Desert Downfall

• The Diamondbacks are in trouble----BIG trouble:

With the spotlight shining on the problems the Mets are having on the East Coast, there's an even bigger nightmare playing itself out for a team that appeared to have an even brighter future three years ago----the Arizona Diamondbacks.

Built on the premise of two Cy Young-quality starting pitchers and a young core, the Diamondbacks have unraveled since their stunning run to a division title in 2007. In 2008, widely expected to build on the 2007 division title, GM Josh Byrnes acquired Dan Haren from the Athletics to combine with Brandon Webb for the best 1-2 punch in baseball; he improved the bullpen with Chad Qualls; and the middle of the starting rotation with Randy Johnson. During that season, he also made aggressive moves to bolster the offense getting Adam Dunn; and the pitching staff with Jon Rauch.

It didn't work.

Despite having a young lineup with great power potential, they were 10th in the National League in runs scored and finished at a disappointing 82-80.

By 2009, again expected to contend, injuries decimated the team. Webb went on the disabled list after one start and underwent shoulder surgery. Despite Haren's brilliance, the club stumbled early in the season resulting in the firing of manager Bob Melvin and the curious decision to install A.J. Hinch----heretofore a front office executive with no managerial experience----as the new manager.

It was made worse as the onus of the organizational stumble was placed over the head of Melvin; Byrnes asserted that Hinch would provide "organizational advocacy", implying that he'd do as he was told putting him in an even more untenable situation with a shorter leash to build a manager-player rapport. The players, who liked and respected Melvin were stunned by the change and who was brought in; Hinch was left in an impossible position of gaining respect in a clubhouse while learning on the job.

That being said, the Stanford educated Hinch appeared to gain his footing as the season moved along; and even with the injury-riddled year resulting in a 70-92 record and last place finish, there was hope for the club if Webb was able to return at full strength. Having watched him, I can say that strategically, Hinch did the right things the majority of the time.

Byrnes made a trade that was questioned by many as he dealt young pitchers Max Scherzer and Dan Schlererth in a three-team move that brought starting pitchers Edwin Jackson and Ian Kennedy to Arizona. I didn't think it was a bad deal for the Diamondbacks at all. But the entire 2010 season is hinging on the health of Webb----and he's a giant question mark.

With Webb still experiencing shoulder issues----ESPN Story----the Diamondbacks are going to have to rely on the lineup, bullpen and other starters to pick up for a recovering Cy Young Award winner and two-time runner up for the award.

There's no replacing Webb.

In looking past Webb at the rest of the club, the holes are too massive to ignore. They're strangely constructed and shaky with pieces thrown together in the hopes that they'll mesh.

Relying on Conor Jackson returning to form after missing almost the entire 2009 season with illness; hoping Chris Young can reverse his plummet; that Mark Reynolds repeats his 44 homer 2009; that Edwin Jackson will build on the Dave Stewart-like excellence for the Tigers last season; and that Ian Kennedy does, well, does something.

If Conor Jackson is healthy, there's no reason not to expect a comeback from him. Young's what he is----an overpaid, pedestrian player with huge flaws; Reynolds strikes out over 200 times a year and is awful defensively; but the pitching is the key.

Edwin Jackson needs his defense to back him up. Despite a near 100-mph fastball, he's a contact pitcher---and the Diamondbacks defense is rotten.

Kennedy still has the word "potential" hovering over his head after his rapid rise through the Yankees system; the overhype that said he was "better" and more "polished" that Joba Chamberlain in Phil Hughes has proven to be a gigantic weight around his ankles; and he's been damaged even further by the constant running of his mouth. Those that focus on numbers above all sanity continue to say that Kennedy will be good because of his minor league success; but when I watched Ian Kennedy, I saw a pitcher whose stuff was simply not good enough to be a successful big leaguer----and that's before getting to his bluster and inexplicably high opinion of himself.

In the low minors, when the hitters are still learning their craft and can't handle a pitcher who throws strikes and has the ability to change speeds, Kennedy feasted on those circumstances; when he got to Triple A, that the players are older and have flaws that prevents them from being anything more than organizational filler allowed him to again look as if he was a top-of-the-rotation starter in waiting.

Then he got to the big leagues.

In the big leagues, the discipline of the hitters let them lay off of Kennedy's pitches that the minor leaguers swung at. He walked more hitters and because his stuff isn't that good to begin with, got tattooed. Then his flapping mouth angered teammates; his inability to listen made things worse; and he failed. Miserably.

This is not going to get better even as he moves to the National League. He doesn't have the stuff to be anything more than a 5th-6th starter. The problem for the Diamondbacks is that without Webb, they're going to need Kennedy as a third starter.

So what you have is a team with a lineup that strikes out too much; a short starting rotation; a bad bullpen; a neophyte manager; an atrocious defense; playing in a hellish division.

The optimism in Arizona is a fantasy. They were in trouble with Webb. Right now, they're going to be lucky to get 25 starts from Webb and who knows of the quality of those innings? Without him? They're going to collapse.

Barring something miraculous in the desert, it's going to get bad for the Diamondbacks in 2010.

Very bad.

• C'mon columnist, keep makin' my life easy:

Now, you see?

Look at the above examination of the Diamondbacks.

There's a premise; a body explaining the premise; and a conclusion.

Of course it's peppered with my general lunacy (I'm almost out-of-control when I write this stuff, but I steer the ship as best I can), but agree or not, it makes sense.

Then we get to my newest target, William C. Rhoden of the New York Times, and I have to wonder whether he grasps the concept of writing a column.

There's a thing called organization. Ever hear of it?

In today's column, a day after extolling the Phillies stupidity for trading Cliff Lee for Roy Halladay and a Double A closer, Rhoden turns to the floating piñata known in some circles as the Metropolitan Baseball Club of New York; AKA the New York Mets----column.

Here's a clip from Rhoden's rip job about Jose Reyes:

...right out of the blocks the Mets are faced with a great spring mystery: Exactly what is wrong with Reyes?

Reyes was placed on the disabled list last May with a torn right hamstring. Now he is sidelined by a mysterious thyroid ailment that seems to have come from nowhere.

Reyes has seen several specialists. Tests have shown he has slightly elevated thyroid levels. According to doctors, elevated thyroid levels can cause dehydration, which puts stress on the heart.

Most rehabilitation requires exercise and conditioning, but for Reyes, doctors have prescribed rest and inactivity.

The Mets seem confident that Reyes will be back in uniform and will be close to the Reyes of old. All things considered, the Mets appear to be dreaming.

You wonder if the franchise has another plan.

A plan for what?

How does one make that leap from a torn hamstring (which was mishandled by the club) to blaming them for a player having a medical issue with his thyroid? What were they supposed to do? Put Reyes in a cage and monitor the diet and comings and goings of a grown man in his mid-20s? How are they to blame for the thyroid condition?

What did he want them to do, exactly?

Reyes has a medical problem that all doctors spoken to regarding the matter seem to agree has been handled appropriately by the club. If anything, the Mets have gone above and beyond in caution with Reyes because of what happened last year.

Then there's a shadowy and imprecise Rx from Rhoden for what ails the Mets, but he refuses or is unable to state it clearly as if to leave himself room to extricate himself from the cage of his own words.

Since 2006 the Mets have been operating under Plan A: a team with a core group of players that included Carlos Delgado, Carlos Beltran, David Wright and Reyes. Plan A took them to the N.L.C.S. But the core is crumbling. Wright is solid but coming off a dismal season. Delgado’s career seems to have come to an end. Beltran, at 32, is coming off knee surgery. And Reyes faces a future that is uncertain at best.

The time has come for Minaya and the Mets to seriously consider Plan B.

That was the last line in the column.

Generally, when someone presents a failed plan A as a reason for moving on to Plan B, they give, y'know, details of what Plan B is. They don't simply end a column with, "seriously consider Plan B".

What is this mysterious Plan B? Is it some James Bond villain plot for world domination that Omar Minaya has cooked up and only shared with William C. Rhoden under the promise of secrecy?

I must know the details of Plan B!!!!!

How is this turned into an indictment of the organization because of what happened last year? As yesterday's column on the Phillies showed (which I discussed----in detail) in Rhoden's world, apples are oranges and vice versa, anything to get a column completed and published no matter how discombobulated and senseless.

He'll have a long season writing baseball if he keeps it up.

And I hope he does.

• Viewer Mail 3.13.2010:

The Brooklyn Trolley Blogger writes RE the Phillies:

With Lee the Phillies could have plowed through the NL East like Sanitation in two inches of snow. I would have opted for a BigThree. I think the Phils and your featured writer out-thunk themselves on this one.

Rhoden was looking for something to write about without any conviction or an utter lack of knowledge, neither of which I can abide.

Gabriel (Capo) writes RE Roy Halladay:

I feel bad for Doc. He wanted to win, and he's going to get a chance, but it's not gonna happen.

Don't feel bad for Roy Halladay. He had every right to do what he did in forcing his way out of Toronto and to his preferred locale, but trading Lee was the way the Phillies chose to do it. They're going to regret it.

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

I think the Mets are right to be cautious with Reyes, but it sounds like he'll be fine. That has to be good news for Mets fans.

The non-stop attacks are so ludicrous now, I don't know why I pay attention and retort. I'd like to think I'd do it if it was any other team as well, because I probably would. It's a farce.

Everyone Has A Right To A Competent Defense

• Unfortunately this is not a competent defense:

I swear I think some of these writers/columnists don't have the imagination or knowledge to come up with stories on their own, so they choose to be contrary and attack it from a different angle just "because". Because others haven't selected the same path; because it's easy to write the story when there's no conviction behind the premise to start with.

This is not analysis; it's not in-depth coverage. It's being lazy. What makes it worse is when there's not even an argument to be made in a cogent manner to make their position seem tenable. It's difficult to differentiate between a lack of conviction in coming to the wrong conclusion or a simple lack of knowledge.

No matter.

It's the same result.

In today's New York Times, William C. Rhoden goes to great lengths to defend the Phillies stupid decision to trade Cliff Lee for Roy Halladay rather than keep Lee to team with Halladay for a starting pitching duo that would send shivers throughout baseball----Column.

Rhoden's column proves that he doesn't know what he's talking about; and weakly attempts context switching as a means to justify the Phillies' idiocy.

The argument (ably assisted by Rhoden speaking to Phillies GM Ruben Amaro Jr) is that the Phillies, having traded a chunk of their minor league system to get Lee from the Indians last summer, couldn't afford to gut the system further; they decided to "replenish". That replenishing would cost them Lee, but allow them to get Halladay from the Blue Jays.

Replenishing the system netted them a minor league closer (Philippe Aumont); a minor league outfielder (Tyson Gillies); and a minor league pitcher (Juan Ramirez) as they pretty much traded the players that the Blue Jays wanted last summer when the negotiations for Halladay hit a snag.

Wallowing in the Amaro excuse-machine, Rhoden leaps into the morass of silliness by comparing the decision of looking toward the future to the Indianapolis Colts choice to rest their starters late in the season to prepare for the playoffs rather than go for history with an undefeated record.

The clip:

The Phillies’ decision not to keep Halladay, Lee and Hamels together is not unlike the Indianapolis Colts’ curious decision to pass on going undefeated in the regular season. Coach Jim Caldwell, saying he was looking toward the Super Bowl, rested starters in the last two regular-season games.

Caldwell and the Colts passed up the here and now, and posterity, for a pie in the sky that never came, thanks to their Super Bowl loss to the New Orleans Saints. Amaro and the Phillies, also looking at the big picture, passed up an opportunity to out-Yankee the Yankees with a monster rotation.

You're sliding down the mountain at record speed when you even try to compare the preparation for the NFL playoffs to a Major League Baseball season. You can't, under any circumstances, equate what Caldwell and the Colts did to what the Phillies and Amaro did this past winter.

The Colts were heading for the playoffs as a number one seed; top heavy in that they weren't a team that could rely on a system to carry them through if they lost Peyton Manning; and had a reason----albeit questionable----for what they did. The NFL playoffs are in no way similar to a baseball season. The playoff spot was locked up for the Colts; their seed was guaranteed; there was no way for them to move up or go down and chasing history----while it would've been nice to go undefeated----was a speck in the big picture.

The Phillies decision was nothing like that.

The Phillies choice to trade Lee for Halladay didn't lift them any more from where they already were. The combination of Lee and Halladay guaranteed a playoff spot barring anything catastrophic; the trade of Lee keeps the Philllies among the rest of the National League and leaves them in very real jeopardy of not making the playoffs.

You can't compare the two.

They're not even in the same category.

It makes no sense.

Then, Rhoden argues against himself with some odd comparisons to the Braves of the 90s.

For Amaro, the model franchise is the Atlanta Braves, who won 14 division titles from 1991 to 2005 (the other year was cut short by labor troubles). Critics are quick to point out that the Braves won just one World Series championship in that period.

What made Atlanta intimidating was the core of its rotation for many of those years: John Smoltz, Tom Glavine and Greg Maddux.

Um.

Okay.

Doesn't this argument sort of suggest that the Phillies should've kept Lee to form a threesome of Halladay, Lee and Cole Hamels? Where's the comparison? Are they suggesting that the addition of a Double A closer and two other minor leaguers is going to build the foundation for what the Braves were in the 90s?

Did Rhoden have an intelligent conclusion in his head before going into this story? Or did he decide that he'd talk to Amaro and cobble something together to get his column done and ignore content?

Then, the topper. A quote from none other than Jimmy Rollins:

“You’d go into that series feeling you’d be lucky to get one game,” Phillies shortstop Jimmy Rollins said. “It was like that for a lot of years with the Braves when I first came up. You’d be thinking: We got Smoltz, Glavine — oh good, Maddux threw yesterday, so we just have to get that third guy. We can win one out of three and salvage the series. That’s how you felt. Honestly.”

It sounds to me like Rollins wanted to keep Lee. And I can guarantee you----guarantee----that if you cornered the Phillies veterans and former GM Pat Gillick and, under the influence of truth serum, asked them whether they'd rather follow Amaro's blueprint of thinking long term or trying to win now with a rotation of devastation, they'd want the latter.

Do you really believe that the Phillies core----all in their 30s----care about the organization's future for 2012-2014? Seriously? They want to win now. NOW!!!! Keeping Lee would've made them prohibitive favorites for a third straight pennant; now they're a contender. Nothing more.

I'm not getting into the specious logic of what the Phillies did. I did so in the aftermath of the deal when there was no one----no one!!!----making similar statements. You can read the posting (my perfect masterpiece), The Phillies Sign Their Own Death Warrant if that's what you're looking for.

The bottom line is this, trading for a closer as the centerpiece of a deal that was ridiculous on and beneath the surface, and was not a way to build for the future. If you look at the great closers of past and present like Dennis Eckersley, Mariano Rivera and Jonathan Papelbon, not one was groomed as a closer. Not one. Teams happened to luck into finding a way to maximize these pitchers given their circumstances. It happened. It wasn't created nor was it intentional; so to sit there and claim that this Double A closer, Aumont, will justify severely damaging a title contender in the here and now, and the ground is already collapsing beneath your ill-informed feet.

I haven't taken Rhoden seriously since he made some nonsensical claims about Billy Wagner in a column from July of 2008----link.

Say what you want about Billy Wagner, but he never shied away from speaking and stood behind everything he said. He was incensed at the Rhoden allegation that he "opted to sit this one out". Wagner wanted an apology and retraction. He received neither.

Consider the source when reading Rhoden.

I can respect someone who comes up with a point-of-view based on deep-rooted belief with some semblance of logic behind it. Believe it or not, I do respect certain stat zombies for coming up with a strategy, even if they're wrong. But Rhoden is all over the place in his column as he tries to defend an indefensible decision and contradicts himself either through a lack of understanding, simple laziness or both.

He might just be a baseball imbecile.

That's a possibility too.

• Jose Reyes's thyroid:

Mets shortstop Jose Reyes's elevated thyroid condition will not require medication, is expected to revert to normal with diet and rest and he's going to be out from 2-8 weeks and might miss opening day.

I don't see this as a giant problem. Reyes has an issue with his health; it sounds as if the Mets are taking a cautious approach and doing their due diligence to make sure similar things as happened in 2009 don't recur in 2010. They'll survive a brief time without Reyes.

What I would do if I were the Mets is, instead of relying on Alex Cora as the everyday shortstop in Reyes's absence, is to insert Ruben Tejada to play. Yes, he's only 20, but sometimes a youthful exuberance and accident of circumstance leads to something special. Look at the 1985 Cardinals with Vince Coleman. It won't hurt to roll the dice in this case and give the young player a chance to play in the big time.

2010 Stories To Watch, Part VII

• I'm blossoming:

That's right. I'm blossoming into a cult hero along the lines of Ed Wood, except my stuff is good good, not so bad it's good. The sequels never end, but this show doesn't need Jason; Freddy Krueger; or Michael Myers----I'm all three combined along with a nice bit of Darth Vader and a pinch of Hannibal Lecter.

It's a blockbuster.

An intriguing closing option for the Twins:

Jon Heyman writes the following about a possible strategy for the Twins dealing with the loss of Joe Nathan:

The Twins have a strong bullpen, but since they have no one obvious closer-in-waiting (Jon Rauch, Pat Neshek, Matt Guerrier, Jose Mijares and Jesse Crain are among the possibilities), one option would be to sign a free agent starter and move Francisco Liriano into the closer's role. That scenario is said to be floating around Ft. Myers, though it could depend on whether the Twins have insurance on Nathan (it isn't known whether they do).

This is an interesting idea and something to seriously consider.

Francisco Liriano was devastating as a reliever before being inserted into the starting rotation in 2006 (where he was also just as good as a starter) before hurting his elbow and requiring Tommy John surgery. Functioning with an adjusted motion, his timing appeared off when he returned in 2008; he was good, but nowhere near what he was previously; and he was atrocious last season.

The scuttlebutt has been that Liriano's looked like his old self this spring; that he's primed for a big year as a starter; and will function as the top of the rotation powerhouse that the Twins lack. I'm not buying it. The only way to know that he's back to form is when he's truly back to form; and given the way the Twins closer situation is in flux (not catastrophic, but in flux), Liriano could be the answer.

It's not just that he's needed out there more than he is in the starting rotation, but it might be easier on his surgically repaired elbow to crank it up for 75 innings than it would be for 200. Closing would free Liriano to cut loose for one inning at a time and not worry about saving himself; and he's a strikeout machine. Plus, the Twins bullpen is deep enough where it would be extremely rare that he's needed for more than one inning.

I don't know if this was something that was considered as a last-ditch option (they do have pitchers to rack up the saves in Matt Guerrier and Jon Rauch), or just thrown out there to gauge the reaction, but I'd consider it very, very strongly. It might be a championship move.

THE JOBA RUINATION, 2010:

Yankee fans are going over-the-top with their frustration over Joba Chamberlain's horrific start yesterday. It was the second straight spring starting in which Chamberlain got attacked----NY Daily News Story.

Is it cause for concern?

Yes.

Is it worth the maniacal reaction within Yankeedom and what you can pretty much expect from Mike Francesa today? No.

Chamberlain is a mess right now. He's been a mess for the better part of two years since he burst onto the scene as the ultimate weapon out the bullpen in 2007.

And the Yankees are to blame.

In their efforts to shield the gifted righty from getting hurt and institute The Joba Rules to prevent similar abuse and injury that have befallen other phenoms, the Yankees have battered him in a far different way. The damage is due to organizational paranoia that if he gets hurt, they'll be the ones held responsible. Because of that, they don't let him pitch.

Encased as he is in the cage of innings limits/pitch counts/usage guidelines, he's afraid to throw the ball. Like a reticent overtrained animal, Chamberlain's head is on a swivel every time he walks out to the mound. You can almost read his thoughts as it's been drilled into his head----DON'T GET HURT!!!

He hasn't gotten hurt.

That part of the "plan" was accomplished. But he's been awful. Last season, aside from a few starts, he was bad as a starter; then later in the season he wasn't all that good as a reliever either.

The spring training starts are meaningless. Chamberlain was ill a couple of weeks ago and his timing, strength, command and mechanics are a work-in-progress; but the scrutiny, inflamed by the Yankees delicate approach to the pitcher, is causing a spiral. He doesn't know which end is up and he needs clarity.

It's enough.

He's a reliever.

Period.

The Yankees, bolstered by the idea of 200 innings being worth more than the 70-80 a reliever provides are trying to smash a square peg into a round hole. What happens when you do that? Not only are you running the risk of breaking the board, but you're going to smash the peg. Plus the Yankees don't need Chamberlain in the starting rotation. It's clear that Phil Hughes belongs in the starting rotation; Chamberlain the bullpen.

Yet they're still clinging to this ideal that Chamberlain's four pitch arsenal makes him a viable starter; but has it been considered that he mentally cannot do it? That he's been turned in so many circles by the club that he's a disaster?

It's hard to believe that they can't see it; can't see what they're doing to a 24-year-old who deserves better. The JOBA RUINATION continues without any sign of abating----to the detriment of the Yankees and the pitcher.

It's a shame.

A fireable offense in every venue but this one:

This is almost too ridiculous for words.

The Pirates, who inexplicably signed the journeyman infielder Ramon Vazquez to a 2-year, $4 million contract before the 2009 season, are now considering releasing him----MLB Trade Rumors Story----leaving them on the hook for $2 million.

The Pirates.

Who claim not to have any money.

Are throwing $2 million down the tubes.

When they signed Vazquez, it didn't make any sense; now they're going to compound this error by releasing him outright. I can only shake my head. The smart thing to do now is to keep Vazquez, give him some at bats early in the season and hope a club in need of a backup will take him and maybe give up a minor leaguer the Pirates might be able to use for something.

The Pirates are like the Dr. Nick Riviera of the baseball set----total quacks who haven't the faintest clue what they're doing.

"Hi, everybody!!"

"Hi, Dr. Nick!!!"

• Viewer Mail 3.11.2010:

Joe at Statistician Magician writes RE Joe Nathan and Bobby Jenks:

Joe Nathan is better than Bobby Jenks.

Not in the post-season and I'd rather have someone I can trust in the playoffs than a glossy stat compiler in the regular season. You should know that. Maybe come up with a stat "Post Season Performance vs Regular Season Stat Compiling" or something like that. I'm not in the mood to come up with acronyms. Get to work!!!!

Jane Heller at Confessions of a She-Fan writes RE my suggestion of Julio Lugo retiring as a Red Sox:

Julio Lugo retiring as a Red Sock. That cracked me up.

They're missing the boat here. They could sell countless jerseys from numerous players from the past: Matt Clement; Wily Mo Pena; Shea Hillenbrand; Cliff Floyd; Wayne Gomes; Rolando Arrojo; Brian Daubach; Lou Merloni; even Grady Little-----it's a celebration in the Rick James tradition!!!!

David writes RE the zombie attack:

I've been reading these links you post to the Think Factory Website. If I may, I'd like to draw another comparison to them being true zombies. These guys can't even stay on subject! How does three posts about criticizing you turn into "English Literature" and a thread about "Napolean Dynamite versus Superbad"? Anyway this reminds me of the video game Left For Dead. If you aren't there to shoot the zombies or you eventually just run away, they stand around like idiots barfing or hitting trashcans. Same level of attention seems to be held on these posts. Congrats guys.

I think it's great. The best part is that it happens every time when I'm linked and, from what I've seen, it goes the same way with everyone:

A) the posting is linked; B) it's read; C) they attack the author regardless of what it says; and D) they attack each other.

The more they talk, the worse they look as the zombies cement their own downfall. Their self-destruction and my laser precise blasts of lightning have me winning this fight. Victory shall be mine!!!!

2010 Stories To Watch, Part VI

• I may have to start doing these sequels in 3D:

I had some prime stuff ready to go yesterday when a surprise zombie attack had to be repelled. But, I'm still in charge; I took 'em out; and my power base is expanding.

It was a good day.

For me.

Not for the Minnesota Twins.

Joe Nathan may need Tommy John surgery:

I don't think Nathan has ever gotten the attention he's deserved for being the elite closer (in the regular season anyway) that he's been. Every year he's put up massive strikeout numbers per innings pitched; posted ERAs under 2; given up very few hits and homers; threw strikes; and racked up the saves.

That trade the Twins made in dumping A.J. Pierzynski turned out to be one of the best of the past decade as they received Nathan, Francisco Liriano and Boof Bonser from the Giants for the abrasive catcher. Pierzynski's personality didn't fit in with the Giants and he was dumped after one season.

Nathan was installed as the Twins closer and has been just a notch below the top tier stoppers Mariano Rivera and Jonathan Papelbon, about on a level with Francisco Rodriguez and Trevor Hoffman. Of course, he's failed miserably in the post-season; most recently in the 2009 ALDS proved when Alex Rodriguez took him deep in the bottom of the 9th to tie game 2. The Twins lost in the 11th inning, thereby costing them any small chance they had at being competitive in the series.

Nathan also gacked up game 2 of the 2004 ALDS against the Yankees, so it wasn't just one bad game or bad series. The difference between the truly big time closers like Rivera and Papelbon (and you can throw Bobby Jenks in there too because he's done it in the post-season) is their ability to get the big outs. You can find someone to rack up the saves, but when it gets to crunch time, you can't sit and worry whether the supposed "ace" in the bullpen is going to fall apart.

All that aside, Nathan's been great during the regular season and any manager will tell you the less that he has to worry about the better. The decision to bring in Nathan for the 9th inning was never in question and he almost always got the job done. Now, he's got a tear in his elbow that is likely to require Tommy John surgery and the Twins have to deal with this.

Before the news, they were the trendy pick in the AL Central because of their under-the-radar acquisitions Orlando Hudson and Jim Thome to join an already formidable lineup; serviceable starting rotation; and deep bullpen. Now they have to find a closer. Somewhere.

The have a few options. One, they could use Jon Rauch; Two, they could use Matt Guerrier; or three, they could make a trade for someone now or wait and see what happens at mid-season when names like Heath Bell will be available.

There's been talk that they should use underarming righty Pat Neshek to close.

This is plain stupid.

Neshek as a set-up man or 6th and 7th inning arm out of the bullpen----a cog in the machine----is fine; but as the closer, he'd get blasted; he's handled lefties well enough in his career, but there's something different about pitching the 9th and it wouldn't work. Plus, he didn't pitch last year!! Neshek was recovering from Tommy John surgery himself; so the idea is to bring him back and stick him into a 1000 degree oven replacing an All Star for a team with realistic championship aspirations is lunacy.

Please.

The easiest thing to do would be to use Rauch. He's done the job before and handled it. His fastball isn't what it was (possibly due to overwork with the Nationals when he pitched in 85 games in 2006; and 88 games in 2007), but he can close; plus he's mean.

Personally, I'd use Guerrier. He's durable (over 70 games in each of the last three seasons); he throws strikes; handles lefties and righties about equally; and has been reliable despite giving up too many homers.

As the season moves along, Bell will be available from the Padres; other possibilities will be Kerry Wood; Octavio Dotel; Chad Qualls; Francisco Cordero; and Matt Capps. The Twins aren't going to be devastated by this news if Nathan's unable to pitch; and truthfully, if they make the playoffs, Nathan wasn't exactly reliable in October to begin with. This hurts the club, but isn't half as devastating as it would be if they lost Joe Mauer or Justin Morneau. They'll be fine.

Jose Reyes's thyroid:

The Mets bashing is reaching new levels of absurdity. Mining for reasons to unload on the club, people are blowing this whole Jose Reyes thyroid issue out of proportion. The club has had numerous doctors check Reyes's test results and all seem to be in agreement that it's real; it's treatable; and isn't a big problem. Much is being made of Reyes saying that he doesn't have anything wrong with his thyroid----ESPN Story.

Okay.

What Reyes says matters, why?

The Mets get bashed when they seemingly fail to perform their due diligence with their players; now they're erring on the side of caution with one of their key players and are getting shredded for that as well.

It's a farce and a non-story. Reyes is going to be fine and ready to play. What's the issue aside from a weaselly hit squad looking to attack the Mets and/or writers with no skill or imagination to find something engaging to say.

• Nomar Garciaparra retires as a Red Sox:

So?

My question is whether Julio Lugo will also retire as a Red Sox.

Who cares?

I find it fascinating that a player who was run out of town by the club----in a brilliant, gutsy and necessary Theo Epstein move because of the player's poor attitude; physical breakdown; and performance that was falling off the planet----is receiving a career send-off befitting a key to the club's two World Series titles.

In a way he was a key component since the first championship was cemented when they dumped Garciaparra.

Red Sox fans can weep and wave banners to Nomar, but they'd better remember that it was his departure that was a massive part of what was built.

• The Prince vs the Zombies----the aftermath of the latest scrap:

I generally avoid reading the comments on Baseball Think Factory when something I've written is linked because, as I said yesterday, they generally devolve into a personal attack followed by the commenters attacking one another. In short, it's not worth getting into a twist.

The ones that come at me on my site(s) are dealt with. Swiftly, brutally and without remorse.

But I couldn't resist and looked at the comments following the linked posting and I found something in stark contrast to what usually occurs when they come after me----they were almost (albeit grudgingly) agreeing with me.

This happened the last time I was linked as well. (To the best of my recollection it was when I railed against another writer defending Paul DePodesta's tenure as GM of the Dodgers by claiming that he was "railroaded out of Los Angeles".)

I'm sensing a shift.

And I'm here to tell you I'm willing to accept any and all who are willing to join my cause of ignoring the pure stat based analysis for intelligence and well-roundedness in seeking a full understanding of the game.

This fear, evidenced by the anonymous commenters, is mystifying. Those that agree with me appear to be adding excuses or almost apologizing as if I'm some deranged lunatic (quiet you!!!) who's almost totally of of control without reason for anything he says and does. It is not betraying your cult to say what you believe and I'm getting the sense that some want to break free from the shackles of Moneyball.

There's no reason to fear.

All are welcome.

Those that think I have some vendetta against Billy Beane, Michael Lewis, Paul DePodesta need to understand that there's no agenda and it's nothing personal.

It's strictly business.

Join me. And I will complete your training.

• Viewer Mail 3.10.2010:

Anonymous writes RE Moneyball:

Very enjoyable article even though I strongly disagree with your basic premise. Beane prospered when he had the statistical advantage but now the A's have little chance. Teams with both money and stats are going to beat teams without both. Boston for example did very well recently but only after bringing in Bill James the absolute king of stat geeks. And the Yankee's ultimately purchased enough talent to win again. Oakland is still fun to watch because they still find outliers, but since they lack money and because everyone else is now using stats they just can't compete. That's the true lesson of Moneyball. If everyone can identify talent, only those with money enough to buy it will win.

I almost understand when someone comments anonymously if they're coming after me, but it's baffling when a clearly intelligent mind comments and doesn't leave a name----any name.

You can't credit Bill James for the Red Sox success. The Red Sox used stats, scouting, money and balls to build the foundation for their current club. That had nothing to do with Bill James; in fact, if you read some of James's stuff in recent years, he's appeared increasingly detached and contrary for the sake of looking quirky (his article on steroids was a prime example of this as it was peppered with silliness).

The wrench in the argument of the financial value of the heretofore unknown stats being appreciated and therefore no longer being in play for teams like the Athletics lies in the following three words: The Florida Marlins.

If there wasn't a team like the Marlins in MLB; if they didn't have the unprecedented success of putting a winning club on the field every year despite a bargain basement payroll, there'd be no defense for the argument of Beane/Lewis/Moneyball being made obsolete by the prevalence of stats.

The Marlins are the wrench in the stat zombie machine and they choose to denigrate them by picking them to lose 90 games every year; find ways to negate their success by faulty means; or simply ignore them.

The Marlins find players who other organizations didn't appreciate (Dan Uggla); acquire top tier talent for their own high-priced veterans (Hanley Ramirez; Cameron Maybin; Andrew Miller); scout masterfully (Chris Coghlan, Josh Johnson); find scrapheap pickups (Dan Meyer; Cody Ross); make astute signings/trades (John Baker; Wes Helms; Leo Nunez); and go for it when they're contending (they tried to get Roy Halladay and Heath Bell; and did get Nick Jonhson).

They use their eyes; their guts and stats to formulate the best run organization in baseball. There's no way for the stat zombies to counteract this, so they don't, but ignoring it doesn't make it go away.

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

I just wanted to report that Anonymous and Anonymous have been eaten... by each other.

Also, Jane Heller at Confessions of a She Fan writes RE the zombie attack:

You must be enjoying this!!!!

I love every minute of it!!!!

They don't have an answer for me and haven't the faintest clue what to do next; this provides endless entertainment----and has me winning this fight.

It must be a comfort to my troops that the Boss handles this stuff with such vicious and precision efficiency that I laid waste to the attack within such a brief time and did it singlehandedly.

John Seal (West Coast Spiritual Adviser) writes RE Moneyball and David Forst:

You set me up for a 'may the Forst be with you' joke, but didn't deliver the punchline!
Forst is the presumptive heir apparent, though it's true Billy wasn't best man at his wedding or anything.

John, I saw this comment and literally punched myself in the jaw for missing on the hanger that was "May the Forst be with you". I might've been a little more spent from the attack and subsequent skirmish than I realized. It will not happen again.

ZOMBIES!!!!!!!!

• The zombies are after me again!!!!!

Some kind soul linked yesterday's posting onto Baseball Think Factory----which always prompts a nice series of explosions. I'm not even going to read the comments there because it generally degenerates in the following way:

The posting is linked.

People read it.

The comments begin attacking me with very, very few having the nerve to comment to me directly on my site(s) and being backhanded so severely when they do that they crawl back into their primordial, stat-laden muck.

Then they start attacking each other.

Anyone----anyone----wants to have a go at me, they do it on one of my sites. Period. They'll get far more than they bargained for. Believe me.

We'll do the mail because some did in fact come at me. Sort of.

• Viewer Mail 3.9.2010:

Anonymous writes RE Moneyball:

As the legion of failures in the "stats only" school-of-thought rises, we're hearing the alterations:

"Moneyball wasn't about on base percentage and new age techniques; it was about undervalued assets."

What? That's not an "alteration". That's what the book was about, and it was clear in that regard.

OBP is no longer undervalued; teams use it as a matter of course now, and therefore it's no longer nearly as accessible to teams lacking funds.

Why you seem to think that OBP becoming a mainstream concept implies that Moneyball was a "lie" is genuinely beyond me; not only is OBP not what Moneyball was really about, but also to the degree that it was incidentally about OBP, it has obviously been proven as true.

Am I being trolled here or something? Seriously, this just comes off as inanity wrapped in a few hundred words.

Well "Anonymous", since you don't have the balls to identify yourself, I'll be as gentle as possible given your obvious delicacy.

Can you read? The mere fact that the legion of teamwide failures----the Athletics, Padres, Blue Jays and Dodgers----and the clubs that took to pure stat zombie tenets and abandoned them----the Red Sox and Cardinals----haven't convinced you that Michael Lewis's book is a farce, then you need only examine the way the "golden touch" of Billy Beane has turned out to be not-so-golden.

The book was designed----crafted and twisted----to portray Beane and his Ivy League educated brethren as "better" than the old-school method of trusting evaluation of talent in all ways; it was intended to create a new age in which those with either an expensive degree from a respected university were replacing those that took aspects other than pure numbers into account.

It never ends. The excuses come left and right as the goalposts are moved to maintain this invincibility and viability of the book. But it doesn't work. The simplistic argument of numbers above all does...not...work...with...human....beings.

Never once have I debated the value of players who get on base; but when club targets a player who has an on base percentage a shade higher than another player who might add something unquantifiable by a numerical formula, you see the end result with the way Paul DePodesta demolished the Dodgers within 20 months.

Moneyball was about Lewis sculpting his protagonist, Billy Beane into this perfect being----his shining light----who combined the talents of a first round draft pick from his playing days into a "genius" who understood and had the courage to implement the numbers to rule the world.

In many ways, Beane was perfect for the book's end. Well-spoken; handsome; someone who'd actually played the game and had the guts to try something different to take advantage of that which was unappreciated; and he implemented the use of numbers and won under a limited payroll.

But the idea was to promote the use of stats into an unassailable monolith. It was wrapped in a glossy, well-written and skillfully steered package to convince those that didn't know enough about the game to trust their own beliefs and were willing to be a inducted into the cult.

The point of my posting was the elucidate the way the "Beane as genius" and Lewis's narrative were absurd.

No. You're not being trolled here, but since you don't want to leave your name, I have to wonder exactly who you are. If you're so gutsy and intuitive why are you reluctant to identify yourself?

I have to give you credit for one thing, you were able to confine your inanity to a more concise number of words with double or even triple the amount of said inanity----that my friend, is finding value.

Anonymous writes RE Moneyball:

Dude: "Moneyball" has won. Get over it.

I can't argue with such an in-depth statement from a faceless, nameless person aside from saying the following: Won what?

Greg Andrew writes RE Moneyball:

You never actually read Moneyball, did you?

And while Beane's certainly made some mistakes, my guess is that he he'll be the Oakland GM as long as he wants to be. Given the fact that his family is older and more able to move, and the reality that the Oakland franchise has the worst long-term stadium situation of any team in the majors (with the possible exception of TB), Beane may finally choose to move on. I'm sure he'll have no shortage of offers from other clubs, though he'll also have opportunities outside of baseball if he wants to pursue them.

I'm still kind of astonished at how much success Moneyball has had in spreading its message. After decades of inch-by-inch progress, Moneyball moved mountains.

No. I didn't read it. You've figured it all out. My railing against the book and the movie...*

*Oh, speaking of which, they're going to start filming (Yah. Right!!!) this summer. How's that going to look as they film and the Athletics are ten games under .500 and in last place? It'll be somewhat similar to making an O.J. Simpson biopic and ending it in 1993.

...has nothing to do with disagreeing with book's premise or maybe understanding that building a winning club can't be based on stats, stats and more stats. Why look at what the Marlins and Twins do under similar payroll constraints and put the way the Moneyball teams have failed into context when it's easier to simply say such things as "you didn't read it", or "Moneyball has won"?

There are people who didn't read the book; didn't understand it; and saw their livelihood threatened by the use of numbers above old-school techniques. They're just as bad as those who would prefer to never see a game played or look at a player's movement or come to a subjective estimation of his abilities past his on paper numbers.

I am not one of those people.

The A's stadium issue was worse than that of the Marlins?

Really?

The Marlins who find ways to win every year----despite repeated denigration and caveats provided by those that have neither the desire nor the understanding to be able to replicate what they do----while functioning with half the payroll and a fraction of the appreciation that Lewis's love letter provided for Beane?

It's become a case of diminishing returns for Beane in Oakland and I think the remaining Athletics fans have had enough of simply saying, "well, Billy knows what he's doing" as they watch him trade his stars, fire his managers, still be accorded the respect befitting a genius----yet fail year-after-year.

If the playoffs are a crapshoot (oh, look a book reference; I must've read that page and that page alone) then why were Art Howe and Ken Macha to blame for the losses? Why, if Beane was so confident and assisted in moving mountains, did he need to tell his players to say negative things about Macha and utter the floating and non-specific reason for a dismissal, "it was a lack of communication"?

When does he get blamed? Moving mountains is great....until it lands on the person who was moving it and it crushes him.

That's what Moneyball did to Billy Beane. Like most demagogues, his results have never matched up to the hype and he's being rightfully questioned. He may want to move on because the Athletics and their fans have had enough.

Timothy Brown writes RE Moneyball:

Paul, don't have an issue with your thoughts on Beane and Moneyball, but he's an A's co-owner and the only reason I can see him going away is if he sells. If that happens, it will most likely be because of the A's inability to relocate to the South Bay.

And John Seal (West Coast Spiritual Adviser) writes RE Moneyball:

Prince, I think Billy has two more years to make it happen. The expectations for this season are pretty darn low out here in O-Town, but all eyes are on 2011. Even if it doesn't happen then I don't see him changing careers and becoming a soccer GM--remember, he's a part owner of the team. He's not going to go gently into that good night.

Besides, who would replace him? Jeremy Brown?

At last. Reasonable people.

My belief in the possibility of him leaving has to do with the aforementioned diminishing returns and that he's been there so long that he and the club might be better off moving on from one another. I don't know what else he can do there. He became famous; he made the club better than it was even if the book and the techniques therein weren't the reason for it; he has nothing more to prove there.

The reason he backed out on the Red Sox in 2002 was said to be because of family considerations; and I believe that----in part. But I also think that he would've been under more scrutiny and the passion of Red Sox Nation would've expected him to turn that team into a juggernaut the second he arrived; and if you look in the book (oh, another page I read; what luck!!!) he intended to:

Sign the shot Edgardo Alfonzo.

Make Manny Ramirez a permanent DH, precluding the signing of David Ortiz (who very likely would've been a Yankee because George Steinbrenner had told GM Brian Cashman to sign him).

Sign someone named Mark Johnson to take over at catcher; and trade Jason Varitek.

And Kevin Youkilis was heading to the Athletics as compensation for Beane being let out of his contract.

Oh, and DePodesta was taking over as A's GM.

That would've been two franchises trashed in one shot. Talk about moving mountains!!!

Beane was given less than 5% of the club----SFGate article; I checked the value of the Athletics franchise from a year ago (according to Forbes) and it was around $320 million. So, with Beane not having tossed any money into the ring to get the ownership stake, they'd be able to extricate themselves from one another in an amicable divorce complete with a Golden Parachute and presumably an agreement that he won't join a club from the division (though none want or need him anyway) for the duration of his contract.

If things really collapse this year, I think they'll split.

That wouldn't stop him from going to the Mets, which I'd bet is the job he'd want. (As a Mets fan, I say no thanks, but that's neither here nor there.) If I had to guess, I'd say he takes a year off and waits to see which jobs will open. Someone would hire him. He's still a competent GM; just not a "genius".

Presumably, David Forst would take over. You'd better hope it's Forst, John; and not DePodesta. Now that would be a nightmare.

Moneyball Special----A 2010 Stories To Watch Addendum

• The final act of Moneyball is upon us:

With all the maudlin whimpering emanating from the stat zombie community of Sandra Bullock's failure to acknowledge Michael Lewis for being the author of the book that the film for which she won Best Acrtress was based----The Blind Side----I'm stunned they haven't come up with a stat to function as "objective analysis" for an actor's performance.

Ostensibly to remove the ambiguity from the voting just as they've "removed" similar variances from the analysis of baseball players (yes, I'm being sarcastic), I could see a way to quantify the way an actor captures his or her character. Something to the tune of "Convincabiliy in Art to Reality Standard" or CARS; maybe "Oscar Rating Based In Transience" or ORBIT.

There has to be a way to remove any and all humanity from another enjoyable and elusive diversion like film and acting.

Speaking of performance art, what could be the final act in the running saga of the "genius" of Billy Beane is upon us.

Either he's going to recover from the last several years of fruitless trades; riding the wave of a bestselling and woefully inaccurate portrayal based on a baseball incompetent's agenda-driven bit of creative non-fiction, or things are going to come apart like a collapsing dictatorship.

I'm betting on the latter.

What stuns me about the way Moneyball has been treated as a still viable way to run a franchise is the way the remaining holdouts continue to move the goalposts via dissection and dismissal of parts that don't fit into the neatness of the story.

As the legion of failures in the "stats only" school-of-thought rises, we're hearing the alterations:

"Moneyball wasn't about on base percentage and new age techniques; it was about undervalued assets."

"The book wasn't meant to be taken literally."

"Beane's true genius is in his personality and willingness to base his decisions on reason, not success or failure on the field."

It sure seemed to me that the book was meant to be taken literally. But maybe my reading comprehension skills are failing me. Then again, as obtuse and resistant as I can be, I can still remember my freshman year of college when I went to see an academic adviser as she pointed from one divergent set of numbers to the other while looking at my permanent record and the first words out of her mouth----in undisguised bewilderment----were:

"Just one question: How does someone with this reading level have these grades?"

I stared at her blankly. I still don't have an answer.

Moneyball...was...meant...to...be...taken...literally.

Had the Athletics won a championship; had Beane's record of unobstructed "success" maintained itself, there wouldn't be this twisting and turning to keep the empire intact. They'd be strutting around and pompously singing the praises of the theory that plainly and simply hasn't worked. If anything is evidence of this, it's the failure of Billy Beane, the Athletics and the desperate bomb he's throwing this season with a newfound emphasis on defense and pitching that is going to fail miserably.

Understand that this isn't coming from someone who unloaded on the book at the start with a similar self-preservation in mind.

I bought into it too!!!

For years, I thought the same thing as the many new age unenlightened of the stat zombie set still think----the man must know what he's doing. There has to be some secret formula to what he's doing. He's the Michael Corleone of the baseball world. He's a "genius".

But watching as things fail over-and-over; as the subjective analysis of on-field nightmare rears it's head and demolishes every numerical projection in its path, an awakening occurred. Maybe he didn't have a plan. Maybe he isn't a genius.

Maybe Billy Beane, having lived for so long on the force of his personality; his overconfidence; and the fallacy of that book and making a great living at it without consequences----bulletproof as it were----is at fault for a staggering and stumbling team replete with inexplicable moves. Perhaps the allocation of blame on everyone but himself was a context-switch. Until now, the club has collapsed around him with no consequences to the architect of the disasters.

As for the conceited and smug hand wave of those that dare to think differently in the face of numbers, facts and figures; the oft-repeated: "oh you just don't get it", it's the same thing as saying that those who were against the Iraq war aren't supporting the troops.

It's a simplistic and ridiculous catchphrase to scare those that are thinking in a similar way from speaking out; and individuals with an investment in the belief of such nonsense are clever enough to capitalize on that fear and maintain control with people so dumb that they really think it's accurate.

Michael Lewis covers for his lack of baseball knowledge and that the book was a farce with condescension and power in the publishing industry; with skill at subtly steering the story toward what he wanted to portray; what would make it look as glossy and sacrosanct as possible.

But the foundation is crumbling beneath Moneyball.

Reporters are still afraid to look at the Athletics of 2010----seven years after the book was published----for what they are.

They're in a bastard of a division. They're relying on a bunch of players who can field and not hit; hit and not field; a load of young (and talented) pitching; an oft-injured ace who's being anointed as a guru; and a figurehead of a manager who's going to be sent flying off the hot air balloon of Beane's ego as ballast in a last-ditch effort for the "genius" to survive.

It's coming down.

There's no "wait and see". No "give it a chance". The chances are up. Beane's out of options; out of money; out of capital. Lewis's book----his caveats and the relentless defenders and final holdouts still defending Beane----are finished. Still crediting the book as truth; still saying Paul DePodesta, Sandy Alderson actually knew what they were doing as they took Moneyball and stat-based theories to its logical and ravaged conclusion; and attacking those that disagree with them isn't working anymore.

Could Beane again hit the lottery with the Athletics of 2010? If Ben Sheets is healthy; if the young pitching matures; if the defense-oriented strategy works; if the Angels stumble; if the Mariners don't hit or pitch; if the Rangers take a step back on their innocent climb, yes, it's possible that Beane will once again avoid paying for his complicity in the tale.

But he won't.

It's crashing down.

It's coming apart.

The story to watch isn't whether or not it's going to happen; the story is how quickly it spirals; and how Beane's exit from Oakland will be orchestrated for him to save face. A face that is no longer salvageable to those that understand the truth. The truth that the book was a hackneyed lie whose fate is at hand. It won't be a pretty sight. Nor should it be.

I can watch without flinching.

Can you?

Can they?

• Has Scott Boras tried this?

There was an article in yesterday's NY Times about Scientology and a couple's winding and booby-trap laden road in leaving the church----link.

I'm not venturing any opinion about this stuff one way or the other. I doubt they'd want anything to do with me anyway. A brief story about my one brush with Scientologists was when I was in the seaside town of Brighton, England a few years ago. I was wandering around the town center and a young woman holding a clipboard stopped me and asked if she could ask me a few questions.

Why not?

After the perfunctory bit, she asked me if I was unhappy or if there was anything about myself I'd like to change. I thought about it for a minute and said, "Well, I kinda think I'm pretty much perfect the way I am."

She stared at me.

When she didn't say anything I walked away. I don't think they'd know what to do with me.

Anyway, the snippet in the article that caught my eye was the following:

They signed a contract for a billion years — in keeping with the church’s belief that Scientologists are immortal.

While it sounds insane, think about it. What could Scott Boras do with something like this?

You think a 10-year-contract is enough to get Alex Rodriguez? 8-years for Mark Teixeira? 7-years for Matt Holliday? Whatever he demanded for Johnny Damon? How about this: "My client is a Scientologist and he wants a billion-year contract."

Man, I'd love to write that. Just once: BLANK signed a billion-year contract.

He'd have a book of accomplishments; a list of reasons why it was in a club's best interest to agree to such terms as they'll be paying him for his services slightly longer than his shelf-life would dictate.

Is it really that far-fetched? Famously, the late football star Reggie White said that God told him to sign with the Green Bay Packers. Why wouldn't someone like Boras take it further and use it to his advantage for his clients? And believe me when I tell you, they'd convert to Scientology for a billion year contract. In a second.

• Viewer Mail 3.8.2010:

Jane Heller at Confessions of a She Fan writes RE the Blue Jays:

When you said the Jays needed a new manager, I was sure you were about to suggest Bobby Valentine. But then I read the word "young." Guess that rules him out.

Now that you mention it, Valentine would be a good fit for the Blue Jays but the Rays can be scotch-taped together much faster for a playoff run with the right manager who's going to get things in line over there. I was stunned that Valentine was even interested in the rebuilding projects in Washington and Cleveland, but he desperately wants to manage, so it looks like he'll consider anything.

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

The first time I ever heard Waldman do a broadcast I made an emergency visit to my ears, nose & throat doc cuz I thought my ears were bleeding from every angle.

Therefore, all that comes out of her mouth is like poison to me. I disregard it.

"It didn't affect me none at all in any somesuch way of any infigh adsndna cbass,v mff,... 1##WAFSFASSFAS22@@ 4q3rn..... "

I have about 5 ex-girlfriends who say the same thing about me.

This is an invitation to the greatest link ever of Suzyn Waldman. I am of course referring to the Roger Clemens bloviation from 2007. It...does....not....get....any....better....than....THIS:

Regarding the women stuff, I can only say: "Can't live with 'em----they all wanna kill me".

And what makes it worse is that it's not because of anything I do intentionally. It just is.

Sunday Lightning 3.7.2010

• The fantasmical world of Francesa/Waldman:

I only heard snippets of Suzyn Waldman's appearance on Mike Francesa's radio show the other day (it was more than enough; more than I could stand) but there were a few themes they touched upon, sharing their usual brand of non-existent baseball expertise that is consistent only in that they're always wrong.

Here's the brilliance (paraphrased from memory):

The idol worship of Roy Halladay:

They would not shut up about Halladay. His work ethic; his influence; his old-school ways; how the Phillies younger pitchers like Kyle Kendrick are following him around like baby ducks----all are important; all will help----but to think that you can take a Kyle Kendrick and turn him into a Roy Halladay by mimicking everything Halladay does is ignoring the limits of a person's physical ability.

You can't turn sausage filler into Chateaubriand.

That's not to imply that sausage filler doesn't have use, but it is what it is and won't ever be anything more than that regardless of the recipe or genius of the master chef doing the teaching. The veteran counterman at your local deli is never going to be Gordon Ramsay.

I have the greatest respect for Halladay. The way he carries himself as the quiet gunslinger is something that pitchers should aspire to, but the Francesa/Waldman yammering was so far over the top; the credit and defense of the Phillies stupid decision to trade Cliff Lee to get Halladay (that Francesa and Sweeny Murti babbled about as well) was missing a couple of important factors.

One, in all his years with the Blue Jays, doesn't it make sense that Halladay was functioning in a similar way with his teammates? That he was teaching and preaching and trying to get them to follow his lead?

How'd that work out? Aside from one season, was A.J. Burnett ever able to partially copy Halladay's classic durability and greatness? What about the youngsters like Shaun Marcum, Dustin McGowan and Jesse Litsch? All three got hurt. Then you look at the list of pitchers the Blue Jays plugged into their rotation behind Halladay; names like Mark Hendrickson; Kelvim Escobar; Doug Davis; Cory Lidle; Josh Towers; Ted Lilly; Miguel Batista----and you say, maybe he influenced them, but they weren't able to exceed what it was that they could be, what they could do.

If you look at the Blue Jays during the Halladay years, they were never, ever anything more than an also-ran. Not once did they realistically contend for a playoff spot. Part of that is due to being in a division with the Yankees and Red Sox; but part of it is due to the club not having the talent to be legitimate playoff team. Sure, some of their records were glossier on the surface than what they really were. An 87-75 record and second place finish and being within striking distance of a Wild Card spot doesn't signify realistic contention.

If anything defined the Blue Jays during the Halladay era, it was that. Aside from the years in which they were the essence of mediocrity at 78-82 wins, they never contended. They'd stumble along at or around .500 for much of the season, get hot late in the year and end with a respectable record making the "experts" think they were a team to watch----and they'd do the same thing again the next year. Halladay or not, they were what they were.

In a similar vein, greatness is what it is. You can't teach it; you can't mold it; you can't create it in a laboratory. The maximization of skills with a tweak here and there or even a complete remastering can reform something that was being misused and fashion that entity to its full potential; but if that potential isn't much better than a back-of-the-rotation starter/long-reliever/Triple A filler, then what?

To believe that Halladay influencing the likes of Kendrick will make the useful but limited pitcher into Roy Halladay is nonsense.

Roy Halladay is Roy Halladay.

Kyle Kendrick is Kyle Kendrick.

There's a reason for this.

It's called ability. You can't teach it. Either you have it or you don't.

"The Blue Jays are gonna lose 100 games":

The Blue Jays are not going to lose 100 games.

They're rebuilding; they're starting anew without Halladay and without J.P. Ricciardi; they're going to trade the last veteran, movable remnants of the Ricciardi era (Lyle Overbay); but they're not going to lose 100 games.

They have such a cache of young starting pitching and an offense that is limited, but okay; and their bullpen isn't so bad that they're going to be Padres/Pirates horrific.

The Blue Jays do need to bring in a younger manager; they need to give their young bats like Travis Snider a chance to play. If Edwin Encarnacion doesn't continue to be a dunderhead and hits; if Adam Lind and Aaron Hill come close to their 2009 production, the Blue Jays will score enough to prevent falling to 100-loss depths. They might not even lose 90 games.

"The AL East has three 90-win teams":

Where?

The geniuses (and not just Waldman and Francesa) said the same thing last year. What happened? Ah, muck beasts, will you never learn?

The idea that the Yankees, Red Sox and Rays are all going to win 90 games is simple ignorance, a lack of foresight and intuitiveness combined with talking out of their asses because they haven't looked at the circumstances surrounding the Red Sox and Rays.

The Red Sox do not have enough hitting to compete with the Yankees. Period. I'm not sold on John Lackey as the solution to their rotation issues; Daisuke Matsuzaka is degenerating into a nightmare; and Tim Wakefield can't be counted on physically. Not only are they going to have to worry about finding a bat, but they might need a starting pitcher too.

The AL West is a torture chamber; the Central has two teams battling it out for the division in the Twins and White Sox and both are better than the Red Sox. If the Red Sox were balking at Padres GM Jed Hoyer's demands for Adrian Gonzlaez in the winter, they'd better be ready for what he's going to want in July because it's going to be worse. Much worse.

The Rays, despite the way their front office is being referred to as "brilliant" are in slight disarray. They too need a managerial change; and they're going to trade Carl Crawford. Where are they winning 90 games? If they have another bolt from the blue in which everything they do works as happened in 2008, then okay; but right now? There are more questions than answers in Tampa; and in a vicious division and brutal league, that doesn't add up to 90 wins. Sorry.

Suzyn Waldman is a fool. Plain and simple. She knows nothing about baseball and embarrasses herself on a daily basis with her arrogant clownishness.

Mike Francesa portrays himself as an insider expert who just "knows" things that others don't. Well, he doesn't. During the Olympics, he openly admitted that he knows nothing about hockey. If we can somehow, some way get him to come to the same realization about baseball, we'll be getting somewhere.

It's not happening. All we can do is remember the stupid statements recounted above and point them out as things come apart on their predictions. They'll find a way to justify them, but you'll know the truth then if you didn't know it already.

• Suddenly the Mets farm system doesn't look all that bad:

With Ike Davis doing a more powerful imitation of John Olerud (their swings are remarkably similar from the quiet way in which Davis waits for the pitch to his follow through and top hand coming off the bat); with Jenrry Mejia looking devastating; with Ruben Tejada hitting, running and fielding all over the place; and Fernando Martinez stinging the ball after superlative winter league season, could it be that the "decimated and destitute" Mets system isn't so bad after all?

There are a couple of other names to note like Reese Havens and Josh Thole.

All of this is lending credence to the thought that the Mets did have the chips to get Halladay if they wanted to follow the Phillies lead and gut the system to do it.

It was highly unlikely because Halladay had his heart set on Philly and the Mets weren't going to pay another pitcher the money it would've cost to get him especially with Cliff Lee going free agent after 2010. (GM Omar Minaya is in love with Cliff Lee; he tried to get him over-and-over again before the Mets had become the media punching bag that they've been for the past couple of years.)

All this does is shine a light on how stupid the Phillies really were in banking on a Double A closer, Philippe Aumont, as the centerpiece of maintaining a "healthy" minor league system. Their farm system is demolished and they made a lateral move with Halladay for Lee.

After the trade with the Indians for Lee----in which they gave up a lot, don't listen to garbage from the likes of Keith Law----and the trade of Lee to get Halladay and Aumont, the Phillies are going to be in trouble by 2011. Big trouble.

Don't tell me how smart they've been because they did a dual pronged bit of stupid in the Halladay/Lee mess. In addition to the other ridiculous things they did in contract extensions and signings, they've sown the seeds to their own downfall.

We'll see which front office was truly "inept" a year from now.

Or sooner.

• Revisting the Elliot Johnson-Francisco Cervelli collision from 2008:

After Francisco Cervelli got hit in the helmet by a fastball from Blue Jays righty Zech Zinicola (he's got a concussion, but will be okay), the discussion on Twitter turned into how rotten Cervelli's spring training luck is.*

*I got popped in the head a few times when I was playing. Twice without a helmet. It didn't affect me none at all in any somesuch way of any infigh adsndna cbass,v mff,...1##WAFSFASSFAS22@@ 4q3rn.....

Two years ago, he had his wrist broken in a home plate collision with Rays rookie Elliot Johnson. The consensus, led by Yankees manager Joe Girardi, has been that it was a cheap shot on the part of Johnson, unnecessary in spring training.

I said then and now that it was a clean hit.

It was clean.

It was a hard baseball play. But it was clean.

Was it necessary in spring training? Was it a legal cheap shot? Was it something for the Yankees manager to cause such a stir over? And was the Yankees over the top reaction as direct result of their manager's complaining?

As for the propriety, put it this way, had it been Jorge Posada catching and Carl Crawford coming around the bases, there would've been no collision because Posada would've moved and Crawford would've either slowed or run around Posada. Neither had anything to prove and weren't trying to make an impression on anyone. For Cervelli, he had to show that he wasn't afraid of the occasionally necessary contact that happens to a catcher; Johnson was trying to make the Rays roster.

They were playing a game. It was a bang-bang play that wasn't out of order; and there are veteran players that would've done the same thing as Johnson and been heralded for their intensity. If it were Pete Rose, no one would say a word. They'd credit him for his all out, all the time play.

Girardi's explosion appeared to be the overreaction of a young manager trying to feel his way through his new job and show his dubious veteran players that he was going to defend them and stand up for them rightly or wrongly. He didn't know what to do, so he freaked out; as hard nosed a player as Girardi was, I can't believe that he truly thought it was a cheap shot. Had Cervelli not gotten hurt and required surgery, no one would've said anything.

In fact, Girardi made things worse because the desire for "retaliation" caused a bench clearing brawl between the Rays and Yankees when Shelley Duncan did exercise a cheap shot on Rays second baseman Akinori Iwamura with a filthy, spikes-high slide on a double play designed to start a fight. And a fight started. All of that was due to Girardi's overreaction and another marginal big leaguer like Duncan trying to prove something to his manager and teammates.

They're lucky no one got hurt in the fight; and in retrospect it was even more idiotic because it galvanized the Rays and sent the message to the rest of the league that the young Rays weren't going to put up with the Yankees and Red Sox bullying anymore. They won the pennant that year in large part because of the team-wide bonding that can come from a fight.

The Johnson play was hard; it was rough; and Cervelli got hut. But it was clean. Period.