2010 Stories To Watch, Part IX

• I'm churning 'em out:

Combine the prolific frequency of Stephen King with the pomposity, pretentiousness and pablum of Jonathan Franzen and you get the PAULLEBOWITZ.COM 2010 Stories To Watch!

Until the season starts, this...will...not...end.

Cliff (Stone Cold Killer) Lee's injuries:

Despite morphing into a ruthless and brutally efficient assassin in the past year, Cliff (Stone Cold Killer) Lee is not indestructible.

In the latest injury for Lee (diagnosed immediately following his 5-game suspension for throwing at the Diamondbacks' Chris Snyder), the Mariners ace 1A will miss at least a week with an abdominal strain. On the injury note, this is after Lee underwent surgery right before spring training for a bone spur on his left foot.

The abdominal injury is a bigger concern for Lee than is being suggested by the Mariners; he's had similar problems in prior years with the Indians. In 2003 and 2004, Lee missed substantial time with abdominal injuries, so it's not something to dismiss as "minor" and it could be a big problem for a somewhat short-handed team that's relying on their two aces (Lee and Felix Hernandez) at the top of the rotation to keep them in contention in a very rough division.

Almost identically to the Diamondbacks of 2009, if the Mariners lose either Lee or Hernandez, they're not going to contend because the rest of the team is a series of questions.*

*Speaking of which, Milton Bradley got ejected for the second time in three days for arguing a called third strike immediately after I wrote that the ticking time bomb that is Milton Bradley was one of the keys to the Mariners season.

Some are floating the idea that Jarrod Washburn might be a worthwhile signing for the Mariners as insurance.

Yah. Right. He's a step above....Jason Vargas!!!!

Teams built in such a way must have health from their stars; and if they don't have it, things can spiral very, very quickly.

The Cardinals are in the same situation as the Mariners----almost:

The Cardinals are another club that's top-heavy with stars and reliant on cogs to fill out the roster. Through no fault of their own, they were dealing with the silliness that is the Buster Olney report that the Phillies wanted to trade Ryan Howard for Albert Pujols. Then yesterday, Chris Carpenter got shelled by the Marlins for six runs and seven hits in the first inning.

Spring training results aren't the issue for a pitcher of Carpenter's caliber----they're meaningless; but with Carpenter's extensive injury rap sheet, there's always a sideways gaze cast on him with every move; and it's not as if there's one body part that keeps breaking down. His entire body is always at risk of a pull, strain, tear or tweak. Even in the weak NL Central and the genius of Tony La Russa and Dave Duncan, the Cardinals will be left scrambling if they lose Carpenter for any amount of time.

As stunning as it was that Carpenter was able to return to form and pitch masterfully last season after another injury (to his oblique) sent him to the disabled list early on, it was indicative of Carpenter that he was: A) almost unhittable; and B) hurt.

These issues have been the hallmark of Carpenter's career. With the Blue Jays, he was overused by then manager Carlos Tosca, got injured and was released. (Nice move from J.P. Ricciardi.) He rehabbed with the Cardinals, cleaned up his motion with Duncan and won a Cy Young Award while finishing 2nd and 3rd in the voting in two other seasons. He also missed almost the entire 2007 and 2008 seasons with injuries.

The Cardinals need Carpenter and they need him healthy. The outing wasn't a concern; the potential for another catastrophic injury is.

The Mets youngsters:

I said it before and I'll say it again: suddenly the Mets farm system isn't looking so bad.

The brilliant play of Fernando Martinez; Ruben Tejada; Ike Davis; and Jenrry Mejia has opened eyes around baseball. Undoubtedly the predators who think the Mets are saddled with the in-bred stupidity of a creature from Texas Chainsaw Massacre are waiting to pounce and try to trade for the whole system for a veteran player in a futile attempt to win now.

I'm not prepared to say the Mets won't do something stupid, but they've been resistant so far. These are the Mets we're talking about, paragons of self-sabotage that they are, there's always a chance of doing something disastrous.

I believe they've learned their lesson, but we'll see.

There are two situations that bear close watching----20-year-olds (born within three weeks of each other in 1989) right-handed pitcher Jenrry Mejia; and shortstop Ruben Tejada.

People (including manager Jerry Manuel) are proposing that Mejia be kept in the big leagues as reliever; and they're also saying (again, manager Manuel) that Tejada is going to be in the minors so he can play every day.

Having looked at both and the Mets current circumstances, they've got it backwards.

I don't care how good Mejia looks. If I were running things, Mejia is in the minors as a starting pitcher going every fifth day with an eye on him joining the club late in the season as a weapon out of the bullpen for the stretch run a la Francisco Rodriguez with the Angels in 2002 and Joba Chamberlain with the Yankees in 2007. Mejia needs to pitch without pressure; he needs to hone his command. He's not quite ready regardless of how great he's looked in the spring.

As for Tejada, the Mets have a dilemma that's not really a dilemma if they really think about it. They have no idea when Jose Reyes is going to be able to play. By now, it's almost assured that he's going to miss opening day and the club is adamant (with some wiggle room) that if Reyes is out, veteran Alex Cora will play shortstop in his stead.

I'd roll the dice on Tejada., let him play to start the season and hope he's able to handle the pitching. He's far superior defensively to Cora; has handled himself with maturity in the spring; and his youthful energy will be infectious to the club and fans. Sometimes these injuries are fortuitous. If Tejada plays well until Reyes's return, there's always the option of shifting him to second base in front of Luis Castillo.

Giving Tejada a chance for a couple of weeks in April and sending him down if he's truly overmatched won't hurt him; but I don't think he would be and, as admirable as Cora is as a player, how much worse can Tejada be as a hitter even if he struggles?

The move could be a sparkplug for the Mets that they never anticipated. It happens sometimes and it's worth the shot to see what they have.

• Viewer Mail 3.20.2010:

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

I think the Washington case is interesting. Most of the substance abuse headlines have involved players, so this is sort of new territory. Backman was fired immediately, but domestic abuse isn't a victim-less crime. I honestly don't know what to think, although I'm inclined to agree that they should send him packing.

I don't know what the holdup is unless there's more to this story that the Rangers want to keep hidden; but if that's the case, I'd think they'd rather get it out there, let the bomb go off and conduct one big cleanup rather than have a series of moderate explosions of varying frequency and devastation pop up intermittently for the club to spin their way out as they happen. If there's an incurable infection, you cut it out. This won't end until Washington's gone.

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

Alas, the A's immediately released Jay Marshall. Perhaps he'll resign with them...or settle for a minor league deal with the Mets once his shoulder recovers.

I have it on good authority he suffered the injury whilst arm-wrestling with Brad Ziegler.

I'd think someone would sign a side-arming lefty no matter how bad he's been in his big league chances. Tony Fossas and Mike Myers lasted forever due to the good fortune of being born left-handed.

Arm wrestling?

Is that allowed under the Billy Beane dictatorship under terms of permissible inmate activity?

And where was Bob Geren during all this? Refereeing?

Then again, who is one such as I to question the judgement of a GENIUS!!!!

It's Not The Crime, It's The Coverup

• Ron Washington must be fired, day 2:

How many times has it been said, in sports as well as politics, that it's not the crime itself that cements the downfall of the participants, but the subsequent cover-up?

We see it again and again, in an attempt to avoid the fallout in the immediate aftermath of the incident, lies are told; payouts are made; greater embarrassments are fostered and the end result is exponentially worse that if it had been nipped in the bud and handled immediately.

No matter how painful it is, it's far better to cut the cord sooner rather than later.

In case you expected the Ron Washington mess to stand on its own after the initial blast, comes the story----denied by the Rangers----that the failed drug test led to the club being blackmailed----Yahoo.com Story.

Who knows whether or not the blackmail allegation is accurate?

Are the Rangers still indulging in spin to try and keep this at bay and hope it recedes into the background?

Have their own short-sighted activities dragged the Rangers front office into the morass built by Washington's stupidity?

Does it matter?

Unless they cut the ties and sacrifice the manager for the good of the organization this...is...not...going...away.

It's unconscionable, irresponsible and outright stupid if the club let the fact that they were in contention and didn't want to upset the applecart by firing Washington cloud their judgment and allow themselves to be neck deep in what should've been a cut-and-dried case of an employee doing something to cost himself a job.

It all could've been avoided had they accepted Washington's offer of resignation when news of the failed drug test came to the Rangers; they could've fired him and given a reason to protect him if they so chose. There are a million of them and many would be valid.

"His strategic mistakes were too egregious to ignore."

"Despite out record, we felt a change needed to be made to contend for a playoff spot now."

"We wanted to make a change and now was the time."

Or, there's the old indistinct and convenient excuse: "It was a lack of communication."

They could've fired Washington then or let him resign.

Instead, they took this path hoping it would go away (and that's regardless of the accuracy of the blackmail story----one way or the other, the failed drug test was going to be revealed eventually). Now, they're paying the price as a young, up-and-coming team bursting with talent, built the right way is under siege because of the naked betrayal of principles upon which the club president Nolan Ryan has based him life and career.

A conservative, hard-liner and vicious competitor, Ryan probably knew back then that Washington had to go. For some reason, he was allowed to stay on. Now, they're trapped in the muck with their manager and are paying the price.

The only way to properly make this disappear is to make the manager disappear. It's nothing personal; it's not because of any moral judgments due to drug use; it's not because of an agenda; it's because it's what's right for the organization.

Had this been a player who failed a drug test for using a recreational substance like cocaine, it'd be received with a "what can you do?" shrug. That Washington admitted using amphetamines and marijuana as a player is irrelevant to me. Believe if you will that Washington's cocaine use began and ended with the failed drug test----if true, that's some inconvenient luck that they tested him right there and then!!!----but he's not just a distraction to the Rangers, he was a hindrance before because he's a rotten strategic manager! They have every right to fire him for that reason alone. Now? How can they keep him?

How?

It's March and the Rangers promising season is bearing the earmarks of going up in flames because of a scandal. There comes a time to take a step back, assess and determine where things are and what the risk/reward of keeping that which has become a liability.

They're postponing the inevitable with their reluctance to do what must be done.

And what must be done is to fire Ron Washington.

Immediately.

• Viewer Mail 3.19.2010:

Jeff (Street Boss) at Red State Blue State writes RE managerial scandals:

Wally.

Backman.

Boom.

For those of you who missed it, Wally Backman was hired to manage the Diamondbacks for the 2005 season when a DUI and domestic incident that he failed to disclose during the interview process led the club to fire him right after he'd been hired. It wasn't worth it to keep him; just as it's not worth it for the Rangers now to keep Washington.

The Brooklyn Trolley Blogger writes RE Ron Washington:

This is a tough one Prince. I think Nolan Ryan has had a dramatic impact on the Ranger organization for the better. That's why I'm inclined to trust his handling of the situation. If it weren't for him I'm sure I'd be thinking differently. No Doubt there have been managers I would have fired for less. For some reason I don't have a problem with the way the situation is playing itself out. Yet! For Nolan this is like buying into a Junk Bond; High risk; High reward. Let's see if it comes back to bite Nolan in the ass. I'm compartmentalizing and maybe this story broke out when I'm in an empathetic mood. I feel the heat you're generating though.

I'm not making any values judgments on Washington here; he wants to do coke, hey have a ball as long as it doesn't affect me; but this is turning into a nightmare for the club on the whole and has to be handled. And the only way to handle it is to get rid of Washington.

You've come to the wrong place for empathy though. I don't understand why he'd take this kind of risk and be so inexplicably stupid. Since this supposedly happened around mid-season, because they were hovering around first place and ten games or so above .500, they let the circumstances factor into the decision to keep Washington. Ryan and the club chose to ride it out and hope to make the playoffs. They couldn't easily explain away Washington's firing and left it to "later".

Well, they didn't make the playoffs and it's now "later".

I can tell you now, that if the club was under .500 when this was called to their attention, Washington would've been fired.

Larry writes RE your humble narrator (and if anyone gets that reference, I'll be summarily impressed):

"Plus, it makes me interesting"

Well I'm not sure I'd go that far...

Maybe fascinating would be a better word. Like something to watch and study to see what it's gonna do or say next.

John Seal (West Coast Spiritual Adviser) writes RE Ron Washington:

In all seriousness (for a change), good piece on Ron Washington. When I started reading it, I was definitely in the 'leave the man alone and let him do his job' school, but you make some excellent points. I still don't think people should lose their jobs over victimless crimes that occur off the clock, but considering the political context and potential for team disruption, your case is a strong one.

More importantly, though, do you think he was stoned when he named Scott Hatteberg 'Pickin' Machine'?

I understand he's a well-liked guy; I get that the players play hard for him. I've said it again-and-again that regardless of his strategic mishaps, that the players knew he was about to get fired and still turned things around in 2008 to save his job is not something to ignore. But this can't be saved. It just can't be.

I agree with the premise of an individual not losing his job based on a personal issue----as long as it doesn't affect his ability to do the job. And, like Tim Johnson with the Blue Jays, Washington's credibility is shot not just because of the failed test, but because he had the audacity to claim that it was the one and only time he did it.

I mean, please.

On another note, since you mention the Athletics, John, I have to remind you that lefty side-armer Jay Marshall was returned to the A's after the Mets discovered he was hurt. So lives your dream of seeing Marshall and righty side-armer Brad Ziegler forget which side of the bullpen mounds they need to be on when warming up together and locking arms in a humiliating incident befitting the prospects of the 2010 A's.

It's more likely to have that happen than to see the club contend.

Ron Washington Must Be Fired Immediately

• Echoes of Tim Johnson:

Texas Rangers manager Ron Washington tested positive for cocaine last season and the news was reported yesterday by Sports Illustrated's Jon Heyman----Story.

Washington offered to resign when the Rangers were informed; the club allowed him to stay as they said they were convinced by Washington's assertion that he only used the drug once----ESPN Story. The Rangers are standing by Washington and have said he will not be fired.

Ron Washington must be fired.

Immediately.

This is not going away. It will follow a young, up-and-coming club poised to take the next step into possible championship contention; it will haunt them throughout the season no matter how they play. It's a distraction that the Rangers did not need. Already having had a tumultuous off-season including a desperation sale from former owner Tom Hicks to a group including team president Nolan Ryan, things had quieted down off the field so the Rangers could focus on moving forward.

Drug use by the manager and the resulting controversy could sabotage the whole season.

He has to go.

There are things you tolerate from a manager in terms of off-field behavior as long as it doesn't cause lasting damage to the organization. While in a slightly different context, this undermining of Washington's credibility is startlingly similar to what happened to the Toronto Blue Jays several years ago resulting in rare spring training a managerial change.

Do you remember Tim Johnson?

Johnson was a longtime coach who was hired by the Blue Jays to replace Cito Gaston in 1998 and managed the Blue Jays to a surprising 88-74 finish. During his time as a coach and manager, he used his experiences as a veteran of the Vietnam War to inspire and teach his players, getting them to follow his lead as a true hero; someone who'd put his life on the line for the United States.

It was all very heartwarming.

And it was all a lie.

Tim Johnson had never served in combat in the Marine Corps as he claimed.

Like something out of Tropic Thunder, Johnson promulgated this myth for years, undoubtedly increasing the amount of action he supposedly saw in the stories he told to save face and maintain an aura of something more than a baseball player and coach. The breadth of experience that comes from service in a war theater could only make Johnson more attractive to a team looking for a manager and it worked as he got the job to manage the Blue Jays.

What made things worse was how Johnson not only falsified his service record (he was in the Marines teaching mortar training to recruits heading to Vietnam), but used his faux "experiences" in meetings with players. The Blue Jays initially stood by Johnson, but as the questions and ridicule followed him everywhere; the players rightfully tuned him out; the public was enraged; and Johnson was fired and replaced by Jim Fregosi in spring training.

The Blue Jays had no choice then because there was no end in sight to the mess; no chance of letting things settle and hope that Johnson would repeat his 1998 success.

The Rangers have no choice now.

How is it possible for Washington to maintain his credibility as the field leader of a young club when he was using drugs and has come up with the oft-heard and utterly preposterous excuse of "it was the first time"?

There are circumstances in which a manager might be allowed to endure the controversy of an off-field incident. In 1995, Bobby Cox was accused of domestic violence by his wife and charged with simple battery. In 2007, Tony La Russa was busted for driving drunk. Billy Martin was always getting into off-field trouble.

As bad as the above cases are, they're easier to endure the firestorm because: A) the managers in question were at the top of the heap in terms of doing their jobs on the field; and B) the incidents weren't so heinous that they risked losing credibility with the players. People don't want to hear this truth, but the players would be able to explain away the domestic violence; drunk driving; and whatever it was that Billy Martin used to do more readily than they'll accept a manager lying about war service or using cocaine.

That's not to imply players didn't and don't use recreational drugs on their own (of course they do), but to have the manager of the team using narcotics and still appearing to deny the extent of what it was he did as a 57-year-old man claiming to have used the drug once makes Washington a dead man walking.

How can they take him seriously?

The young players emerging now must, must, must have respect and, more importantly, fear of their manager to keep them in line on and off the field. What message does it send to Elvis Andrus; Chris Davis; Julio Borbon; Neftali Feliz; Matt Harrison; Derek Holland and others if their manager----the supposed leader of the club----is using recreational drugs?

The Rangers are a very young and super-talented team playing in a state that is so conservative that their governor has suggested secession from the union. Nolan Ryan himself is a conservative hard-liner who very seriously considered running for governor of Texas as a Republican. He's going to hear how bad of an example Washington set; that he can't be allowed to skate through and stay on as manager of the club; that the manager has to be replaced. It's never going to end.

In a bit of cold-blooded reality, Washington isn't a very good strategic manager to begin with. I joked on Twitter yesterday that his being high would explain some of the bizarre moves he makes during games. The saving grace for Washington----who was days away from being fired in 2008 before the club had a drastic turnaround and saved his job----has been that the players always played hard for him. Sometimes that overrides the sins of repeated and inexplicable errors. But this is too great an obstacle to overcome.

There's only so much leadership the stand-up guys in the Rangers clubhouse----captain Michael Young; Ian Kinsler; Vladimir Guerrero----can dole out. In the end, it comes down to the manager and steering the club through the wilderness; and young teams need someone they can look up to or at least respect. They may shrug and stand by Washington, saying he made a mistake and owned up to it as a man; but the underlying sense will reduce Washington's stature to an untenable level for him to stay.

The Rangers are moving forward this charade with excuses of having been angry but accepting Washington's apology and explanation; of letting Washington's body-of-work overcome the misstep; that they're standing by him.

It won't work because in every possible machination, it can't work.

Washington will be under managerial death watch until the axe is swung. If the Rangers start the season 3-6; or even if they play poorly in spring training, the queries of Washington's self-created distraction and tenuous job status will become deafening and possibly sabotage a season in which the Rangers are legitimate playoff contenders.

On the field, the American League West is so tough that the Rangers can't afford to leave anything to chance. One game lost because of this may well keep them from the playoffs. Off the field, the roar for Washington's dismissal to set an example will be so loud that Ryan (probably already under siege from conservative cronies) can't ignore it.

Washington has to go sooner rather than later.

He has to be fired.

Now.

• Viewer Mail 3.18.2010:

Jeff (Street Boss) at Red State Blue State writes RE Fausto Carmona:

"Fausto Carmona (the right-handed Oliver Perez)"

AHHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! I can't stop laughing at the truth of this statement!

Carmona's actually been worse than Perez in the last two years after winning 19 games in 2007, looking like----and getting paid----like a rising star.

Larry writes RE the dichotomy of me:

So if my twitter persona, HeartyLarry, sees the Prince as a borderline psychotic whom HeartyLarry likes to tweak and provoke and play with, my Larry persona, a lifelong baseball fan who loves watching the game, loves in-game strategy but has never had the time or patience to follow every team closely enough to have a considered understanding or opinion about teams other than the NYY, respects and enjoys your blog about it. No shit, Sherlock; no punchline here (except maybe that I'll pay attention to you even though you are a Mets fan). Thanks!

Larry, it's difficult to put you in your place as a habitual line-stepper when you say such nice things about me and promote me so enthusiastically.

I told you, the borderline psychotic and rational, sometimes ruthless, analyst go hand-in-hand; one cannot exist without the other. A Prince divided against himself, cannot stand. Plus, it makes me interesting. In certain cases, it seems to be an irresistible attraction through not intent of my own. I'm either going to blow up into the public consciousness of explode like comet.

Even I can't tell you which and I'm just as curious to see as everyone else.

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

I think it'll be interesting to see which Milton Bradley shows up. Maybe he's had therapy in the off season. On second thought, probably not.

Almost on cue, hours after I published that posting, Bradley got ejected from a spring training game after a called third strike. In fairness to Bradley, all he supposedly did was drop his bat at the plate after the call; he didn't look at, nor did he say anything to umpire Dan Bellino.

One problem that will follow Bradley forever is this perception that he's a deranged maniac ready to flip out at a moment's notice. Because of that and the huge argument he had with umpire Mike Winters in 2007, the umps do----intentionally or not----have an eye and zero tolerance attitude with Bradley.

Because Bradley's over-the-edge and paranoid doesn't mean he's wrong about the umpires provoking him.

Gabriel (Capo) writes RE Milton Bradley and Cliff (Stone Cold Killer) Lee:

How do you think Lee's presence in the clubhouse will affect Bradley? Will he beat the crap out of him and tell him to behave, or cause a major breach on the clubhouse damaging the club?

Lee and Bradley were teammates with the Indians when Lee first came up to the big leagues; but I don't know the nature of their relationship. Bradley doesn't appear to listen to many people and his outbursts are related to his short temper than anything. I dunno if a fistfight is the solution nor do I know if Lee can actually fight. Because he throws at people and is an assassin on the mound doesn't mean he can throw hands.

I'd be reluctant to take on Bradley in a fight. You can go up against a loudmouth; someone bigger; or a person who has a rep, but if you get into it with someone who might be certifiably crazy, you're taking your life in your hands and it's something to consider before taking that step.

The interesting thing about Bradley is that the majority of his former teammates have rarely had anything bad to say about him. Well, there's Jeff Kent; but Jeff Kent was loathed everywhere he went----and it was personal because Kent was an acknowledged jerk.

2010 Stories To Watch, Part VIII

• This could be compared to several tiresome or unintentionally funny sequels:

If Sylvester Stallone decided to combine Rocky and Rambo to craft a nearly unintelligible and senseless mass of egomania in which he battles.....Mother.....Nature (Rockbo--Earthquake? Ramrock--Tsunami?) it would come nowhere close to the quality and relentless return to the same theme that I continue to perpetrate on an unsuspecting public.

At least I have a sense of shame.

Let's take a look at some more 2010 Stories To Watch, Part VIII.

Milton Bradley:

Despite the repeated reference to Mariners GM Jack Zduriencik as a "genius", the Mariners are an iffy contender this year. They have two of the best pitchers in baseball after getting Cliff (Stone Cold Killer) Lee from the Phillies, and they made a lot of noise this off-season without necessarily improving themselves all that much from the team that won 85 games last season.

Rather than call Zduriencik a "genius", I prefer to call him ballsy. He's in on anything and everything and willing to discuss any player on his roster if he thinks he'll make his team better. Even with that, the Mariners offense is going to be a question in 2010.

That's where Milton Bradley comes in.

Will the Mariners be getting the Milton Bradley that behaved himself well and was an MVP candidate with the Rangers in 2008? Or will they be getting the raving lunatic he's been everywhere else he's been; always ready to explode at the most inconspicuous slight that any and all professional athletes or public figures have to endure as a matter of course due to their station.

It's a trade-off. If you want the advantage of being famous and wealthy, sometimes you have to listen to heckling and accept what Bradley would refer to as "disrespect", walking away and eating it. Bradley's never been able to do that and there's no indication that he's a changed man. It's far more likely that something's going to happen to cause a problem based on little more than history.

The problem for the Mariners is that they need Bradley. They need him to hit; they need him to hit the ball out of the park; they need him to stay healthy; and they need him to behave. The first two are very possible; the latter two are not.

If the Mariners think their defense and pitching is going to carry them through in a very rough division, they're following the lead of their GM and rolling the dice hoping it comes up sevens. It's either going to work or it's not and the main actor in the show will be Bradley.

Amid all the noise the Mariners made----Chone Figgins; Casey Kotchman; a long-term extension for Felix Hernandex; Lee----they also may have made a season-wrecking mistake in re-signing Ken Griffey Jr. to be the primary DH. I can't imagine that someone as rational as Zduriencik was enamored of the move that probably came as an order from above----they would've been far better off with Jim Thome----but this is where they are. The deal for Bradley allowed them to get the sunk cost of Carlos Silva off the team in an exchange of two players who needed a change-of-address.

Bradley was one of the main reasons for the Cubs collapse last season because his acquisition also predicated the trade of club leader Mark DeRosa. The Cubs chemistry was shot from that moment on and all indications are that they're not going to recover.

So which Bradley are they going to get?

Who knows? But if the Mariners think they're going to contend, they'd better hope they get the well-behaved and productive Bradley and not the out-of-control maniac. Their season rides on it.

A Reds housecleaning:

In certain circles, the Reds are seen as a darkhorse contender.

I don't see it. They have one of the worst outfields in baseball and don't hit enough; but if their deep starting pitching performs, they could hang around respectability; that alone could keep them in contention if the number of wins for the Wild Card hovers around 85 or so.

If they're playing poorly into May/June, you could see a drastic and wide swinging of the axe by GM Walt Jocketty to reload. Bronson Arroyo; Aaron Harang; Francisco Cordero; and manager Dusty Baker could all be caught in the crossfire and moved. Arroyo and Harang have contract options for 2011, but could be free agents at the end of this season; Cordero's guaranteed $13 million for 2011.

Depending on what's coming back, the Reds might be willing to eat some of the money to get better prospects in the deal. All three would be attractive to a contending team. I've never been shy in my admiration for the gutty and unflappable Arroyo; Harang's been horrible in the last few years, but isn't far removed from being one of the best pitchers in baseball that few knew about; and Cordero would either be a fine set-up man to bolster a bullpen or a closer for a contender.

With Baker, his contract is up at the end of the year and his reputation in recent years has taken a brutal beating. I don't think Baker is a bad manager and he's been a historic winner; but unless the Reds contend, he's not getting a contract extension, so he could go and go early.

The Reds have a lot of talent, but even in the weak NL Central they might not have the horses to be in the race. They'll make sweeping changes if things aren't going well.

And I don't think things are going to go well.

How bad are the Indians going to be?

Some of the projections have the Indians winning as many as 81 games (unless they've been changed again, and they might've been; I haven't checked). Where this came from, I have no clue.

The Indians are awful.

They have absolutely no pitching and their offense, while serviceable, won't be good enough to account for the starting pitching that includes Jake Westbrook (returning from Tommy John surgery and immediate trade bait); Fausto Carmona (the right-handed Oliver Perez); two soft-tossing lefties (Jeremy Sowers; Aaron Laffey); and youth (Carlos Carrasco; David Huff).

The bullpen ain't that great either.

Unless Travis Hafner suddenly finds a magical potion to stay healthy, they're a work-in-progress at the plate and a disaster on the mound. They're not going to be bad. They're going to be superbad.

One big question I have is whether Mark Shapiro will put it out there that Grady Sizemore is up for discussion in trade talks. I think he might and that would be a feeding frenzy if Sizemore's healthy and playing well.

• Nationals release Elijah Dukes:

You can't argue with the decision in the context of on-or-off-field issues.

Supposedly it had nothing to do with off-field stuff and Dukes, despite his absurd talent, has yet to put it all together apart from flashes and towering homers. The Nationals are a weird amalgam of young players; useful journeyman (and that includes their manager); and veterans on their last legs. It makes no sense to play Dukes if they don't see him getting any better than he is; if he's never going to fulfill his limitless natural gifts; and if they're intent on playing the best eight every day, then a benched Dukes could cause trouble; trouble they didn't need.

I might've let Dukes play for the first month, hoped he hit and behaved, then traded him; but I understand where the Nats are coming from.

Who might pick up Elijah Dukes?

His talent is alluring and if a team has a strong support system with a manager he'd listen to and respect, he's worth a shot with a no-tolerance policy for on-and-off field behavior. If I was running a team, I'd sign him and make it clear that he wasn't going to get away with anything with me.

He'd be at the plate with one strike and I'd be egotistical enough to think that he might listen to me for no other reason than that I wouldn't be afraid of him.

It might work.

• Viewer Mail 3.17.2010:

Jeff (Street Boss) at Red State Blue State writes RE Cliff (Stone Cold Killer) Lee:

Totally agree on Cliff Lee. Stone cold killer. He just has that Patrick Bateman like gaze in his eyes (and I know you're no fan of Ellis but ya gotta admit Lee has that gaze).

Lee's persona is what a pitcher's persona SHOULD be! It gives me goosebumps knowin' such a player still exists, as it is surely a thing of beauty.

Players get so angry when someone like Lee does what needs to be done because they're: A) not used to getting out of the way of a thrown ball because so few pitchers are willing to brush them back at any level; and B) are so buddy-buddy with opposing players that they expect everyone to give them that courtesy.

Lee wasn't trying to hurt Snyder; it was a message. Nothing wrong with sending a message. It says something about the receiver of said messenger's fortitude based on how they react. If they retract into their shell or out-and-out run away, you can pretty much get a gauge on where they stand and if you want them with you in a dark alley.

Gabriel (Capo) writes RE the insipid idea of Ryan Howard for Albert Pujols and Ruben Amaro Jr:

Could Amaro be so angry because the news leaked far earlier than they could've wanted?

I think Lee's trade to the Phillies revitalized him, and he now means business. So glad the Jays don't face him regularly.

Amaro's reaction was so visceral; so incensed that I can't imagine that to be the case. He was mad because he, as the front man of the Phillies, was undercut by a story that may or may not be true and is something that he wouldn't have wanted to deal with now even if it is accurate.

With Lee, the move from the fading Indians to the Phillies and his first chance at post-season participation did wake him up and spur him to another level. He's going to have a massive year with the Mariners. Then he's getting paid.

Purge

• Tell me what you know....or else:

Because a reporter is not required to reveal his sources----whether they exist or not----doesn't preclude a club from conducting an internal investigation as to who's leaking stories that are either inaccurate or that they don't want out in the public for fear of a PR disaster.

Such a situation is currently being faced by the Phillies and----through not fault of their own----the Cardinals because of Buster Olney's reporting of internal discussions the Phillies supposedly had of trying to deal Ryan Howard to the Cardinals for Albert Pujols. As the days pass and more and more people react apoplectically and with utter bewilderment, the heat on whomever leaked this story----again, accurate or not----is increasing incrementally. One would have to assume that if Olney embellished something he heard in the wind from a mid-to-low level staffer, the pressure on him is rising as well.

Unless Olney really goes over the deep end (okay, further over the deep end) and reveals his source (he'd never get any real insider scoops again, so forget it), the information's not going to come from him. Let me be clear here: I'm not accusing Olney of making up the story because I have no idea where he got it; but it could've been anything from anyone, anywhere in the Phillies hierarchy and he ran with it before getting real confirmation from someone in a position of power that it was anything more than a passing mention in fantasy of what they'd like to be able to do knowing that it was nearly impossible to complete.

The Phillies front office led by Ruben Amaro Jr. has reacted swiftly, angrily and adamantly in their statements; the Cardinals were clueless because they were never even approached with this silliness----ESPN Story.

The clip regarding Amaro:

Phillies general manager Ruben Amaro Jr. denied his team had discussed a trade and used "lies" and "ridiculous" and "irresponsible" to describe the report.

The clip regarding Cardinals manager Tony La Russa:

"Our organization plans on making Albert a player to start and finish his career here, and Albert has said he wants to stay here, so why would anybody want to start speculating?" he said.

I judge the veracity of such a proposal by the subsequent reaction from the participants. With the way Amaro forcefully and angrily denied the rumor; and La Russa so stunned, it's clear that this is absolute garbage. If a team is considering such a move and has executives who choose their words carefully and answer questions without answering questions, you can read between the lines and tell what's really being said. If Amaro said something to the tune of, "That's a wild suggestion for the acknowledged best hitter in baseball", but neither confirmed or denied, that'd be an answer right there; the answer being that it was considered and discussed.

There are also instances where stories are leaked to get a public reaction to how it would play out and lay the groundwork so it's not such a shock to everyone involved; also so that the clubs couldn't back out and say forget it when it's gone too far. There's a method to the madness. These things are sometimes strategically dropped into the water to see the ripple and whether it creates a devastating tsunami or is an acceptable splash.

Such is not the case here.

Amaro seemed genuinely angry.

Is Olney going to have a problem because of this? Will he have to start backtracking on his "story"?

Doubtful.

Even if he doesn't have a real source or it was something akin to a game of telephone that got out of hand, we're unlikely to ever know it from anyone at ESPN. That said, there's nothing to stop Amaro----if he's mad enough----to deal with it himself in his own organization by flushing out the person who supposedly leaked this.

The confines of "reporters not revealing their sources" doesn't apply to inter-organizational politics. If I were Amaro, I'd find out who was whispering this stuff to Olney and their betrayal would be dealt with. So as not to make this a distraction, I'd have my key people put the word out that I simply wanted to know who said this; who spoke to Olney and hurt the club with this story. The sooner they 'fessed up, the better for them.

The consequences would vary upon who it was. If it was a loudmouthed low-level staffer, I'd fire him. If it was someone I needed, he'd be warned. Failing that, I'd put it out there that the guilty party wouldn't be fired from their job; I just wanted to know who it was. This too would be an example of semantics because not firing them wouldn't preclude me from making their life so miserable at work that they up and quit.

This type of thing, if true, is damaging to the Phillies organization; it has to be nipped in the bud. If Amaro is telling the truth, his credibility is on the line as the leader of the Phillies front office and it has to be handled.

One way or the other.

• Cliff Lee--stone cold killer:

Spring training isn't too early to send a message and Cliff Lee obviously did just that when he fired two inside pitches at Diamondbacks' catcher Chris Snyder after the two collided as Lee was backing up home plate----ESPN Story.

Lee was ejected after the second pitch, which was over Snyder's head; Snyder walked to the mound, both benches emptied, but no punches were thrown. Lee denied throwing at Snyder, but as the mouthy Mark Reynolds put it, "I've faced Cliff Lee plenty of times to know he's got amazing control."

If you watch the clip, Lee was throwing at Snyder.

More evidence (as if you needed it) that Lee is a cold-blooded assassin out on the mound and couldn't care less about perceived propriety in spring training. Taking liberties, intentional or not, will be handled on the field.

After the way he dismantled any and all comers in the post-season last year, including the mighty Yankees, it's clear that Lee means business in his contract year. He's getting paid; he's doing what must be done; and it's one of the coolest things you'll see on a baseball field.

In an era where players are so friendly that it's driving such vicious competitors like Bob Gibson to wonder why they don't take each other for beers during the game or why they play at all, it's refreshing to see such ruthlessness from a modern player who's so clearly old-school that he's ahead of the game.

• I know it's spring training, but...

The only times to place any weight on a spring training performance are when it's a young player trying to make a club or a veteran returning from injury.

With that the case, there's genuine cause for concern for the Athletics over the way Ben Sheets has been pitching. He's been getting blasted----SFGate Story----and there has to be legitimate worry that the guaranteed $10 million the A's gave him will end up going down the tubes.

Does this matter when the season starts? In the cosmic scheme of things, no; but with Sheets, there's never been any conscientious objection to yanking himself from a game when he's not feeling 100%; it's not as if he's going to stay out on the mound if he's hurt. Because of that, he might feel great and be pitching horribly, which is on the same level of bad news for the Athletics.

For Sheets's state of mind and the hopes of the team getting anything out of him, they'd better get a better performance from him at some point in the spring because if he pitches like this, it doesn't bode well for the Billy Beane $10 million Hail Mary that he'd get the front-of-the-rotation ace that Sheets has been in the past; in fact, it could be another mound of dirt on Beane's Moneyball-crafted "genius".

• Viewer Mail 3.16.2010:

Jeff at Red State Blue State writes RE Jason Heyward:

Nice link between Heyward and Frenchie. I've been wondering the same thing.

As for Pujols for Howard... thank you for squashing such a FUCKING RIDICULOUS AND ASININE non-story from Buster Shoe-Licker Olney.

Please, Buster. Please. Go out and get laid, Buster. Please. You need it.

The Braves don't appear to get it. Amid all the ridicule doled out on teams like the Mets, the Braves front office screw-ups going back to when John Schuerholz's tenure as the GM was winding down has been relatively ignored. With the battles between Bobby Cox and GM Frank Wren (much of it centered around the treatment of Jeff Francoeur), they've been a foundation of dysfunction. Heyward's a great talent, but they're not being fair with a 20-year-old kid anointing him as a savior.

With Olney, I have no idea of his personal issues/proclivities; but I seriously think he's too far gone for your eminently reasonable suggestion to do any good now.

Jane Heller at Confessions of a She-Fan writes RE the proposed Ryan Howard-Albert Pujols trade:

Yeah, the Cardinals would really swap Pujols for Howard. Um, no. Ridiculous. Could never happen. Of course that's what I said when the Phillies dealt Cliff Lee.

As big a mistake as the trade of Lee was, at the very least there was an argument for it----a stupid argument that is going to cement the Phillies' downfall, but an argument nonetheless. With this deal, it'd be a great idea for the Phillies, but the Cardinals would never do it.

Never. Never. Never.

If they even entertained the idea of trading Pujols, they'd send him to the American League and preferably to the West Coast. It's not happening.

Gabriel (Capo) writes RE Albert Pujols:

Maybe the Phillies are discussing that trade, but it's an illusion. They don't have the money to pay Pujols what he would want to leave St. Louis.

The Phillies have signed their core players to long term deals; they have Halladay on the books and aren't going to be able to keep Jayson Werth; the trade of Howard would free up some cash; presumably, they'd find a way to do it; but they'd have to let Jimmy Rollins go (which they should do anyway); and they're going to have to pay Cole Hamels and J.A. Happ eventually.

Plus if Pujols allows a trade, he is going to want the Alex Rodriguez-money that Olney suggests would be the motivating factor for the Cardinals to think about moving him. The Phillies won't pay him $275 million. There are maybe five teams that could do it now; and probably none that would. Forget it.

Quotes From An Invisible Man

• "Sources" work both ways:

The old adage of a reporter protecting his sources is understandable and necessary; but it works both ways. The cloak of secrecy that surrounds said "unnamed" sources can spur the desperate and unimaginative to (at best) exaggerate; or (at worst) out-and-out conjure up a phantom quote to create a story. I have no idea which is the case with Buster Olney's latest bit of absurdity suggesting that the Phillies had internal discussions of a Ryan Howard for Albert Pujols trade, but the very idea isn't just stretching the boundaries of reality, but destroying it.

It's not as if Olney has any credibility left to begin with and it's hard to know whether this stuff is due to pressure from above at ESPN to initiate buzz and garner attention rather than report news from an entity that still casts itself as the "worldwide leader in sports". Aside from Jerry Crasnick and Jayson Stark, the writers and bloggers at ESPN are lazy, incompetent, faux experts who don't bother to put any effort into their work----or simply make stuff up.

Long ago, I accepted the fact that the mainstream writers who are aware of my shadowy existence: A) hate me; B) want nothing to do with me because I'm such a loose cannon; and C) feel free to rob me or try to refute arguments I've made without crediting me.

It's fine because I'm glad to be able to write, say and do what I want without some corporation breathing down my neck steering me in a direction convenient for their own nefarious ends.

I've got a few nefarious ends of my own.

I'm not a monster.

I'm just ahead of the curve.

That said, let's look at a proposed trade of Albert Pujols for Ryan Howard. Here's the Olney posting----link.

The relevant quotes (to be examined with----let's be gentle----a skeptical gaze:

...according to sources, an idea has been kicked around the Phillies' organization internally, with discussions about proposing a swap of slugger Ryan Howard for St. Louis superstar Albert Pujols.

The logic for a Howard for Pujols swap, as discussed within the Phillies' organization, could fall along these lines: Pujols, 30 years old, is eligible for free agency after the 2011 season, and early conversations about a contract extension have not led to any long-term deal. The expectation within baseball is that Pujols may ask for a deal that would rival, in annual value, the record-setting 10-year, $275 million deal that Alex Rodriguez negotiated with the Yankees in fall 2007.

If the Cardinals were to decide, at any point, that they could not afford to sign Pujols, they could consider dealing him, in the way the Toronto Blue Jays traded Roy Halladay, or the Minnesota Twins traded Johan Santana.

And Howard, who is just a couple of months older than Pujols, would not be a bad alternative. In the past four seasons, Howard has hit 198 homers and accumulated 572 RBIs, and has finished in the top five of the NL MVP race.

Here's the public relations kicker: Howard was born in St. Louis, and is regarded as a hometown kid in that city.

We'll ignore the patched together "story"; the nonsensical, non-existent logic therein; the atrocious writing; that it could've been said as a passing joke among low-level staffers and that Phillies GM Ruben Amaro Jr. said the following at the mere suggestion:

Phillies general manager Ruben Amaro flatly denied that the internal discussions have taken place. "Lies," he said. "That's a lie. I don't know who you're talking to, but that's a lie."

Let's instead examine the idea as if it's real.

In comparing the two as players, the 30-year-old Albert Pujols (if his age is accurate) is in fact two months younger than Ryan Howard. The misconception in ages is a direct result of the Phillies having kept Howard in the minors until he was 25.

Pujols is the best hitter in baseball. Period. He murders both lefties and righties; he gets on base 45% of the time; he hits tons of homers; loads of extra base hits; bats .330; can steal bases; rarely strikes out; and is a great fielder.

Howard, as powerful and productive as he is has gigantic holes in his game. He was horrific against lefties last season to the point where it wouldn't have been out of line for the Phillies to platoon him. He batted .207; had 6 homers; a .298 on base percentage; and 83 strikeouts in 252 plate appearances. In any language and by any measurement that...is...unacceptable.

Howard will hit 45 homers and drive in 130 runs; while he's a better fielder than he's given credit for, he's nowhere near Pujols; and he strikes out 200 times a year.

Then we get to money.

Like Joe Mauer, Pujols is not a money whore. All you need do when determining whether a player is going to hold his team hostage by impending free agency is check his representation. If the name Scott Boras appears next to the player's name, you can pretty much guess where it's going. If the name Ron Shapiro (Mauer) or Dan Lozano (Pujols) is their agent, then squeezing every single penny from the club is not the motivating factor in making a deal or where he plays.

Is Pujols going to want to be paid commensurately with his performance when he receives his next contract? Yes. Is he going to look for an exorbitant ransom from the Cardinals or shoehorn his way to the only cities that can pay him like Los Angeles, New York, Boston or Baltimore? No.

Pujols will be faced with the Cardinals salary structure and that they cannot turn the dual trick of paying Pujols and surrounding him with the players the club needs to be a legitimate contender. Pujols loves St. Louis; he's happy there and as long as Tony La Russa and Dave Duncan are patrolling the dugout, he has a chance to win. Would he need the aggravation of Philadelphia? A city that will boo him if he grounds out in his first at bat in a Phillies uniform?

Let's say Pujols decides he wants an Alex Rodriguez contract, would he really want to deal with New York? With Boston? He'd handle it, but he doesn't have to. He can do no wrong in St. Louis; he's won his championship; they're an annual contender; and he's going to get an amount of money that he's going to be wealthy beyond any normal comprehension.

So why be a hard-liner? Why?

The idea that Howard going back to his hometown of St. Louis would ease the sting of losing Pujols is a stupid reason to make a deal on the surface before even getting to the quality of the players. Pujols is head-and-shoulders better than Howard.

It's not just dumb; the stuff that would emanate from a voice that literally knows nothing about baseball, it's downright ridiculous. When the GM of the club in question says something to the tune of "that's a lie" you have to question the motive and scrupulousness of the author and the forum upon which it was published. Is Olney out of his mind to write this? ESPN to publish it? Are they sure they want to go down this road?

As if ESPN didn't have enough issues in the credibility and morality of reporting to begin with, they get worse and worse. I'd say they've found the bottom of the barrel, but considering how things have degenerated to lower levels on a weekly basis, I can't say they won't get worse.

If they had any shame, I'd say they should be embarrassed; but like the Pujols for Howard trade, that's a fantasy. They can tie the noose around their own necks. I'll be glad to pull the lever. It's my pleasure in fact.

• Have the Braves learned nothing from Jeff Francoeur?

To have a player dubbed as "The Natural" and promoted as the next superstar by the media and the club itself, then to blame him when he slumps; demote him; and send him to the minor leagues and finally dispatch him should've been enough of a wake-up call to ditch the hyperbole and let a player's stature grow organically as he develops; but the Braves are in the process of making the same mistake with Jason Heyward.

This is not to equate Francoeur's abilities to Heyward's, but the comparisons are, in fact, worse. How can a 20-year-old player walk into big league camp and be told by the Hall of Fame manager Bobby Cox that he's similar to Willie Mays, Mickey Mantle and Hank Aaron and not feel the pressure of those comments?

Heyward knows that the club is short in the power department and will need him to come in and be a mid-lineup terror. At 20-years-old, it's wrong. It's a possible hindrance to his development; and if he slumps or fails and needs to be sent back to the minors, is he going to be able to recover? The smart thing to do would have been to low-key it; say that Heyward will get a chance to show what he's got in the spring, but is likely to begin the season in the minors for more experience, keeping it close-to-the-vest that the intention is to give him every chance to make the big leagues and be the everyday right fielder.

Instead, the Braves are turning this kid into a larger-than-life savior just as they did with Francoeur and it's wrong.

They made the identical mistake with Francoeur and it fell apart. Evidently they haven't learned their lesson and it could be to the detriment of another potential star player. It'll be the organization's fault if he falters.

Sunday Lightning 3.14.2010

• Aceves's spring success is not helping the Yankees:

Yankees righty Alfredo Aceves, battling for the fifth spot in the starting rotation, has been pitching masterfully all spring. While this normally wouldn't be seen as a problem, it's creating a dilemma for the Yankees as they've clearly wanted either Phil Hughes and Joba Chamberlain to stake their claim to the rotation spot once and for all. Chamberlain's been terrible; Hughes has been pitching well, but not as well as Aceves.

Based on performance alone, clearly Aceves would be the fifth starter; and the Yankees have put themselves in this position of having to watch and essentially hope that Aceves doesn't pitch as well as he has to make things easier for them to insert either Hughes or Chamberlain into the rotation.

Hughes is still the likeliest of the candidates to be named fifth starter and won't be needed to start a game until mid-April anyway; it's not really a "competition" but a mind-game to keep the two young starters' heads together as they vie for the slot. Chamberlain has been so rotten that he's not only losing the battle, but if he keeps pitching like this he might be sent to the minors (unlikely); or kept in Florida for extended spring training (very possible).

Chamberlain could be inadvertently self-sabotaging since everyone----the media, the fans, the players and Chamberlain himself----knows that he wants to be a reliever; that he should be a reliever. That doesn't matter. The only voices that count are the factions in the Yankees front office that insist Chamberlain should be given the chance to be a starter. His head is so screwed up by the way the club has jerked him around that it's no wonder he's degenerating into a total disaster.

The Yankees now find themselves in an untenable situation. Aceves has taken the lead in the race, but on this Yankees team, he's not a starter; he's more valuable out of the bullpen as a multiple-innings gobbler. He and the other background actors in the drama----Chad Gaudin and Sergio Mitre----knew they had little chance of wresting the job from Hughes/Chamberlain with Gaudin and Mitre not even guaranteed of a spot on the big league roster.

Based on performance, of course Aceves would win the job; but Hughes is the man who should be the fifth starter. The Yankees know this and they're going to have to twist things to make that happen if Aceves pitches as well as he has. It's not that big of a problem, but it's something to be vigilant about.

If Hughes and Chamberlain are edged out or even demoted, they'd both have a right to pop off to the club. Teams tell their players in spring training not to worry too much about stats and performance, then use stats and performance to justify what they do. It's not fair to tell Hughes/Chamberlain to work on their changeups; or to pump fastballs in without concern for results, then punish them if they get shelled.

No matter how well Aceves pitches, barring anything catastrophic, Phil Hughes will be in the Yankees starting rotation because it was never a competition to begin with; it was a statement for consumption without truth.

This happens quite often where one thing is said to the players and the public, but circumstances require a contradiction that looks like a lie. But it's not a lie. As was said in Ball Four, it's just baseball.

• JOE MAUER'S NOT LEAVING MINNESOTA, GET...IT...INTO....YOUR....HEADS!!!!!!

Now there are rumors going around that with the Joe Mauer contract negotiations hitting a snag, the Twins might consider trading him.

Listen to me very carefully:

Joe.

Mauer.

Is.

Not.

Leaving.

The.

Minnesota.

Twins.

Get it?

Not.....leaving.

He's not going anywhere.

Comprende?

Comprendre?

Ymmärtää?

לִהַבִין?

أدرك?

First of all, he doesn't want to leave. Second of all, the Twins can't let him leave. Third of all, there's no way for the club to get equal value for him if they did trade him. Fourth, they're moving into a new ballpark with all sorts of good feeling and a promise of contention (even without Joe Nathan); they have a real chance to win a championship this year.

He's not going anywhere.

I've gone on again and again about Mauer and the Twins needing each other; about how his agent Ron Shapiro is the polar opposite of Scott Boras in that he first asks his players where they want to play before even starting with the monetary aspects of the deal; that they can't let him leave. But let's say hypothetically that things break down completely in the contract talks and the Twins even entertain the notion of dealing the best hitter in baseball this side of Albert Pujols.

What are they going to get for him?

The Twins don't exactly have the best trading history in the world in recent years. Both the Johan Santana trade and the Matt Garza/Jason Bartlett for Delmon Young trades were train wrecks; and they're going to get a fraction of what Mauer's worth on and off the field if they did consider moving him.

In this economy, no team is going to sacrifice a chunk of their farm system and essentially sign Mauer to a $200 million contract to keep him. Despite Mauer not being a "pay me" player whose main focus is money, if he's traded to a big market team with the prospects to get him (the Yankes, Red Sox, Mets, Dodgers), he's going to say he wants his money; and we're talking an Alex Rodriguez-type contract.

The Twins screwed up the Santana trade hideously by asking for too much from the Yankees and Red Sox, who were both reluctant to make the trade-and-sign transaction. The only deal left for the Twins was what the Mets offered and they had no choice but to take it. It was a total washout. The way things are now, they might end up getting less for Mauer than they got for Santana!

If you add the new ballpark into the equation and the explosion that would be heard among Twins fans if Mauer was traded, it makes no sense, so end the speculation.

They won't trade Mauer. Mauer's going to be a Twin. Period.

• Why is there this shock about the Blue Jays passing on Marco Scutaro?

I could understand such stupidity from the first I heard expressing his shock at the Blue Jays not making a full effort to re-sign Marco Scutaro (it was Michael Kay; I think that's enough of a reason to dismiss it); but now Bill Madden has said something similar in his column today:

Of all the new faces in Boston's winter makeover, the most interesting is the 34-year-old Scutaro, who is just now getting recognized as an above-average shortstop after nearly a decade (with five different organizations) of being labeled a utilityman. For reasons only they can explain, the rebuilding Blue Jays made no effort to re-sign Scutaro after he hit .282 with 12 homers and 60 RBI for them last year and tied for the AL lead in fielding for shortstops.

It's Marco Scutaro!!!

The man is 34-years-old; coming off his career year after having been an okay utilityman for a few years. Uh, Bill? He was "labeled a utilityman" because that's what he was. The Blue Jays, with no chance of contending this year and in the midst of a retooling, had no need of Scutaro and no chance to keep him. None. They weren't going to beat the Red Sox offer for him and the Athletics had in fact offered more for Scutaro.

In fact, what would the likes of Madden and especially that buffoon Kay say if the Blue Jays overpaid to keep Scutaro and he reverted to his career numbers for a team that was going to lose 90 games? Would the Blue Jays be ripped for repeating similar mistakes under Alex Anthopolous as they made under J.P. Ricciardi? Or would it be the understanding that the current questions imply that keeping him was a good idea?

It's Marco....Scutaro!!!!!

They were right to let him leave because they don't need him. It was the smart move.

• Viewer Mail 3.14.2010:

The Brooklyn Trolley Blogger writes RE William C. Rhoden:

First time shame on us. Second time shame on the NY Times. There is no doubt now, Rhoden is out of his baseball mind and good job staying on top of it Prince. How the Times has fallen, from the great columnist Mr. Dave Anderson, to the daydream of sportswriting blather. Gimmie Joel Sherman!

I actually treasure these guys because they give me stuff to write about.

I can't get on board with Sherman though; he's not as bad as Rhoden, but he's no prize either.

G.E. writes RE Rhoden:

From reading Rhoden for the last few years, it seems that he has an unspoken agenda: to write about minorities in sports...and usually to defend the decisions of said minorities...

I wouldn't attack him for that basically because I haven't paid much attention to him since the Billy Wagner column I mentioned two days ago. He can write about what he wants; but when he gets into baseball and writes crap, I'm watching....and waiting. If he steps into my domain, he'd better know what he's saying----or at least have an organized argument. The last two days have shown that he has neither.

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

If anything aptly represents the Diamondbacks' failure, it's gotta be Eric Byrnes (who's must be laughing all the way to the proverbial bank... still, right?!?).

The contract extension to Byrnes was crazy and they're paying almost all of the $11 million he's owed this year so he can play with the Mariners. That said, it was Byrnes's team-igniting explosion that was the catalyst to the division title in 2007 as Bud Black and Jake Peavy decided to "finish off" the Diamondbacks by pitching Peavy on short rest since he'd been so successful against them that whole season.

Here's the result of that brilliant bit of strategy: 4 innings pitched; 8 earned runs allowed on 7 hits; with 3 walks; and homers allowed to Conor Jackson and Miguel Montero.

Byrnes whipped the Diamondbacks into such an enraged frenzy that they went on to win the division title and the Padres stumbled out of the playoffs. That wasn't worth the money that they've ended up paying him, but his time as a Diamondback wasn't a complete loss.