Thome Or Not Thome

• Ozzie Guillen will make the call on Jim Thome's return:

The interesting dynamic between White Sox GM Kenny Williams and manager Ozzie Guillen has the two trusting one another to such a point that Williams is allowing such an important decision as whether or not to re-sign Jim Thome to be made by the manager----ESPN Story.

Guillen's pondering regarding Thome has more to do with the number of at bats he'll be able to give the veteran slugger than any analysis of whether or not Thome can still contribute----he undoubtedly can----but would the White Sox be better with Guillen's plan of a rotating DH with Carlos Quentin, Andruw Jones, Tyler Flowers and a couple of others? If it was me, I'd bring Thome back, but I can understand the argument for keeping that flexibility. According to Guillen, the decision will be made by today.

The relationship between Williams and Guillen is unlike almost any other in baseball. It's rare to have a GM as prominent, opinionated and fearless as Williams allow his manager to make such a call and it's a window into how confident Williams is in his own position and in the judgment of his manager.

People----myself included----have often wondered how Williams is able to tolerate the frequent bouts of lunacy that accompany Guillen wherever he goes; Nuclear Ozzie goes off on anyone at anytime and has at times challenged his GM to the point where anyone else would've fired him. Not Williams.

It may be because Williams is able to separate a person's reputation with who that person really is and what he brings to a club. How else do you explain his penchant for acquiring players with bad reputations and troubled pasts like A.J. Pierzynski and Bobby Jenks and getting them to produce and behave?

It's the same thing with his manager.

There are times in which I'm sure Williams would like to strangle Guillen; but he doesn't let that interfere with a cold analysis of the positives and negatives of Guillen. What's lost amid the off-the-wall comments and meltdowns that happen about five times a year (at least) with Guillen is what a savvy baseball mind he is. He's crazy, but he's not stupid. He has a temper, but he doesn't let that affect him negatively.

There's no simmering anger between the two; everything is on the table. Both men respect one another and knows where the other stands even when they disagree. It might seem like a chaotic and odd way to run a club, but if more GMs and manager worked in tandem in such a way, understood each other and what the sides bring to the table and were able to take all that energy created by disagreement, they might be a lot better off and have a similarly solid relationship on and off the field.

• Another contract extension doled by the Phillies:
  

The Phillies signed catcher Carlos Ruiz to a 3-year contract extension worth $8.85 million. To me, that's a lot of money for Carlos Ruiz even with the way he crushes in the playoffs. This is another overpayment/odd maneuver for the Phillies in this head-scratching off-season. The team that couldn't afford Cliff Lee now is on the hook for the following guaranteed contracts (we'll exclude the essentials like Ryan Howard and Chase Utley):

Roy Halladay: $60 million through 2012 (age 33)

Joe Blanton: $24 million through 2012 (age 29)

Raul Ibanez: $23 million through 2011 (age 38)

Brad Lidge: $23 million through 2011 (age 33)

Jimmy Rollins: $16 million through 2011 (age 31)

Jayson Werth: $7 million for 2010 (age 31)

Cole Hamels: $16 million through 2011 (age 26)

Jamie Moyer: $6.5 million in 2010 (age 47)

Placido Polanco: $18 million through 2012 (age 34)

Shane Victorino: $22 million through 2012 (age 29)

Ryan Madson: $9 million through 2012 (age 29)

J.C. Romero: $4 million for 2010 (age 34)

Danys Baez: $5.25 million through 2011 (age 32)

Chad Durbin: $2.25 million for 2010 (age 32)

Greg Dobbs: $1.35 million for 2010 (age 31)

Brian Schneider: $2.5 million through 2011 (age 33)

Ross Gload: $2.6 million through 2011 (age 34)

Far be it from me to question contracts and salaries. The only time the amount of money a player receives is an issue for me is when there's blatant hypocrisy and spin-doctoring (see the Red Sox of Boston); or if money issues----real or claimed----prevent a club from doing what they need to do to be the best that can be.

In looking at some of the above contracts, are you still buying the nonsense that the Phillies would've been unable to afford to keep Lee?

The amount of money they've thrown out the window on the likes of Jamie Moyer and Greg Dobbs; the diminishing returns on Brad Lidge and Raul Ibanez; and the bizarre extensions they've given to Ruiz and Victorino among others, along with said players advancing ages, makes it clear that in their attempts to do the "right" thing in keeping a championship team predominately together, they've missed out on an important factor----doing what's perceived as the "right" thing isn't the same thing as doing the smart thing.

It's easier for Amaro to keep what was there to begin with and make the trade for Halladay (that almost everyone was afraid to question) than it would've been to be bold, keep Lee, and possibly sacrifice the likes of Victorino in the next year or two.

These contracts are going to cost them. This team is going to take a fall this year and are a good bet to utterly collapse by 2012. It's happened before and it's happening before our eyes with the Phillies.

• A most disturbing thing about the Pirates:

I was thinking about the Pirates signing of Octavio Dotel to be their closer and it's not simply that they have a better option in-house in Joel Hanrahan to close games that's the biggest issue for me; the biggest issue for me is that the Pirates "braintrust" doesn't realize that Hanrahan is better; that Hanrahan should be allowed to learn the job now while they're supposedly (in theory anyway) trying to build for the future.

What possible good does it do the Pirates to have Dotel at age 36 closing games for them? If it were a veteran closer who'd actually been good at the job, it'd be one thing; but Dotel was always shaky as a closer; he gives up too many homers and if one thing goes wrong, he unravels. What's he going to teach Hanrahan? The Pirates have no chance at competing this year; they're going to lose over 90 games again; why not give the young power arm of Hanrahan a yearlong education in closing rather than sign a pitcher that they're only going to trade at mid-season anyway?

Why I bother asking these questions is a mystery to me. They're the Pirates for a reason----questionable signings, stupid trades and misreading of talent has made them into what they are. Their construction is an end unto itself; and that end is located at 68-94, last place; they reside in the basement and have little chance of upward mobility anytime soon.

• Viewer Mail 1.25.2009:

Joe at Statistician Magician writes RE Jason Bay and the Red Sox:

The Red Sox have showed a willingness to lock up players for more than they are worth (on a few regrettable occasions). Both Varitek and Lowell have been well overpaid the past few seasons.

Sure, the organization is cutthroat. But I wouldn't want it any other way. I don't want them holding onto players simply because they are good guys and have played well in the past. I want production.

If they were concerned at all about Bay's health, then they very well should have tried to cover their asses. Bay was a questionable signing at four years to begin with. If health concerns were a reality, then what is wrong with trying to add in some protection for the club?

It is simple, you value Jason Bay much more than the stat guys do. You see a middle of the order bat who probably is better defensively than given credit for.

We see a terrible UZR, and poor defensive metrics across the board. A guy whose 'WAR' was only 3.5 in a perceived "great" year by the average fan. And we see a player who has skills that will take a hit in the coming years, based on age.

It is simply a difference in philosophy.

My question regarding Bay----which no one appears willing to answer----is if he was so terrible; was such a great physical risk; and a defensive liability, then why did the Red Sox want him back to begin with? Why not cut the tethers, let him leave and go "defense, defense, defense" as they've done since? Why?

The Red Sox can run their team any way they want, but what irks me is this Holier than Thou attitude that comes from their reliance on stat zombie tenets when it conveniences them and ignoring them at other times when they have to, as you put it, "cover their asses". Logically, when they collapsed at the end of the 2006 season, a cold rational person would've realized that the collapse had little to do with hitting coach Ron Jackson, but who got fired?

The "don't blame me" attitude is the epitome of self-protection. As I said yesterday, John Henry loses out on Jose Contreras, Alex Rodriguez and Mark Teixeira, they want a salary cap; Theo Epstein isn't getting the credit he wants, he throws a tantrum and quits; Pedro Martinez and Jason Bay leave because they feel unappreciated, rip them on the way out the door after trying to keep them.

I can tolerate the way stat guys run their clubs----at least they're consistent in what they believe even though they fail miserably. The Red Sox are supposedly teeming with stat guys, but when the stats don't add up into what they expected on the field, they use money to repair the mistakes that have been legion.

I can't take hypocrisy; so what's going to happen this year at mid-season when they're 8 games behind the Yankees, fading and fighting with the Twins and Mariners for the Wild Card? Are they going to panic and trade for Adrian Gonzalez? Or are they going to stick to their floating "plan"? You know the answer to that even if you refuse to admit it.

Jeff (Underboss) at Red State Blue State writes RE Tim Lincecum:

People say the same thing about Roy Oswalt, that he'll break down due to small stature. So far, so good.

Oswalt's frame is sturdier than Lincecum's. If you compare the two, Lincecum is tiny; Oswalt, despite only standing around 5'10" is wider through the torso and in his powerful legs. I never had similar durability concerns about Oswalt that I do Lincecum.

On another note with Jeff, I knew I'd seen the Harold Reynolds/"here's a guy" discussion someplace and Jeff wrote about it here almost a year ago to the day.

Here's a guy----my Underboss----who's ahead of the curve. I pick quality people for my crew.

Jane Heller at Confessions of a She-Fan writes RE Jose Contreras/Patrick Ewing:

Patrick Ewing did sweat a lot. But he was running up and down a basketball court. Contreras sweats standing in one place waiting for the manager to come take him out of the game!

Wait til the Phillies fans get hold of him after gacking up a lead. He'll melt.

Isaac at A Baseball Thing writes RE the Phillies:

In all fairness to Halladay, Amaro hadn't proved his incompetence yet when Halladay was asking for the trade. And at least for this year, the Phillies still have a better chance at the playoffs than the Blue Jays do. The Red Sox might be worse than last year, but they'll still beat toronto, and the Rays are still better than a Halladay-less Blue Jays club. The Phillies got worse, but no one in the division got significantly better.

You can't really compare the Blue Jays----a rebuilding club stuck in the Halladay bear trap sprung by J.P. Ricciardi----and the Phillies----twice running National League champs. The NL East has gone from total panic at the prospect of dealing with Halladay and Lee to looking at the series of ill-thought-out deals the Phillies have made and been emboldened thinking they have a chance.

The Blue Jays are undergoing a positive transformation now that the dark cloud of Ricciardi is gone; it helps that new GM Alex Anthopolous really seems to know what he's doing.

Getting Halladay for the Phillies? Good move. Trading Lee for Halladay? Bad move. And they're going to pay for it figuratively and literally.

Sunday Lightning 1.24.2010

• Does this look familiar?
  

Unlike Buster Olney and his regurgitated/idiotic crap on ESPN, I have great respect for Bill Madden of the NY Daily News; that said, here's a clip from his column posted yesterday about the Phillies off-season:

So the Phillies sign Joe Blanton to a three-year, $24 million contract last week and follow that up by locking up Shane Victorino for the next three years at $22 million. Then, for good measure, they sign Jose Contreras to replace Chan Ho Park as the long man in their bullpen. Indeed, it would seem the Phillies have covered all their bases in their effort to make a third straight trip to the World Series.

But here's what makes no sense: Instead of bumping Blanton from $5.4 million to $8 million, why didn't they just keep Cliff Lee at $8 million and virtually guarantee themselves a long run into October? Isn't that essentially what Mariners GM Jack Zduriencik is doing with Lee now - especially after signing his staff ace Felix Hernandez to that five-year, $78 million extension this past week?

When Zduriencik acquired Lee from the Phillies as the caboose to the three-team mega deal in December that sent Roy Halladay from the Toronto Blue Jays to Philly, he didn't know if he could sign the Cy Young-winning lefty after this season anymore than the Phillies did. What he did know was that Lee and Hernandez would give him the most formidable 1-2 starting pitching punch in the American League.

All the Phillies did was trade one No. 1 pitcher in Lee for another in Halladay. They're no better in their starting rotation than last year when the drop-off after Lee was the difference between them and the Yankees in the World Series.

The Phillies' explanation for trading Lee was weak - they said they needed to replenish their farm system after all the prospects they gave up for Halladay, and that Lee had indicated to them he wanted to test the free-agent market after this season.

Lee denied that and the fact is, even if Lee did bolt after the season, the Phillies would have gotten two high draft picks as compensation. Meanwhile, the Phillies' starting rotation after Halladay is as much a vulnerability as it was in the World Series against the Yankees - especially if Cole Hamels fails to regain his '08 form.

The Phillies' payroll - $149 million committed to just 14 players for 2011 - is going to be the highest in their history, but with pitching being as important as it is, the Mariners, with Lee as their No. 2 starter, look to be a lot better bet to make the World Series.

Now click here and see what I wrote over a month ago. OVER A MONTH AGO when no one anywhere was saying anything of the kind because they were going on and on about the Phillies acquisition of Roy Halladay as if they'd actually improved the club; hypnotized as they were by the glossy name of Halladay and the afterglow of the complicated blockbuster that was completed, no one took the time to examine the deal in depth with a cold, realistic detachment----except me. I wrote it and said it in my Podcast appearance last week.

I'm starting to lose my prodigious temper.

And I'm just getting warmed up.

• And they call the Yankees the Evil Empire?
  

Imagine if you would that you're employed as a computer programmer or a lawyer.

Your contract is due to expire and your company wants to keep you even though you'd be in demand elsewhere if you chose to depart. You want to stay, so you readily enter into negotiations for a new contract. You come to an agreement and part of said agreement is what should be a formality----a physical exam. You feel fine; you're doing your job; it's nothing to worry about.

In said physical exam however, there's a discovery of the beginnings of carpal tunnel syndrome or a slightly bulging disc in your neck that you neither knew about nor are concerned will affect your ability to do your job. You don't think it's a problem.

Your employer, however, feels differently

Your employer wants to reduce the length of the contract and wants you to undergo surgery to correct the medical issue that you didn't realize you had.

Sound ridiculous?

Sound like something out of the Soviet Union, a dictatorship or a sweatshop?

Would it shock you to learn that this was exactly what the Red Sox wanted to do with Jason Bay as a prerequisite to signing off on a contract extension?

Well, it shouldn't.

According to this article by Rob Bradford of WEEI, the Red Sox deal with Bay broke down for exactly this reason----the club wanted to protect itself from an injury that didn't bother Bay; nor did it hinder his play.

Here's the relevant clip:

The team wanted to replace the guaranteed four-year contract offer with a two-year deal — at the same rate of $15 million per season — that included third and fourth years that would be contingent on Bay’s health and productivity. The contract offer also included a requirement that Bay would have to undergo surgery on his knee immediately after the 2009 regular season.

“I was shocked, to say the least, that I was being told to have knee surgery in order to get the contract,” Bay said, “particularly since I wasn’t hurt.”

After digesting the initial shock of that turn of events, Bay and Urbon arranged in late August for an independent orthopedic surgeon to examine the MRIs on both the knees and the shoulder.

"I felt great, so I didn't believe that there was anything wrong,” Bay said. “I felt extremely confident that if I had another doctor look at my films, the diagnosis would be different."

As Bay predicted, the physician came to the conclusion that there was no cause for concern.

Bay and Urbon did not share the results of the second medical opinion with the club until the Red Sox re-opened the negotiations with Bay by making a revised contract proposal in late October.

Although the new proposal still included the medical contingencies in the final two years of the deal, there was one major omission: Bay no longer was required to undergo knee surgery.

“Nothing had changed with me physically since the club’s diagnosis back in July, so I just couldn’t understand what was going on,” Bay said.

This is shedding light on exactly how the Red Sox do business. While Bay wanted to stay with the club, is it any wonder that he's now wearing a Mets uniform? The sheer audacity of trying to force a player who'd performed brilliantly and behaved in an exemplary manner since joining the club is bad enough; but to slam him as he's out the door is a window into exactly how the Red Sox operate. This paranoia and floating self-justifications that permeate the organization in the John Henry/Theo Epstein era are exposing what goes on in Boston as standard operating procedure and has for years.

Does anyone still wonder why Bay left a team he didn't really want to leave? To join the Mets, who are considered to be a club in utter disarray, but don't treat their employees like this? You hear stories like this time and again emanating from Boston. There's always someone to blame except the powers that be.

They tried to go with the ridiculous "closer-by-committee" in 2003 and lost? Blame Grady Little.

They lose out to the Yankees for Jose Contreras and Alex Rodriguez? They call for a salary cap.

Pedro Martinez, Nomar Garciaparra and Bronson Arroyo are dealt away or allowed to leave? Rip them on the way out the door.

The attempts to make complicated three and four team deals to stave off a 2006 collapse are trumped by the Yankees filling every one of their needs in trades? Claim poverty.

An enraged fan base wants satisfaction after that same season? Spend, spend, spend to fill every hole.

The Red Sox are the darlings of baseball for the ruthless way they run their club. They let stars leave when they no longer have use; they're willing to give youngsters a chance to play; and they win.

But there's a limit.

The hypocrisy and brutality with which they run their club should be seen in a new light as the mountain of evidence builds as to how they treat their players when they no longer have a similar use or won't bow to the abusive demands that are the hallmark of an arrogant and oppressive regime.

The Yankees are the Evil Empire? I think not. The Red Sox are worse.

Hiding behind the success that the club has achieved in recent years is an easy veneer of self-protection. What they've done has worked, so that makes it okay. Players join teams for money more than any other reason; a chance to win comes next; but what happens if the Red Sox positive on-field results deserts them as I suspect it will this year? Will a team like the Mets look so terrible in comparison? Will the Yankees still be seen as an Evil Empire?

Bay was ravaged by the team, the fans and the media out the door.

He was welcomed with open arms by the Mets.

In hindsight, don't be surprised to see Bay express relief that he got away from that poisonous and venomous atmosphere. Say whatever you want about the Mets, at least they'll treat him like a human being.

The Red Sox organizational depravity is making them look hideous.

Maybe because they are.

• Here's a guy, there's a guy, everywhere's a guy, guy:

I tried. Give me that much.

I wanted some information about the still-available free agents like Ben Sheets, Jon Garland, etc, so right after Joel Pineiro signed with the Angels, so I tuned into MLB Network's Hot Stove show.

All due respect to Al Leiter (who I met when I was a kid and was the nicest guy in the world, literally); and Jon Heyman who comes out with accurate reports most of the time, but the show is unwatchable. I have no interest whatsoever in hearing player interviews because I couldn't care less what they have to say 99% of the time; the Hot Stove stuff is easily read on MLBTradeRumors or Twitter; and as for Harold Reynolds? Jeez.

Let me put it this way and run the risk of being the target for an inappropriate bout of hugging, touching and grappling, but here's a guy who's a guy that's a guy who should try concentrating on what he's saying rather than uttering the same phrase "here's a guy" to refer to....every....single...player that's discussed.

As much as people goof on Chip Caray for his obsession with the word "fisted", Harold Reynolds is to "here's a guy" what Caray is to "fisted" and I don't want to hear it. "Here's a guy" (Harold Reynolds) who should stop saying "here's a guy". It's called concentration on what one's saying. Try it.

• Still lingering concerns about Tim Lincecum:

When the arbitration numbers were exchanged between Tim Lincecum and the Giants, clips of the diminutive righty were shown the news reports over-and-over again----and I can't shake the thoughts that he's an injury waiting to happen.

He is so, so small.

Even with the back-to-back Cy Young Awards; even with the durability he's shown along with the dominance that have made him arguably the best pitcher in baseball, I can't be alone in thinking (although others are petrified to say it openly) that the same worries that led other teams to shun him in the draft aren't still simmering under the surface for members of the baseball community that his frame is too limited to be able to maintain his power pitching over the long term.

I can't shake the thought that he's going to break down.

I'm well aware of the unique training regimen and the success he's had, but it's always there. That slender body, narrow shoulders, torque and power he generates is not something to be ignored as he's collecting Cy Young Awards and is about to make a wheelbarrow full of money. It's going to be interesting to see if the Giants look to lock Lincecum up long term, because there have to be voices in the organization saying the same thing privately----he's going to break down because he is so, so small.

• Viewer Mail 1.24.2010:

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

Contreras sweats more than any player I've ever seen. He needs someone to mop up after him - literally.

I burst out laughing at this comment. Leave it to Jane...

One thing, are we going just by baseball with this (thankfully) impossible to quantify assessment? You do remember Patrick Ewing, right?

Franklin Rabon AKA Bravesbloggerinlawschool writes:

hey paul,

Just to clear up confusion, the last line "has there ever been a borderline HOF..." was just meant to say "wow what a prospect Andruw was." Not predict HOF success from MiLB numbers.

My point is that today when the term "uberprospect" gets attached to guys with decent speed and 25 HR power, Andruw Jones was a real super prospect. I remember Francouer being referred to as a super prospect. Jeff Francoeur was nowhere in the same ballpark as AJ prospect wise.

My point was that the term "super prospect" or the even worse "uberprospect" gets so overused, that numbers like Andruw's put things in a little perspective as to what a true superprospect is.

also, not sure its clear, but just so I dont get in the quasi-anon smackdowange, this is franklin rabon.

I knew it was you, Franklin. The only thing that annoys me is Anonymous. As long as there's a name attached, it's fine.

With Francoeur, while I'm not going to search in detail, I can guarantee you that the same things that are hindering his rise to fulfill that potential in the majors were present in the minors----specifically swinging at everything within the zipcode of the stadium (and slightly beyond). The Braves didn't address them because he was hitting with power and getting on base at a decent clip for someone who didn't take walks.

Bottom line, they let it go while he was doing well and once he started to struggle, it was too late to do anything about it as everyone was dumping on him and giving him advice----advice that he tried to cut and paste into his game to try everything. The fractured relationship with the club and GM Frank Wren had a lot to do with Francoeur's struggles.

Those things must be handled in the minors if they're going to be handled at all. Also, the personalities of the two players is so different that there's no way to compare them. Jones looked like was asleep half the time from the way he was oblivious to the post-season pressure in 1996 to the relaxed way in which he pursued flyballs in center. Francoeur always looks like he's on the verge of spontaneous combustion because he's such a package of energy. That contributed to his rise and fall with the Braves----he's better off with the Mets and his results will show that in 2010 as they did over the second half of 2009.

A follower on Twitter who took the name of NYGovPaterson (he's not the real Gov. Paterson) writes:

Excellent work! I lived the read and will definitely return for more in the future.

I aim to please, even fake Governors of NY. In many cases (such as the former Governor of Alaska) a fake Governor is a more viablecandidate and public servant than the real one.

Gabriel (Capo) writes RE Roy Halladay:

I feel bad for Roy Halladay. He's not going to win a lot of games because of the bullpen :(

Don't feel bad for Roy Halladay. He wanted out of Toronto; he wanted to go to Philadelphia; he'll get what he gets from that decision. I don't think he realized he was going from one incompetent GM (J.P. Ricciardi) to another (Ruben Amaro Jr.) He'll learn. The hard way.

Jeff (Underboss) at Red State Blue State writes RE Gov. Patterson:

Gov. Patterson's eyesight must've improved. He's commenting on your site!

Perhaps he's also available for the Phillies bullpen... I mean, his eyesight can't be any worse than Contreras', right?

If not his eyesight, at least his taste has improved. Even if someone has to read it to him, that's at least two new readers for the Boss.

I didn't know a lack of vision contributed to Contreras's lack of directional skills with his pitches; even if he can see perfectly well, after a few outings the Phillies fans will wish they were the ones with the vision problems. Or they'll shut their eyes. Or simply get up and leave.

The Mets Misread Their Fans Again And Again

• The Mets image issues add to the feeling of disarray:

There's a problematic disconnect between the Mets and their fans that needs to be addressed if the club is ever going to shed this label of repeatedly missing the mark on what they're trying to do. Concerned as they were to the public reaction to Bengie Molina's rejection of their offer exemplifies a need to be more in tune with fan response and maintaining a necessary detachment from what's popular as opposed to what's right for the team on and off the field.

When the news started to break that Molina had chosen to return to the Giants for less money than what the Mets offered, the team wasn't as saddened by Molina's decision as it was frightened at the fan reaction...

...to Bengie Molina...

...choosing to go back to the Giants.

This wasn't as if the Mets had lost on on a Mike Piazza-style catcher who they desperately needed; it was Bengie Molina.

Molina, still a good receiver who can throw and hit the occasional homer, wasn't going to be the difference between the Mets contending or not this year. He would've been a nice pickup on a short-term, inexpensive deal to fill a hole, handle the pitching staff and mentor the club's young catchers. But his decision to go back to San Francisco was no calamity for the Mets.

Molina was not the referendum on the club's off-season that some thought it would be. The stat guys said that the Mets dodged a huge bullet with Molina deciding to go back to the Giants; the rank and file Mets fans reacted with a shrug, more offended that Molina didn't want to play for the Mets than they were at upset at losing him as a player.

Still, the club was petrified without basis.

There was a similar misreading of the fans yesterday when the Mets acquired outfielder Gary Matthews Jr from the Angels for righty reliever Brian Stokes. Just like the game of telephone that sprouted when Carlos Beltran's injury and surgery became known, the club let it leak out that they were working on a deal and the announcement would come shortly. Fans unaccustomed to the way things evolve in Met-land (or simply hoping for something different this time) speculated what that meant.

Ben Sheets? Bronson Arroyo? Carlos Delgado? Nobody knew.

Then it came out that it was...Gary Matthews Jr.

I think my reaction summed it up perfectly with the following on Twitter:

THAT'S the deal they're making? RT @SI_JonHeyman #mets are acquiring gary matthews jr. from angels, according to an AL source.

It was the cryptic and strategic filtering of the information that the Mets "had something cooking" that raised expectations as to what they were doing and led to the head shakes and anger in the fan base along with more ridicule from those that lie in wait for anything and everything the Mets do to provide ammunition for their comedy. (Some are funnier and from more charming individuals than others; but still, eventually it gets to a point where you don't want to hear it anymore and this is adding to the Mets paranoia.)

After the news came out that it was Matthews Jr, the thought was that it was Luis Castillo going to the Angels, clearing the way for the Mets to sign Orlando Hudson. Instead, it was Stokes going to the Angels and Matthews and over $20 million coming back to the Mets. After the wearing off of the shock and annoyance of this move not just being made, but of the Mets trying to use it as some sort of ripple by letting the information come out slowly, it was easier to examine it with some clarity.

Gary Matthews Jr is a no-lose proposition for the Mets.

First, the odds are that Angel Pagan is going to be playing center field everyday in Beltran's absence; but Matthews provides competent defensive insurance in case Pagan falls flat on his face or gets hurt.

Second, they're not paying Matthews Jr anything (the Angels are picking up almost the entire contract) in the worst case scenario, if Matthews doesn't hit or can't provide anything of use, the Mets can simply release him when Beltran gets back.

Third, all due respect to Brian Stokes, he's not a pitcher who's going to be missed on the field all that terribly. Stokes's 98 mph fastball was pin straight; he gives up a lot of homers; and despite that velocity, he doesn't strike out hitters. He gets rocked by lefties, so he's one-dimensional; and the Mets had acquired him from the Rays in 2007 by purchasing him. Stokes is from Southern California, so the move is a positive for him on a personal level. He's the epitome of the pitcher who needs another pitch----a sink on his fastball; a change-of-speed forkball; something----to become more than what he is; and what he is is a journeyman reliever who's easily replaceable.

There's this feeling throughout baseball that the Mets have a million voices whispering in the ear of a rich kid boss in Jeff Wilpon and he's treating the club as his plaything and making capricious and uneducated decisions on what to do. People don't realize that Jeff Wilpon actually played baseball professionally out of college; and it wasn't a Marc Sullivan-type situation in which he was a pro almost exclusively because his father owned a club that drafted him; in 1983, Wilpon was drafted in the fourth round by the Expos. (There's talk that the drafting was done as a favor to Fred Wilpon, which makes little sense; why waste a 4th round pick as a favor to an owner for another team?) He's just as qualified to make assessments on players as a chunk of people in prominent scouting positions today; but the label the club has acquired as completely discombobulated incites the chain reaction that greets the club no matter what they do even before any evenhanded analysis has taken place.

It's the air of disarray and of trying to please everyone that's caused a multitude of the Mets problems. They're too nice. They want to be fan-friendly and all things to all people and are taken advantage of because of this fact. If the Mets dispatched this fear of the public and trusted their evaluators on an even-keeled and brutally honest basis, they have no reason to apologize or explain away the decisions they make. Just do what's right and let everything else fall in place.

If you trust your people, there shouldn't be an issue. That's what the Mets, as an organization, must learn and adhere to in running the club.

There's something from yesterday that's being missed here. Amid all the hilarity that ensued regarding Gary Matthews Jr, no one seemed to take the continued missteps of the Phillies as a reason to unload on the National League champs; and their latest move is a thousand times worse than anything the Mets have done this winter; the Phillies have truly lost their minds if they intend to get big outs and innings from...

• ...Jose Contreras?

Are they serious?

Not only have the Phillies signed Jose Contreras, but they're expecting him to contribute in the role inhabited by Chan Ho Park last year.

Uh. Yah.

Jose Contreras.

Jose Contreras, who cannot handle any pressure at all.

Jose Contreras, who the Yankees dumped for Esteban Loaiza----Esteban Loaiza!----because Contreras couldn't function in New York and manager Joe Torre couldn't trust him.

Jose Contreras who needed the White Sox to acquire Orlando Hernandez almost exclusively to babysit him.

Jose Contreras, who since 2006----when some imbeciles anointed him as the "best pitcher in baseball" after a hot streak for a championship team----has been atrocious as he's been rocked repeatedly.

Jose Contreras who always looks on the verge of a nervous breakdown if the umpire misses one call; if a fielder behind him makes an error; if he gives up two bloop singles in a row.

That Jose Contreras.

They're taking a mentally weak and emotionally fragile pitcher, inserting him into games with big outs necessary and expecting him to deliver.

They're doing this in a bandbox called Citizens Bank Park.

They're doing this while sticking him in the middle of the zoo to deal with the most abusive fans in the world----the charming fans in Philadelphia no less!

I have no idea whether Phillies GM Ruben Amaro Jr. looks into the mentality of his prospective free agents before signing them, but if he did, there's no chance he'd have signed Contreras, who's going to be an absolute disaster in Philly. In fact, it's becoming clearer and clearer that Amaro doesn't know what he's doing.

How anyone can look at the decisions the Phillies have made this winter and suggest that they've done anything but facilitate a downslide that's going to result into a reversion to what they were before everyone fell in love with them; a skid that will render meaningless the "gutty and courageous" Phillies and turn them back into the misshapen and self-destructive crew that never, ever showed any fortitude to win when it counted.

It's easy to forget now, but it won't be that easy once it's happening; once people see the unraveling on the horizon. They're going to crash even if the arrogance of the club and the fans refuse to see it.

One thing I'd suggest to the Phillies is to hire a qualified psychologist and put him in the bullpen to counsel the likes of Contreras, Brad Lidge and Ryan Madson; it won't help, but at least they'll have tried to avert the coming catastrophe that they themselves have created.

• Viewer Mail 1.23.2010:

Jane Heller at Confessions of a She-Fan writes RE Gary Matthews Jr and the Royals:

Congrats on Gary Matthews Jr. I guess he'll be a nice bat for the Mets, although he didn't get much playing time with the Angels, did he? And you forgot the biggest deal of all for the Royals: Wilson Betemit! LOL.

I'm getting annoyed at the overreaction (specifically of those idiots on ESPN) to the trade for Matthews Jr. It's a nothing deal. Whatever he gives the Mets----if anything----is gravy.

Ah, Dayton Moore; what would we do without you? On the bright side, Wilson Betemit fits in perfectly with what the Royals are trying to do, whatever that is.

Bravesbloggerinlawschool writes:

So you've correctly went on a few times about how teams value questionable prospects perhaps too much these days to their detriment. Also, how the "super-prospect label" gets applied to far too many players in the minors.

So when I read these minor league stats and scouting reports I thought "now that is a real prospect"

First full season in the minors, 18 years old, single A: .277, .372 OBP, .512 SLUG, 41 doubles, 5 triples, 25 homers, 104 runs, 100 RBI, and 56 SB. Also, a scout was quoted about his defense "best defensive player in MiLB, regardless of position. Could be best defensive OF in MLB, right now. Best CF arm in minors, best OF range in minors, best CF instincts in minors, dives for ball better than any player I've seen at any level ever. Has bigger impact on game from a defensive standpoint that any player I've ever scouted.

Then the next year, 19 YO, 2nd full season in minors: began that season in Class A, where he had 17 homers, 16 stolen bases and a 1.024 OPS in 86 games.

After being promoted to Double-A that summer, he played even better, hitting .369 with 12 homers, 37 RBI and 12 steals in 38 games, with a 1.107 OPS.

And after being promoted to Triple-A five weeks later, hit .378 with five homers, 12 RBI and a 1.213 OPS in 12 games. (ie not only did he tear it up, he improved in a single year every time he went up a level in the minors).

Player? Andruw Jones

Has there ever been a borderline HOF player who possibly didn't live up to his potential?

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here.

Even though the stat zombies have tried to boil down scouting from "subjectivity" to "objectivity" and have in fact done worse in finding players than the old-school scouting clubs have, there's never been, nor will there ever be an infallible way of determining what a player can or will become. Considering what Andruw Jones became (through some possible *outside help*), his tools in the minors had to have been so blatant that anyone who had an idea of what they were talking about would've known what he had the potential of becoming.

The only way to determine a player is in retrospect. Did anyone look at the 5'11", 150 lb Greg Maddux and think that he'd develop into one of the best pitchers ever? Highly unlikely.

I can look at a guy and see superstar potential; label him an "untouchable" in trade talks and be wrong. The Hall of Fame is such a pipe dream for 99.99% of professional players, who can say whether one who has the tools will fulfill that "possible Hall of Fame" label. Albert Pujols was a 13th round draft pick; obviously a lot of people missed him and Pujols is the Joe DiMaggio of this generation.

On the same token, with the Mets for example, when I watched Fernando Martinez----a "five-tool prospect"----I felt that he's not someone I'd refuse to part with in the right deal. He may blossom into an All Star; he may not; but that's where the scouting comes in. It's no exact science.

If you're looking for a player who had borderline Hall of Fame talent and didn't reach that level, I have two words: David Wells.

If David Wells had kept in shape; not lived as hard as he did; not been such a pain to every organization he'd pitched for, he could very well have been one of the best left-handers ever to pitch. A rubber arm; a smooth, clean, deceptive motion; and fantastic control of all his pitches made Wells a mega-star in waiting, but it never came through as it should've. Of course there were moments like the perfect game in 1998 and the post-season performances; but with Wells there was always a "just missed" footnote to his career.

He still won 239 games, but he was never, ever what he should've been based on talent-level. It's doubtful that Wells would ever change anything in his life or career, but he could've been so much more. To me, Wells is the epitome of a Hall of Fame talent who didn't reach his ceiling even with a great career filled with memorable moments.

Ah, The Pirates; Ugh, The Royals

• Ah, the Pirates:

The Pirates are in a league of their own when it comes to cluelessness.

What other explanation can you formulate for a team that needed offense desperately and decided that Akinori Iwamura and Ryan Church were the answers to this problem? For a team that needed a veteran starting pitcher to mentor the youngsters and have yet to get one in a favorable market? For a team that had a decent bullpen last year and chose to spend their limited resources to overpay for a journeyman (Brendan Donnelly) and a veteran who struggles when he closes (Octavio Dotel)?

Why?

Never mind the fact that they intend to give Dotel a chance to close when they already have a closer with All Star stuff in Joel Hanrahan; never mind that they non-tendered their erstwhile closer, Matt Capps; nor that they felt that Iwamura and Church were upgrades for a lineup that was last in the Majors in scoring----ignore all of that. All you have to do is take a look at what the successful teams who have limited resources do to fill the holes the Pirates think they "filled" and you'll see how backwards things are in Pittsburgh.

The Marlins and Rockies never spend lavishly on the bullpen, yet are consistently finding fill-ins to get the job done cheaply and effectively. Is this an accident? Spending a lot of money on middle relievers and mediocre-to-bad closers never works; it's always a mistake. Even teams with money like the Yankees are shying away from bringing in the Mike Gonzalez-type of pitcher who absolutely would've been a perfect fit for them.

So why are the Pirates so insistent of signing Donnelly, who has use for a contender, but not for the Pirates and not for a guaranteed $1.5 million? And Dotel for $3.5 million when they already have someone who can close (Hanrahan) and cut loose another pitcher who could close (Capps)?

Oh, and I have news for the Pirates----Hanrahan is better than Dotel!!! For what reason do the Pirates, with no chance whatsoever at contention, need to use Octavio Dotel to close when they must have a look at their in-house options like Hanrahan?

Any team spending on the bullpen needs to spend on the closer; get a good set-up man; and bring in fill-ins who have shown a propensity for getting outs once through the lineup or have one pitch that can dominate for a short burst. Spending as they have on Donnelly and Dotel; trading for Iwamura and signing Church aren't moves designed to improve the club on the field; they're moves to have trading chips at mid-season as the club stays on the road they've been on for the last seventeen years, that being the road to nowhere.

That's why they're the Pirates.

• Ugh, the Royals:

Rick Ankiel?

The Royals didn't learn their lesson in one-dimensional players who do little other than hit the occasional homer after they traded the golden arm of Leo Nunez for Mike Jacobs (and subsequently non-tendered Jacobs after his horrific 2009) and decided to bring in someone worse than Jacobs in Rick Ankiel for $3.25 million. For what?

The Royals starting pitching has great potential; they needed bullpen help and a bat. They've gotten no bullpen help; for bats and they've brought in Ankiel and Scott Podsednik. For what?

There's no explanation for this other than shopping just to shop; other than seeing something what's been sitting on the shelf for so long----and that no one in whom any team with half-a-brain had interest in----and grabbing it just because it was there; and they paid said item well with over $3 million! If they were getting Ankiel for $800,000, why not? Take a risk on him; but for $3.25 million?

Ugh.

• Doing the "right" thing isn't always doing the "smart" thing:

Let's see if I understand this correctly.

The Phillies couldn't afford to keep Cliff Lee, but they're going to pay Joe Blanton and Jamie Moyer nearly $15 million for 2010? And they've locked up Blanton through 2012 at $8 million per?

I have no problem with Joe Blanton; but he's a mid-to-back-of-the-rotation innings eater. He throws strikes; he guts his way through; but his stuff is average. He's okay; no more, no less; and when he's not on his game, he gets blasted. Is Moyer even going to be able to pitch this year? Or is that going to be another sunk cost like the Adam Eaton disaster from a couple of years ago?

The Phillies also signed a contract extension with Shane Victorino for a 3-year extension at $22 million. This is the latest in a winter of bizarre and ill-thought-out decisions by the Phillies.

Placido Polanco? $18 million guaranteed.

Jimmy Rollins? Declining and had his contract option for 2011 exercised out of fear of his mouth more than anything else----$8.5 million for 2011.

Danys Baez? Guaranteed $5.25 million through 2011.

Just add all these dollars up and you start to wonder why they were so insistent that they didn't have the money to sign Lee and trade for Roy Halladay.

There's showing guts and doing something outside the box; and there's doing weird and safe things to keep intact a club that has holes. Phillies young GM Ruben Amaro Jr is looking increasingly overmatched and afraid to do what's right over what looks good and is more easily explainable. From the end of the season onward, he's made one questionable move----financially and practically----after another.

And the Phillies are going to pay for them-----financially and practically.

Watch.

• I said this stuff already, Part II:

In case you missed it yesterday, Buster Olney was a month behind me in putting into writing my confusion at the Phillies decision----The Phillies Sign Their Own Death Warrant----to trade Lee for Halladay; and if you'd like to hear my "sexy raspy voice" (not my words) expressing said bewilderment, check out my Podcast appearance on SportsFanBuzz last week and I said the same thing.

• Viewer Mail 1.22.2010:

Jeff (Underboss) at Red State Blue State writes RE the Phillies and Joel Pineiro:

No doubt on the Phillies' death warrant! Last night on the MLB Network, Heyman, Verducci and Rosenthal got into a discussion about this... so I wouldn't be surprised if Olney was rippin' from those guys! Ha! What a doof...

I have to disagree on Pineiro though. In my opinion, the man IS a Dave Duncan reclamation product and that's just based on what I've seen plus his stat lines. Before last year, you have to go to the 2001-2003 stretch with the Mariners to find comparable, good seasons.

I could care less how Lackey does in Boston, but I would be very surprised if he didn't have a better year than Pineiro.

What good is an opinion if it's expressed a month after the fact? They're just lazy or idiotic at ESPN and I've had enough of it. Consensus out of convenience is for the weak.

With Pineiro, there was a foundation of a good pitcher prior to his involvement with Duncan; Duncan refined Pineiro into what he was last year and, in opposition to the likes of Jeff Suppan and Kent Bottenfield----who weren't any good before or after Duncan----I think Pineiro will be able to transfer that success to the Angels. He'll at least repeat the majority of his numbers from last year and I think more.

Jane Heller at Confessions of a She-Fan writes RE Jerry Hairston Jr:

Jerry Hairston Jr. had his big moment in the sun when he lucked out and won a WS with the Yankees. He can dine out on that for years, but to comment publicly on any team's plans is a little much.

I doubt we'll be hearing too much out of Jerry Jr in the coming months. I can't imagine he didn't hear about that from Brian Cashman and others he saw fit to discuss out of school.

Gabriel (Capo) writes RE the Mets:

I wanted to tell you that the Mets should pursue Barajas. He handles pitchers very well (excellent years for Tallet and Romero) and he can hit.

I think Lackey will be hit hard during the first months in Boston. I don't think the Sox's defense is up to par with Angels'.

The problem with Barajas is that he'll cost a first round pick. I don't think he's worth that.

I like Lackey, but Pineiro will be a fine replacement for him; and that "off" feeling I'm getting with the Red Sox extends to the Lackey signing.

Kyle Johnson writes RE the Angels:

Paul,
With the addition of Joel Pineiro the Angels now have five quality No. 2 & 3 pitchers, but no dominate ace in the staff. Could this lack of a "go to guy" become a problem durring the final push for a play off spot or in the play offs themselves. Where do you think the Angels starting rotation ranks amongst the other top organizations?

The Angels have never had that dominator at the top of their rotation and have functioned fine. Their playoff failures have had more to do with bullpen meltdowns and lack of execution than anything else. They've always been a "sum-of-parts" team than rather than one that was top-heavy with stars.

I'd prefer to have the Angels rotation of Jered Weaver, Joe Saunders, Ervin Santana, Scott Kazmir, Pineiro than what the Diamondbacks have (for example) with Brandon Webb and Dan Haren or the Mariners with Felix Hernandez and Cliff Lee----and questions following them. I'd definitely feel more comfortable with what the Angels have than what the Red Sox are planning with a back-rotation including Daisuke Matsuzaka and Tim Wakefield.

The one team whose rotation appears stronger----apart from the Yankees----is the White Sox. Jake Peavy followed by Gavin Floyd, John Danks, Mark Buehrle is tough to beat in-season and in a short series.

Those that are counting out the Angels due to the flashy moves of the Mariners and the rise of the Rangers are doing so at their own risk and ignoring what it is the Angels have built. Their template and consistency should be respected by now, yet in some circles it isn't----to the peril of those that choose to ignore it based on numbers.

Jerry Hairston Jr Should Stop Talking Now

• No one wants to hear from journeyman utility players:

Even before it was revealed by Jerry Hairston Jr that Brian Cashman and the Yankees are waiting for Johnny Damon's price to come down so they can re-sign him at a reasonable price, I was questioning the propriety of Hairston being an employed player for a team and sitting in the studio of ESPN's Baseball Tonight analyzing and questioning the machinations of other organizations. Then when it broke----via Jim Bowden's radio show----that Hairston had opened him mouth again about internal discussions that should've been kept private, it became even more incestuous for a player----and not all that good a player----to be talking so much.

Jerry Hairston Jr, with a career batting average of .259; OBP of .328; and unimpressive numbers across the board, is the epitome of a player you can find cheaply on a Triple A roster; and he's certainly in no position to be so loquacious that he's providing a running commentary of the Yankees front office plans; nor should he be expressing his wonderment at what other teams are doing. To compound matters, he had the audacity to preface his comments (about the Mets for example) with the "covering one's bases" caveat that (I'm paraphrasing from memory) "the Mets might want to sign me next year".

Uh. No thanks.

It's not unheard of for current players to be in booths, studios or on-set to discuss the current state of the game. Some are honest, self-effacing and provide great inside information about how things are run. In the late-70s/early 80s when ABC carried baseball, Reggie Jackson and Jim Palmer both entered the booths to broadcast during post-seasons.

That's the key.

They were Reggie Jackson and Jim Palmer. Reggie, being Reggie, said what he wanted because he was Reggie; Palmer was handsome and well-spoken and was a great, great pitcher. They could get away with saying things that could be construed as somewhat out-of-bounds for the brotherhood of players and the business dealings of teams. Jerry Hairston Jr is not is such a position. Jerry Hairston Jr is lucky to have a big league job.

For Hairston to reveal such a sentiment (that Cashman denied) is out-of-line and self-destructive because if I was a team that considered signing Hairston next year, I'd take a look at the whole package and wonder if his penchant for yapping was worth what he does on the field. Telling tales out of school----tales that may not even be accurate----and discussing competing organizations in a questioning tone as if he's some grizzled front office vet is not the way to win friends throughout baseball.

Hairston should look into the mirror; and more importantly, should look at his career numbers. Then maybe he wouldn't be such a fountain of inside information that would best be kept to himself if he wants to have employment as a player; and trust me when I tell you, I think it's a little more lucrative and enjoyable to be a big league player (even for the Padres) than it is to be sitting at a table next to Karl Ravech.

• Angels sign Joel Pineiro:

Joel Pineiro agreed to a 2-year, $16 million contract with the Los Angeles Angels in what is likely to be the bargain of the off-season. All the talk of Pineiro being a product of the Cardinals' Dave Duncan/Tony La Russa and their reclamation machine is ridiculous. You read it here first: Pineiro will have a better year in Anaheim than former Angels ace John Lackey will have in Boston. The Angels solid defense and well-run organization will allow Pineiro to continue the excellent work he did in St. Louis.

This is a great move for the Angels to do as they always do----shore up the pitching staff and worry about the lineup later, and they did it cheaply.

The Pineiro signing leaves other interested teams like the Mets and Dodgers scrambling. The perceived disarray with the Mets and Dodgers is scary to an in-demand player like Pineiro; and if similar deals are on the table, it's not surprising that Pineiro chose the stability of the Angels. The sniping against teams with front office turbulence and on-field questions is unfair. It only takes a few months of good play (and money) to lead a player to ignore possible disarray to sign with any team. It wasn't long ago that no one wanted to play with the Phillies because of their repeated late season stumbles; and in 1990, did anyone want to play for the Yankees of Dave LaPoint and Andy Hawkins?

The Mets have a few choices: via free agency, they can roll the dice on Ben Sheets; or they can go after an innings-eater like Jon Garland. They could also try and swing a trade for Bronson Arroyo. There's talk that they're very seriously interested in John Smoltz, but Smoltz alone isn't the answer even though he can still pitch. Would the Mets be willing to forgo the fear of Sheets's injury rap sheet and pay him enough money to entice him to come? If Sheets is healthy, a front two of Johan Santana and Sheets is a lethal combination; but that's the question with him: is he going to stay healthy?

The Mets have to do something drastic. They got Jason Bay at their price and it would behoove them to shut their eyes and sign Sheets, hoping that the prospect of another crack at free agency in 2011 at age 33 will spur him to stay on the mound.

At this point, I'd hold my breath and sign Sheets and Smoltz and hope to hit a home run; or at least a ground rule double.

• Uh, I think I said this first:

This is great.

This is funny.

This is gonna make me cranky.

Over a month after the fact, here come the bandwagon jumpers who are looking at the stupid move the Phillies made in trading Cliff Lee essentially for Roy Halladay and wondering whether it would've been a better idea to get Halladay to combine with Lee.

Here's a clip from Buster Olney's posting today regarding Lee:

For about the same as it will cost them to have a rotation led by Halladay, Cole Hamels and Blanton, they could have had an extraordinary front three of Halladay, Lee and Hamels.

This could've easily happened. The Phillies were concerned during the Halladay negotiations that the swap of Kyle Drabek and two others would be a body blow to their farm system. So in order to blunt the impact of trading Drabek, they rapidly arranged a deal of Lee to the Mariners, getting back reliever Phillippe Aumont and others. This came together so quickly that at the time of the blockbuster trade, executives from many other teams say they hadn't even known that Lee was available.

The Phillies' choice, at its heart, came down to this: They preferred to add Aumont, a very talented and unproven reliever, over having an overpowering rotation of Halladay, Lee and Hamels for 2010.

Another way to look at it: In July, near the trade deadline, if the Phillies were in contention, would they give up a young reliever like Aumont for a No. 1-type, Cy Young-caliber starter like Lee, would they do it? Undoubtedly.

Uh. Yah.

Someone unloaded on the Phillies when they did this; when they made the stupidly capricious decision to trade Lee for Halladay.

Let's see who it was.

I wonder.

Oh.

Yeah.

It was ME!!!!!

Here it is. It's a posting entitled The Phillies Sign Their Own Death Warrant. I think you'll see some familiar sentiments that are going to grow as the season moves along and the reality of what the Phillies did hits home and is an utter failure now and in the future.

My posting was more eloquent, organized and better executed; but what's the difference? ESPN is the "Worldwide Leaders in Sports" and I'm a loose cannon. But my regulars already knew that; and they know whom to trust.

Nice work, ESPN. You keep hiring these guys who either mail it in and/or don't know what they're talking about and the results speak for themselves in both cases. Great job.

The Reality Of Bengie Molina

• Divergent reactions to the Mets "loss" of Bengie Molina:

In general, the Mets have become fodder for ridicule regardless of what they do even if it's not their fault. From the Carlos Beltran-surgery controversy to everything that's gone on in the past three years, they've become a convenient punchline on the receiving end of cheap shots by those who haven't the imagination nor the capacity to come up with something accurate or clever.

Strangely, such has not been the case with the drawn out negotiations/waiting game the club played with Bengie Molina which resulted in Molina spurning the Mets hard-line offer of one-year plus an option to return to the Giants on a one-year contract. Reaction has run from the usual laughter at the perceived shambolic nature of the Mets to the sentiment that the Mets were lucky that Molina chose the Giants instead----with very little in-between.

In truth, Molina appears to be one of those players who's always flirted around the Mets, but wound up elsewhere for one reason or another. It happened after 2005 when the Mets put identical offers on the table for Molina and Ramon Hernandez----both rejected----and instead of negotiating, turned around and traded for Paul LoDuca. Molina was forced to take a 1-year deal with the Blue Jays.

It happened again this winter as Molina seemed to be such a perfect fit for a team that needed a veteran catcher who could handle the pitching staff and would hit enough so as not to be a total liability; but Molina wanted three guaranteed years from the Mets.

That wasn't happening.

Then he wanted two years.

No dice.

Their offer was one year and an option. That's it.

Even with the Mets offer at $5 million guaranteed for 2010, Molina chose to return to his comfort zone of San Francisco for less money, in a slightly easier division and a more stable situation than to join the Mets. And it's fine.

It became increasingly clear from the 2005 contract talks and what went on this winter that Molina was looking to the Mets for a big payday; and the Mets, to their credit (and whether anyone wants to admit it or not) set a price they felt was fair for Molina, didn't panic and stuck to it even if it meant losing out on a player they wanted. Overpaying for players who weren't totally invested in being a member of the Mets is exactly what's gotten them in trouble in the past and it's a positive sign that they refused to cave into Molina's demands.

The truth about Molina is that he's not as bad as everyone is saying. He can still handle a pitching staff (back-to-back Cy Young Awards for Tim Lincecum is a pretty good addition to one's resume); he has some pop in his bat; he can still throw; and he's a well-liked guy. He's slow; but he was always slow. He's fat; but he was always fat. Is he a player upon whom the Mets should be lamenting that they "lost"? No.

As I said months ago, if Molina wasn't invested personally in being a Met; if he wanted to join the club to get paid; if he was always keeping an eye on the circumstances in San Francisco to return, then let him go back there and move on. It's not like the Mets just lost Mike Piazza's bat or Yadier Molina's defense. For a team that's been savaged for overpaying for aging veterans, ripping on the Mets for not doling a 2-3 year contract on a player who'll be 36 in July is second guessing for the sake of it with no basis in reality.

So, what's next for the Mets?

They're said to be pondering spending the money they had earmarked for Molina on extra pitching, which is a great idea; but going with some combination of Omir Santos, Henry Blanco and Chris Coste behind the plate is risky. I've been pushing for them to make a move on Pirates catcher Ryan Doumit for months, but it's never even been mentioned as a possibility anywhere that I've seen; but no one had discussed LoDuca at all before the Mets swung that deal in 2005, so who knows what they're thinking?

The easier thing to do would be to sign Yorvit Torrealba or Rod Barajas. Barajas has more power and is a better thrower; but Torrealba handles his pitching staffs very well and is well-liked. A big plus is that Torrealba kills the Phillies and has had numerous big hits in the playoffs. I'd feel comfortable going with a combination of Torrealba/Blanco/Coste if I were the Mets as long as they get another bat. A lack of power is repeatedly mentioned with the types of names still available for the Mets, but that works both ways; if they didn't have any power before, said lack of power won't be affected negatively by Citi Field.

One bat I'd look at as a complement to Daniel Murphy is Xavier Nady.

Pitching and a defensive specialist behind the plate is what the Mets should focus on.

Speaking of which, they're supposedly very interested in John Smoltz. Smoltz can still pitch and if he's coming out of the bullpen, that could be a big win; on the same token, the importing of a veteran Brave in Tom Glavine produced middling results; but I have great respect for Smoltz----a proven winner and post-season money pitcher. I'd do it.

• The one interesting arbitration hearing:

Unless the financial award precipitates a player being put on the trade market, I have almost no interest whatsoever in the arbitration process; but there's always one or two offers/submissions that pique my interest. Last year, it was Ryan Howard; this year, it's Tim Lincecum.

Lincecum, the twice running NL Cy Young Award winner and arguably the best pitcher in baseball, asked for $13 million; the Giants countered with $8 million. One would think that there's room to come to an agreement in there at around $10.5 million and the chance at a long-term contract extension; but if Lincecum has his heart set on $13 million and the Giants want to wait and see about his durability into his mid-20s, this could go to the table.

Speculating on an arbitration hearing is a waste of time because no one can know where they're going to go, but if I had to bet, I'd say that the Giants would win a hearing. Jumping from $600,000 to $13 million----even for a two-time Cy Young winner----is a gigantic leap that's hard to believe will happen. We'll see.

• Viewer Mail 1.20.2010:

John Seal writes RE Bengie Molina:

Prince, with Bengie Molina re-signing with the Giants, it looks like your 74% accuracy rate has taken a hit. Frankly, I think the Metropolitans dodged a bullet: Bengie is just about ready to join AARP and he couldn't beat Dave Parker in a foot race. Which, of course, makes him a mouth-watering proposition for Brian Sabean.

I'd kinda hedged on Molina. When I did my Giants hot stove preview, I mentioned that there was the chance he'd return if they didn't think Buster Posey was ready, which they evidently don't. I'd give Molina more of a break than others have. As I said before, he still calls a good game and Lincecum and Matt Cain are comfortable with him. The Giants will be more than the sum of their parts this year.

One funny thing I heard was "Barry Zito credited Molina...." Credited him for what?

Jeff (Underboss) at Red State Blue State writes RE the Red Sox:

Ah, yes, the Red Sox whine-fest continues. I'm pretty numb to it all now, though I have to say I thought it would all end in 2004.

I was wrong.

And I have a feeling it'll be a looooooong time before the old schoolers let Bonds/Clemens in.

It's one thing to let Bay leave, but why slime him after he's gone? I don't get it.

With the Hall of Fame, I really don't know what's going to happen with Bonds/Clemens. The sentiment is hard to grasp; possibly because not even a huge chunk of voters know what they'll do. Both are Hall of Famers. Keeping them out would be wrong.

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

Jason Bay is a jewel thief. LOL! I guess Nomar, Pedro and Damon are too. They all got dissed after leaving Boston.

That stuff can't be lost on the other players. And I'm wondering if his shoulders, knees and horrendous defense inhibit his take when he goes on a heist.

Joe at Statistician Magician writes:

The Red Sox aren't exactly working on a budget this season. They will invest about $160 million into the payroll. And they have spent about $33 million on Lackey, Cameron, and Beltre this off-season. A lot of money comes off after the season though in Ortiz, Lowell, and Lugo.

The budget stuff was sarcastic to a point; but I love how they cry about financial constraints with that amount of money invested; and Joe, do you think it's right that they're planting all this stuff in anticipatory self-defense of the decision to let Bay leave and go with the idea of defense over offense?

Taking the high road and saying, "we made a decision and that's it." isn't a bad thing. Why keep coming out with this stuff? Why?

Gabriel (capo) writes RE the Pirates:

Let's form a group to manage the Pirates: Joe in charge of the stats, Jeff and I in charge of scouting, Jane as the PR consultant and Paul as the GM. Maybe we could get them in contention in 6 years.

I might murder Joe (or at least hit him over the head with a paperweight) if I had to deal with him and his stats on a daily basis, but I'm willing to give it a shot. The Pirates could use my kind of jolt.