose to running the whole place (possibly into a ditch, but whatever).

Pablo Sandoval's still a kid; and you mentioned Madison Bumgarner and Buster Posey, who look like All Stars----if a team has developed three All Stars in the majors (Sandoval; Tim Lincecum; and Matt Cain) and two more on the way, they're looking loaded to me

As for the others, I'm going by my research of the system and stats, so take it with a grain of salt; but from my that research I saw great numbers from: Brock Bond; Joe Paterson; Dan Runzler; Brandon Crawford; and Scott Barnes and a couple of others.

A's fan or not; Giants hater or not, considering where they were----with a roster that would've won 125 games in 2002, but was ready for pasture in 2006----you have to give GM Brian Sabean credit for re-stocking as quickly as he did. Even if none of these kids make it, the five I mentioned earlier is a pretty good place to start in referencing homegrown talent.

I Love It When The Zombies Change The Station...

• And sing along to a different tune:

All the title of this posting is reminding me of is the A-Team and George Peppard as John Hannibal Smith, and his catchphrase: "I love it when a plan comes together"; which in turn reminds me of the Family Guy episode when the crew decided to go around "helping" people as the A-Team.

But I digress...

There's a new bit of zombie-ing going around in recent days. It's called: "Let's take a second look at Barry Zito".

Whereas he was the epitome of evil amongst pitchers and overly paid free agents who declined almost immediately upon getting their massive contract ($126 million for 7-years), suddenly, Zito's 200 innings and serviceable performance isn't all that bad anymore. They're now saying that he's actually "solid"; that his contract is irrelevant to what he brings to the table once you get past the contract (and it's taken them three years to come to this conclusion).

Here's Rob Neyer's blog posting on this subject; it also links Craig Calcaterra:

Craig makes a good point about Barry Zito, who says he wants to be really good again:

Barry Zito is not worth his contract and given that the guy will make $20M+ in 2013, he never will be. And with Tim Lincecum -- and Matt Cain! -- around he will never be the Giants' number one guy.

But there's every reason to think that he can be a useful part of the Giants rotation for the next several years. He's durable, reliable and if last year is any indication, he's showing that he can learn to pitch without his young man stuff. Indeed, he even flashed some genuine brilliance in a couple of starts against the Rockies late in the season. Plus, seeing he's lefthanded, there's every reason to think that Zito could chug along for many, many more years and wind up with well north of 200 wins.

That doesn't make him an ace or anything, but the mere fact that Brian Sabean decided to grossly over pay him doesn't render him a punchline.

I was thinking exactly the same thing just the other day.

Look, the contract has been a train wreck, and will continue to be a train wreck. The train wreck's not been as ugly lately, but Zito's never going to be worth $20 million and that's what he's going to earn through 2013 (in 2014, the Giants can pay him $18 million to pitch or $7 million to go away).

He's not worthless, though. Before Zito, the last contract that looked so awful after a couple of years was Mike Hampton's eight-year, $121 million deal. While they were eventually able to trade Hampton for some useful players, they essentially wound up spending $52 million for one decent (14-13, 5.41 ERA) season and one lousy (7-15, 6.15) season. Zito's already given the Giants two seasons better than Hampton's best, and for less money per season (not to mention inflation).

It's fair to bring up Zito's salary when discussing the Giants' finances, because his contract presumably does prevent the organization from doing some other things. But Zito's good enough to pitch (and start) for most teams in the majors. There's little reason to bring up his $126 million contract after every bad start. The joke just isn't funny anymore.

Neyer's right about the true hideousness of a contract and it's something the stat zombies usually ignore. The only reason to rip on a contract given to a certain player----regardless of how good or bad he is----is if it prevents the club from doing something else they need to do. If a team like the Cardinals pays Matt Holliday $120 million, but they're still able to ante up cash to fill other holes, then who cares if they "overpaid" on Holliday?

What difference----aside from one-upsmanship; the "we're smarter than you because we paid less" nonsense; or implications of getting value for money----does it make to them how much money a player gets?

They never have an answer.

So, is Zito going to be worth that money? Will he be a pitcher you'd pay $18-20 million a year for through 2014? Of course not. But it's done. There's nothing that the Giants----aside from Zito getting hurt a la Mo Vaughn and the club being able to collect insurance money----that can be done to change it.

But what of Barry Zito and the Giants?

You want the real lowdown on Barry Zito and the Giants?

Here's the real lowdown on Barry Zito and the Giants.

In the winter of 2006-2007, the Giants were faced with an uncertain future of "Life after Barry" as in Bonds. Bonds was entering the final year of his contract and there was no way, no how, no chance of the club re-signing him no matter what. The Giants were aging and declining; saddled with contracts for veterans that were essentially unmovable. The biggest name on the market was Barry Zito----2006-2007 MLB Free Agent List. So the Giants, needing to move forward with a new face of the franchise as the sun set on the Bonds era, jumped in and grabbed at the top name from across the San Francisco Bay.

Zito was coming off a very good 2006 season with the Athletics (16-10; 3.83 ERA; 221 innings; 211 hits; his usual 99 walks; 151 strikeouts); plus he outdueled Johan Santana in game one of the ALDS before getting shelled by the Tigers in the ALCS. He was the big name----the only name----on the market that had the star power and familiarity with the Bay Area to make the prospect of Bonds's final season more palatable to a fan base for whom the besieged slugger could still do no wrong.

Giants GM Brian Sabean is not stupid. In fact, he's quite smart. For years, the Giants were called "geriatric" and ripped for bringing in one veteran after another to surround the still all-world Bonds with players from whom they'd know what to expect to try and win immediately. Knowing that some of the contracts for the likes of Dave Roberts, Ray Durham, Mike Matheny, et al were unlikely to be fruitful by their conclusion, they signed the players anyway knowing that they had to surround Bonds with veterans.

As controversy surrounded Bonds and his time as the Giants centerpiece was drawing to a close, they had a choice: move forward and wait for Bonds to depart and hope that they could replace him with a glossy name; or jump in, grab a player with a quirky enough personality to make him interesting and on-field ability to place him at the forefront. With the 2007-2008 list of free agents looking even worse than the year before, they grabbed Zito and they paid him a lot of money.

He was up-and-down in 2007, but pitched okay; he looked terrible in 2008 as his velocity was down to the low 80s (if that) and his sharp breaking curve was gone. In 2009, he pitched better, but was similar to what he'd been in 2007. His velocity crept back up to the upper 80s; and his curve regained some semblance of its sharpness. Even as his record was nothing to brag about (10-13), his ancillary numbers were quite solid (4.03 ERA; 192 innings; 179 hits; 81 walks; 154 strikeouts). If the Giants were a better hitting club, Zito would've won 16 games easily.

What also has to be taken into account is how Zito is utilized by manager Bruce Bochy.

An ace pitcher is given leeway to work his way out of trouble. Zito has lost that cachet with his manager. Because his command is poor and he racks up high pitch counts; because his stuff has become so pedestrian; because he blows up at a second's notice and gives up a hit, a walk and a 3-run homer before a reliever can even get his warmup jacket off, Zito is not accorded the rope that Tim Lincecum and Matt Cain are.

By the fifth inning, even if he's rolling along with a 2-hit shutout, Bochy already has it in mind how much longer he's going to be able to go with his starter. The Giants popgun offense made this a necessity to win games. They couldn't afford to see a 3-spot go up on the board in the sixth inning, so concessions were made and a seeming lack of respect for a pitcher with Zito's resume; with his salary; and with a Cy Young Award in order to achieve that ultimate end----winning.

It wasn't personal. Zito didn't like seeing his manager ambling out to the mound in the fifth and sixth innings, motioning to the bullpen and taking the ball when he'd give up little more than a single and a walk, but it was the right thing to do. Neither Zito nor his manager had any margin for error because of Zito's stuff is still good enough to get hitters out; but not good enough to give him "one more batter" that the Johan Santanas are going to get.

So what is Barry Zito now? Is he "solid"? Is he a "sunk cost"?

No.

He's a serviceable third starter from whom the club knows what to expect; they've come up with a plan for utilizing him whether he likes it or not. If he were pitching for the Yankees, Red Sox or Angels, he'd win 18 games simply because of the lineups and bullpens. But he's pitching for the Giants, who didn't have the offense to pick him up when he got yanked after 5 innings and 100 pitches. He's still capable of pitching a great game; but he's always on the hair trigger to seeing things explode. The manager knows this; and while it's a something of a slap in the face to Zito, the Giants are using him correctly.

In retrospect, you see how smart Sabean and the Giants actually were. They ran the club according to circumstances. With Bonds, they went for it; post-Bonds, they brought in Zito to give them that recognizable name as they restructured the organization. Look at them now. Even though their offense is still lacking that one big basher, they have enough pitching to counteract that problem and contend; in addition to that, the farm system is loaded with prospects both on the mound and at the plate.

There was no agenda; no template of "this is how we do things" a la Billy Beane and Sandy Alderson; no one treating the strategy as an end rather than a means to getting the job in creating a winning club. Post-Bonds could've been an organizational apocalypse; it could conceivably have taken the Giants 8-10 years to recover from the wreckage.

It took three.

The Giants are poised to jump back into the post-season in part because the signing of Zito gave them time to build again. And they have.

As time passes, the terrible contract will fade into memory if the Giants win. And they will. Zito can be a part of that even if he's not the centerpiece. He'll never be the Cy Young contender he once was, but a a mid-rotation starter, he's a useful component to a contending team. If that happens, who really cares about his contract?

• I forgot one under the radar bust out yesterday:

Whoops. My mind lapses sometimes.

Only sometimes.

Okay. All the time.

Anyway. Here's one name that I intended to mention as an under the radar player to watch for 2010.

James McDonald, RHP--Los Angeles Dodgers

Some things are worth waiting for even if they don't come until August.

I love his stuff and I'm waiting on him.

The Dodgers need a back-of-the-rotation starter and he's going to get a shot at taking the job, but he has to find some command. I saw McDonald for the first time when he was a surprise addition to the 2008 playoff roster and he came into game 2 of the NLCS. After a few pitches and seeing his 94 mph fastball and off-speed overhand curve, I said, "Where'd this guy come from?!?"

He's tall and thin; his motion's a little herky-jerky with an awkward way of getting his arm into position to come as far over the top as he does; this can contribute to his lack of control; but he's proven everything he can prove in the minors; he showed flashes (aside from his control problems) in the majors; and at age 25, it's time to make his mark. There's a dominating starter in there and he has to put it all together to prove it.

The Dodgers might have to stick him in the rotation and leave him there to figure things out, which is risky in a tough division; but as a fifth starter at the beginning of the season, they can do it and hope he'll get his groove on by the dog days.

I think he will.

All good things to those who wait...

Under The Radar Bust-Out

• Some names you may not be familiar with----but will be:

There's been talk in recent days about players who might be ready to break out and zoom into stardom. Well, here are my picks for potential bust-out stars. Some you may or may not be familiar with. If you aren't you will be.

You will be.

Marc Rzepczynski, LHP--Toronto Blue Jays

The 24-year-old lefty pitched well for the Blue Jays in 11 starts last season (2-4 record; 3.67 ERA; 51 hits in 61 innings; 30 walks; 60 strikeouts; 7 homers allowed) after zipping through the minors. Motion-wise, he reminds me of Mark Mulder when Mulder first arrived in the big leagues----nice, free, easy and repeatable. Rzepczynski needs to trust his stuff and pound the strike zone to lower his pitch counts; he tended to rack up 100+ pitches by the sixth inning.

My big problem with him is I'm having trouble remembering how to spell his name!

Denard Span, OF--Minnesota Twins

Considering the year he had, it's hard to say that no one knows who Span is, but he's not mentioned prominently yet. Only 26, Span was footnoted in Moneyball as a player out of high school at whom the "genius" Billy Beane was enraged because Span wanted a $2.6 million signing bonus and the demand was causing him to slide in the draft, thereby blocking Beane from getting players he did want.*

*Note to Billy Beane AKA Einstein: You might've, in retrospect, been better off going after Span (or Prince Fielder for that matter) rather than some of the players your brilliant mind fixated on such as Jeremy Brown or John McCurdy. Beane drafted Nick Swisher before Span, but also on the board were James Loney; Cole Hamels; and Matt Cain.

Be that as it may, Span batted .311 with a .392 on base; had 16 doubles; 10 triples; and 8 homers. He also stole 23 bases. He walks a lot and doesn't strike out much. I'd bat him leadoff and let him wreak havoc.

Brandon Wood, INF--Los Angeles Angels

There are no excuses left for Wood. He's going to get a chance to play now; to win the third base job outright and if he doesn't do it now, he's going to have to go somewhere other than Anaheim to make it in the big leagues. The Angels will give him the opportunity, but they're not going to wait forever for him to figure it out.

He's faltered in every brief chance he's gotten to play in the majors after trashing the place in the minors. Third base is less taxing defensively than shortstop; the Angels have enough offense from other avenues that the pressure on Wood won't be great; he's got to do it now at age 25 or they're going to move on.

Yunel Escobar, SS--Atlanta Braves

He makes Bobby Cox and the veterans nuts with his temper tantrums, but there's nothing he can't do. He gets on base; hits for power and average; is a Gold Glove caliber fielder; and has a howitzer for an arm. The 27-year-old's power numbers have increased from 5 homers as a rookie; to 10 in his second year; to 14 in 2009; he'll hit 20 this year and the Braves popgun offense needs him to produce.

John Maine, RHP--New York Mets

He's missed chunks of the last two seasons with shoulder problems, but he has vicious stuff and a deceptively free and easy motion. Maine racks up high pitch counts with lack of command and a lot of foul balls because of his high fastball; but he's proven he can be efficient with his 15-10, 191 inning performance in 2007. If Maine's healthy and pitching well, he slides right behind Johan Santana as the Mets number 2 starter and could make the All Star team.

Elijah Dukes, OF--Washington Nationals

I know, I know.

But one thing people failed to notice last season was that Dukes behaved himself (that we know of) on and off the field last season. He can hit 35 homers and get on base frequently if he bridles his temper and his game. At age 26, he's got to take the next step.

Yovani Gallardo, RHP--Milwaukee Brewers

Under the tutelage of Rick Peterson (it's early in Peterson's tenure so his stories and in-your-face pedantry won't have caused his pitchers to tune him out----yet) and if the Brewers take off the shackles, Gallardo should contend for the NL Cy Young Award. With a power fastball and great curve, there's nothing stopping Gallardo from superstardom.

Andrew McCutchen, OF--Pittsburgh Pirates

I saw this kid run out a triple and that was it for me. He's going to be a mega-star. I'm talking 200 hits; 20 doubles; 20 triples; 20 homers; and 50 stolen bases. He's only 23 and is going to explode.

Clayton Kershaw, LHP--Los Angeles Dodgers

Another pitcher for whom the rules of overprotection are about to be removed. I've said this recently but have to say it again: he's only 22 and we're talking about 20-win potential with 300 strikeouts.

Carlos Gonzalez, OF--Colorado Rockies

The 24-year-old has already been traded twice in blockbusters. First from the Diamondbacks to the Athletics in the Dan Haren trade; then from the Athletics to the Rockies for Matt Holliday. He's got power, speed and on-base ability. He didn't play frequently against lefties last season, but handled them well enough to show that he deserves a chance to play every day.

Kyle Blanks, OF/1B--San Diego Padres

He's a giant (6'6", 285) and has 45 homer potential. He's playing the outfield because the Padres kinda have a first baseman now named Adrian Gonzalez, but Gonzalez is going to get traded and Blanks will be able to move back to first base.

Everth Cabrera, SS--San Diego Padres

He wasn't considered a great prospect, but he looks like a player. He lacks range at shortstop and may eventually have to move to second base where the Padres have a hole and little help on the horizon at the position. Cabrera's a switch hitter and he's small (5'10" 175), but I think he'll eventually have 10-15 homer power; and he can run.

• Viewer Mail 3.1.2010:

Jeff (Street Boss) at Red State Blue State writes RE Pirates president Frank Coonelly:

Frank Coonelly is funny. Funny like a clown.

Maybe I should pay him a visit...

Sometimes just letting someone unravel on their own is sufficient. Plus, who cares about the Pirates anymore?

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

I wonder what qualifications you need to be an ESPN analyst these days. Maybe just a pulse?

The worst part about ESPN is that they hire people whom you'd think would be interesting----and would be interesting----if they let them go and be themselves rather than utter the plotted, scripted and unbelievable nonsense that they come up with. You'll see in the coming weeks as they make their "predictions" for the upcoming season; each and every one of the "analysts" sitting around the desk is going to have a different team winning every division. What are the odds?

J.P. Ricciardi might be good because he doesn't listen to what people tell him, so I'm holding out hope for the guy.

The Brooklyn Trolley Blogger writes RE ESPN and Ricciardi:

ESPN allowed Steve "man-slut" Phillips to step all over Joe Morgan on Sunday nights like gum on the sidewalk. I could see ESPN letting J.P. be free (as long as no sexual harassment is involved). If he says anything at all, it would be twice as much as John Hart is offering on MLB Network. There is tact and linguistic skill GMs must have as you alluded to. With Hart you see his lips moving but I'm getting zero out of it. At least a good snow job I can appreciate.

Why does everyone hate Lumbergh AKA Steve Phillips?

I thought he was a good broadcaster, but then after listening to Joe Morgan for so long, maybe I've been institutionalized. (Don't say it!!!) Anyone correcting Morgan's thrice-sentence contradictions is all right with me; although Morgan is entertaining because he says stuff that sounds like it's coming from Neptune.

I can't sit through the MLB Network broadcasts long enough to be able to offer anything more than a baseline critique, but then I guess that in and of itself is a critique.

Gabriel (Capo) writes RE the Pirates:

Maybe we need to go to the Pirates' office and offer our services.

To clear out the current "management"; to fix the place; or both?

I'd genuinely love to get my grubby mitts on a franchise that is so screwed up and try to fix it. At least I'm not delusional/deranged----not in baseball matters anyway.