To Three Or Not To Three

• Jose Reyes batting third is a great idea:

Mets manager Jerry Manuel played with the idea of batting Jose Reyes third last spring, but resistance to the idea from the player and the fact that the Mets lineup didn't need the change at the start of the season put the kibosh on the plan. Now, with Carlos Beltran out and the lineup more in flux, the idea is being revived.

It's a great idea.

The club's best overall hitter should always hit third. That doesn't necessarily mean the hitter who hits the most homers; has he highest average or on base percentage; but the hitter who can do the most "stuff". For the Mets, right now without Beltran, that's Jose Reyes.

While Reyes doesn't have more than 15 homer power (if that at spacious Citi Field), he's still got gap strength and will rack up the extra base hits. Because of his early season injury, we never got the chance to see what was going to happen when Reyes ripped a shot into the right field corner at Citi and watch him run around the bases as the ball bounced around like it was in a pinball machine.

Reyes can do it all at the plate and in the field. If there are runners on base in front of him, he can drive them in; if he gets on base by himself, he can steal bases; and he can hit the ball out of the park. Instead of having him as the leadoff hitter with the big bats behind him, he can be one of the big bats in the middle of the lineup and has the potential to drive in 100 runs.

As camp broke last season, the Mets situation was vastly different than it is now. With Daniel Murphy the leading candidate to replace Carlos Delgado at first base; Beltran out until May at the earliest; and not much expected from catcher and second base offensively, the Mets have to maximize what they have. Batting Reyes third does that.

This is similar to that of the 1985 Cardinals when they inserted Tommy Herr----not exactly a power hitter; nor the best hitter in the Cardinals lineup----into the third slot as an accident of circumstance more than a conscious plan on the part of manager Whitey Herzog. Herr wound up driving in 110 runs because Vince Coleman and Willie McGee were always on base in front of him wreaking havoc; he also scored 97 runs because Jack Clark was batting fourth to drive him in.

Citi Field is similar to the old Busch Stadium in the vast expanse of the outfield. That Cardinals team rode three starting pitchers, a deep bullpen and a load of guys who could run to leading the league in runs scored and went to the World Series. If you look at the way the Mets are configured, they have more power than that Cardinals team and a few options if they choose to bat Reyes third.

They can bat Luis Castillo leadoff because he gets on base; Angel Pagan second; Reyes third; and David Wright fourth.

They can bat Pagan leadoff and try something creative like sticking Jeff Francoeur second despite his low on base percentage and double play possibility in the hopes that he'll see some fastballs; this would free them to bat Castillo eighth where his on base skills and lack of pop would be mitigated because if he's on base, the pitcher can bunt him over as the lineup turns.

Reyes's value is diminished as a leadoff hitter because he's rarely in a position to use his extra base pop to drive in runs and that the hitters behind him aren't as threatening as they were in 2006-2008. Since he can do so many things and the Mets have Wright and Jason Bay to hit behind him, he'll score as many or more runs as he did when the Mets lineup was packed with power 2-3 years ago. When Beltran gets back, they can either slide Beltran into the 2 or 4 hole and move everyone around.

It's the smart move. In fact, it might win Jose Reyes the MVP.

• Jingling the keys:

Last week, I wrote of the various "keys" to the season for each team. For the Cardinals, I wrote that Matt Holliday was the most important factor because of the importance of protecting Albert Pujols in their lineup and the relative weakness surrounding him at third base and possibly center field. The more I looked at the Cardinals though, I realized that Holliday isn't the key to the Cardinals season. The key to the Cardinals success or failure is Chris Carpenter.

Carpenter's health is paramount. We saw the dichotomy of Carpenter last year. After being injured with arm problems for all but five games in 2007-2008, he got hurt again in early 2009 missing almost the first two months of the season with an oblique strain. At age 34 and with that list of maladies to every part of his body, who could've expected him to return and be as brilliant as he was in his Cy Young Award winning heyday with the Cardinals?

But he was.

Carpenter went 17-4 with a sterling 2.24 ERA and was dominant from the time he got back in late May through the end of the season and finished second in the NL Cy Young Award voting. No player has the "what if?" label attached to him like Carpenter.

His history has been simple: brilliant when able to pitch; will he be able to pitch?

Who knows?

If the Cardinals have a healthy Carpenter, their rotation is fine. If they don't, they have Adam Wainwright, Brad Penny and three question marks and will be putting the pot of gold on Tony La Russa, Dave Duncan and a bad division.

They need Carpenter to produce more than Holliday; if he doesn't, they fall right back into the pack of the weak NL Central. Carpenter is the key to the whole season and if anyone says they know what to expect from him one way or the other, I can tell you now----they don't. Not even the Cardinals or Carpenter know. They just have to hope.

Stories Where There Are No Stories

• Mark McGwire and Tiger Woods:

With Tiger Woods's probably carefully scripted and tightly controlled press conference scheduled to begin less than an hour from when I write these words, I got to thinking about the traveling media circus that has been stalking Mark McGwire; waiting for Tiger Woods; looking for something to write about in the otherwise slow month of February. One thing I can't figure out from the media hordes and the fans who religiously and obsessively wait for any snippet of information on these matters is what they want. What will satisfy them so they move on?

Will it be enough if Woods/McGwire/Steve Phillips/whoever collapses into the fetal position, breaks down in sobs and is dragged away to a hospital for observation? If they lash out at others blaming someone aside from the person in the mirror for whatever they've done that was perceived as wrong? They did it; it happened; so what?

Regarding Woods, as I write these words at 10:15 AM, EST, does anyone really believe that he's going to give them what they really want and a detailed account of what he was doing with these women? No one's going to care about the prepared statement and apology that's more likely due to having gotten caught than any actual contrition; he'll come off as somewhat embarrassed and as arrogant as usual. Aside from the tabloid reaction of, "do you believe this?", who cares?

Truth be told, is this anyone's business aside from him being Tiger Woods? The moralists are looking at Woods and his behavior with an attitude of "for shame", but how is it affecting their lives one way or the other if he was stepping out (and stepping out; and stepping out; and stepping out, out, out) with sexual romps that would've made Bob Crane blush.

Was Woods walking around telling people that they should live their lives like solid family men? Going to church every Sunday while living an entirely different life away from the course? Was he coming up with lines similar to the movie Bob Roberts with "Be good in school and don't do crack. It's a ghetto drug,"?

No.

He's a golfer. He's a great golfer. He's a cash cow. People put up with his self-entitlement because he's a great golfer and brought in money----and for no other reasons. If a parent is pointing to someone like Tiger Woods as a role model even before this scandal came public, they've got far more issues than anything I could possibly list here.

As for the much ridiculed interviews that supposedly show hypocrisy in which he said his wife was his "support system" and his family was the "most important thing in his life", has anyone ever thought that it might be true? That his wife is likely one of the few people in the world who won't put up with his "I'm Tiger Woods" crap? That she's the one who looks at him like he's from outer space when he starts in with his Godlike, self-important nonsense because he's good at hitting a golf ball?

No one cares about Tiger Woods and his sex therapy; no one cares about his press conference; and no one will care if he goes back on the course and gets back to his greatness. They're looking for a story because it's got everything in a nice neat package: hypocrisy; a fall from grace; a wild and still untold story of how this all came out; admission into treatment and the pending statement.

With McGwire, anyone who didn't realize he was doing steroids ten years ago and beyond is too stupid to be able to understand what he's going to say going forward anyway.

He's sorry for what he did? Well, he wasn't sorry when he was hitting all those homers; receiving the money for said homers; and the accolades for being a quiet slugger who led on and off the field and triumphed through injury adversity and hard work.

Is McGwire truly sorry? I think he's more embarrassed than sorry. He's admitted his steroid use; he's tap-dancing with words and still looking for excuses such as "I was coming back from injuries", and it's uninteresting. What is it that people want? Do they want more? Do they want him to freak out? Do they want him to say something other than what he's already said?

He's a hitting coach. He won't be meeting with the media and his contribution is negligible to a big league player except for perception. Is he going to say something to Albert Pujols to make him better? Please.

Yet he's the subject of fascination. People want more now because there's very little to write about in baseball aside from Johnny Damon and Scott Boras and Rod Barajas.

Rod Barajas.

Rod Barajas!

Rod....

Barajas!!!!

There won't be a smoking gun. Move on.

• Dodgers sign Eric Gagne to a minor league contract:

Snickers abound regarding Eric Gagne's attempted comeback and I'm not sure why. Is he ever going to regain his high-90s fastball, changeup and unhittability that he showed in 2002-2004? Of course not.

He was part of a Dodgers club in 2004 that was well on their way to a World Seires before Paul DePodesta swung his stat-induced wrecking ball. Gagne wants to come back. Why not give him a chance? It's not going to cost anything and he might be of some use. Much like the Royals attempt to move Kyle Farnsworth into the starting rotation, one of two things will happen----it'll work, or it won't work. Give it a shot.

Every year we see clubs that spend a ton of money on their bullpen with established, successful names and have it blow up in their faces. It's becoming clearer and clearer that the way to build a bullpen is to have a reliable closer; a decent set-up man and have a load of bulk surrounding them, preferably by failed starting pitchers and released arms that still have something to offer, maybe.

Does Gagne have anything left? Who knows? But why not have a look? Just to see?

People are too busy laughing to try and answer the question, but they wouldn't have an answer anyway. Because there isn't one.

• Prevention and Recovery?

SNY's Kevin Burkhardt tweeted the following yesterday while at Mets camp:

One Met person here has a jacket with a patch that says "prevention and recovery". I wish I was kidding. #2010Metslogan

And:

@lenno212 you know I was only kidding before about it being their slogan. I didn't know it actually IS!

On one hand, the Mets bring the laughter on themselves with this stuff. On the other, is it inaccurate? Isn't "prevention and recovery" a proper follow up from a disaster? Even if the disaster is a matter of fault combined with a matter of circumstance?

After 2009, it kinda fits!

• Viewer Mail 2.19.2010:

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

Supposedly Damon's wife prefers Detroit. Better shopping, which I find hard to believe. Chicago has great stores!

Is this guy capable of doing anything by himself? Thinking anything by himself? I understand that many ballplayers aren't enamored of keeping track of every small aspect of their lives and finances and whatever and need the help, but he doesn't appear to have the functionality of deciding on his own what he wants to do. It's bordering on ridiculous.

Jeff (Street Boss) at Red State Blue State writes RE Phil Coke:

I'm so with you on the Phil Coke thing. I saw that too and thought, who the hell gives a shit what Phil Coke thinks/wants/does? Please. That ain't news.

Personally, I would love to see Damon as my neighbor here on the Southside. As a White Sox apologist, I already look forward to seeing the 2010 squad in person. Damon would just make it a bit sweeter.

Unless they're offering double the money, if he goes to the Tigers, we'll know who's running things in Damon's spacious head.

Ah, Phil Coke.

Has anyone noticed that the Yankees have purged the clubhouse of two evident busybodies in Jerry Hairston Jr and Coke? Who's going to be the town cryer? That question should be nearly as important as whether Phil Hughes and Joba Chamberlain are in the starting rotation/bullpen.

The Brooklyn Trolley Blogger writes:

I think you hit it when you said Dombrowski wouldn't want Damon at that price. He's too smart to throw money like that at Damon.
Chicago is a very nice fit, as you say and with which I agree. Ozzie has his lead-off hitter now with J.Pierre, who will surprise, and Damon would fit nicely behind him.
Peavy and the Go-Go Sox are lookin pretty good.

Dave Dombrowski's been an up-and-down GM for me. He's made some good moves and he's made some remarkably stupid moves (Jair Jurrjens for Edgar Renteria pops into my mind immediately), and had success with the Expos, Marlins and Tigers. The Tigers can certainly use Damon, but I don't see why they'd offer him two years.

He's a perfect fit for the White Sox. Damon's decision, as evidenced by the three bits of Viewer Mail I printed today, will open a window into what he's thinking and who's running things for Johnny Damon.

Damon A Better Fit For The White Sox

• Can he sign somewhere so we can stop talking about him?

One some level, it's positive that Johnny Damon is still prancing free in the woods like a feral boy raised and nurtured by wolves. (Insert Scott Boras Joke Here.) But when getting past Boras's negotiating skills regarding Damon----skills that look strangely similar to those of George Costanza----the two remaining choices for Damon make the decision easy if the money is similar.

Who knows whether the reports of a Tigers offer of $14 million for two years are accurate? It could be that owner Mike Ilich authorized it, but GM Dave Dombrowski doesn't want to go that high for Damon when there's no reason to do so; one would think Damon would've signed already if he truly wanted to go to the Tigers; he's certainly not going to get more money elsewhere. The White Sox are in on Damon as well.

After getting past the embarrassment of a botched negotiation, felt more by the agent than the player, which venue would be a better fit for Damon? Would it be the young and retooling Tigers? Or the title contending----believe it!!!----White Sox?

Both need Damon, but for different reasons.

The Tigers are carrying two black spots in their lineup to start with in Adam Everett and Gerald Laird; they have the fading Magglio Ordonez; a rookie second baseman in Scott Sizemore; a rookie center fielder in Austin Jackson; and are currently listing Ryan Raburn as their left fielder. They need a bat like Damon desperately. But truthfully, how much would he help them on the field?

The Tigers are stuck in the purgatory of not being so terrible that they might as well clear the decks; being logistically unable to clear the decks because of hideous contracts; and not being good enough to really be aggressive and try to win. Their manager, Jim Leyland, is 65-years-old and doesn't need the stress of a poor offense and rookies galore to make his agita worse. Damon would at least make their offense more viable.

But is he a need for the Tigers?

No.

They're not going to contend either way, so they don't need Johnny Damon. As for Damon, does he want to go to a situation like Detroit where he's going to be playing meaningless games in September (or August; or July) and function as an elder statesman teaching the youngsters how to play and behave? I'm sure Damon wouldn't mind leading in such a way, but why when he's got another option in the White Sox?

The White Sox pitching is deep and among baseball's best top-to-bottom; their offense is good enough for them to contend, but they're banking on a return to health of Carlos Quentin; a solid second season from Gordon Beckham; and are functioning with a rotating DH that includes the no-hit Mark Kotsay and rookie Tyler Flowers (who's going to be very good). Damon would be a perfect fit as the DH. Perfect. He'd hit; his defense wouldn't be an issue; and the team has a legit shot at a World Series. If Damon thinks for himself and ignores his agent for once, it's a no-brainer (Insert Damon Joke Here.)

While Damon has those options and the money from the Tigers will probably be greater, his best choice is the White Sox.

Now that I've written this, watch the announcement come immediately that Damon has agreed to terms with the Tigers. On the one hand, I hate being wrong; on the other, at least we wouldn't have to hear about it anymore if that event did come to pass.

• Just one more note regarding Damon in a roundabout way:

The following was on MLBTradeRumors.com:

Phil Coke tells MLB.com's Jason Beck that he wants the Tigers to sign Johnny Damon.

The link to the Beck posting is above.

But here's my question: Uh. Yeah? So?

All of a sudden Phil Coke is the go-to-guy for opinions on personnel and what makes a championship team? Are things that slow on the newsfront? Is there nothing else?

Phil Coke?

Seriously?

Can we get spring training started in earnest already so the digging for things to write about doesn't have to include "Organizational Plotting With Phil Coke"?

• Viewer Mail 2.18.2010:

The BrooklynTrolleyBlogger writes RE the Phillies:

(Phils) - They'll go as far as Cole Hamels and Rollins takes them. I believe that. But then again they shouldn't get too taxed by the rest of the division.

When I think of players who didn't know when to hang them up I think Mickey Mantle. He held on just long enough to ruin his lifetime .300 avg.

You're right about the importance of Hamels and Jimmy Rollins. Their bullpen is key as well. You're wrong about the NL East. The Marlins are always tough and with their young pitching and bats are very dangerous in the division; the Braves pitching is good; and the Mets returning to health sends them right back into contention. The Phillies dragged themselves back down to the pack with their idiocy; Rollins is looking increasingly shot; and Hamels had better get off to a good start or the lingering questions of his whiny statements during the World Series of wanting the season to end will grow louder and louder.

It's easy to tell a player when he should hang it up, but if he still wants to try and play, it's no one's right to dissuade him if that's what he really wants to do. Of course, from a distance and in a cold-blooded, nothing personal, strictly business fashion, it's an analyst/agent of chaos's job to tell a Mark Mulder or even a Mickey Mantle that it's enough. That said, players have every right to try even if they're going to be embarrassing themselves or evolving into something that's little more than a hanger-on.

The Plummet Of Mark Mulder

• What happened to this guy?

With rumors going back-and-forth that he was retiring, then "clarified" to say that he'd halted his throwing program and was weighing his options----Sporting News Story----Mark Mulder's career is at a crossroads. Unsure of whether or not to try and continue at a diminished capacity from the 20-win, Cy Young Award contender or hang it up, it can't be an easy decision for someone who was as good as Mulder once was to either accept his limitations and move forward trying to pitch as something wholly other; or take his career for what it was and retire before diminishing it by clinging to memories that are no longer possible.

Does he want to alter everything to "kinda sorta" be effective again?

Does he want to push forward doing the things he used to do and hope everything falls into place?

Does he want to run the risk of going back out and embarrassing himself because he physically can't perform anymore?

For a proud athlete who has Mulder's resume, there comes a point where he has to look into the mirror and ask whether or not it's worth it to possibly make it back as someone's fifth starter/long reliever/Triple A insurance or if he should move forward with his life. What makes it worse is that Mulder is at an age (32) where he'd still have at least 3-4 more good years of productivity at his early career levels, and then probably another 2-3 years of being useful had his body not broken down as it did.

Of the three young Athletics starters of the early part of the decade (Mulder, Tim Hudson and Barry Zito), Mulder was the pitcher who looked as if he was built to last. Bigger and stronger than Hudson; a cleaner, smoother and more repeatable motion than Zito, Mulder made it look easy. He was efficient; he threw strikes; and his motion was a thing of beauty----effortless, clean and simple.

In his first five full seasons, Mulder won: 21, 19, 15, 17 and 15 games while pitching over 200 innings in four of those seasons. He wasn't abused; he didn't overstress himself on the mound; there was no reason to think that he'd break down. But by the third full season in 2003, there were warnings as he began having trouble with his hip, a death blow to a pitcher.

By 2004. the signs were too glaring to miss even as he was still able to rack up wins and build up a gaudy record of 15-3 by August 3rd. Mulder was getting pounded far too much for a pitcher of his formerly lofty status. His fastball was short; his mechanics were off and it was clear that he was in decline. His Gamelogs from 2004 show that alarming drop like spilled ink forming a red flag.

He wasn't the same. Mulder had always been hittable----it wasn't as if he was Pedro Martinez, circa 1999 where if he was on his game, you might as well just go up to the plate without a bat---but he was never hittable to the extent he was showing by late 2004. Sometimes that issue is simply mechanical; sometimes not.

Famously, Orel Hershiser got rocked by the Giants in late August of 1988 when a mechanical flaw was spotted in which he was stepping too far toward first base as he landed, causing his arm to lag behind his body and flatten his pitches. Once that was corrected, he pitched as well as anyone ever has or ever will, with six straight shutouts to end the regular season and a classic performance in the playoffs and World Series, singlehandedly destroying both the Mets and the Athletics.

Fixing Mulder's mechanics wasn't going to alleviate the physical fall.

Billy Beane, clearing salary and retooling, traded Mulder to the Cardinals after the 2004 season in a deal that brought Dan Haren to Oakland. Mulder pitched well for a title-contending Cardinals team in 2005, winning 16 games, but he wasn't the pitcher he'd been early in his career. Had he been playing for a bad team, the issues would've been more obvious.

Instead, the Tony La Russa/Dave Duncan magic of maximizing their players and putting them in the best possible circumstances to succeed covered for Mulder as he went 16-8 with numerous brilliant games; but there were still the games in which a pitcher of Mulder's caliber got bashed. It was as if his physical issues were chronic and his results depended upon whether he felt good or not and was able to do what he wanted to do on the field.

An athlete knowing what he wants to do but being physically unable to do it generally doesn't happen until very late in their careers; but Mulder was faltering. By 2006, possibly due to the over-taxation on his arm by the lower body and back problems, Mulder's shoulder gave out. For a pitcher as smooth and free as Mulder was to injure his shoulder was a clear indication that it was the rest of his body that was the problem.

He pitched horribly from then on and the final insult was in 2008 when he started a game against the Phillies and his shoulder was such a mess that he was throwing sidearm and managed 5 strikes in 16 pitches. What La Russa was thinking in leaving him out there even that long was beyond me; even the Phillies (not exactly the kindliest bunch) appeared to be peering at the Cardinals bench with a sympathetic countenance that said, "get this guy off the field, he's hurt!!!"

Now, faced with another comeback and doubts, he's vacillating on what to do. He still wants to play, but can't do what he once did not because of age; not because of desire; but because he's physically unable. The line between moving forward at a diminished capacity, but still having value to someone and not wanting to sully what was an impressive career is hard to distinguish.

There's nothing wrong with becoming something else and being able to help, but if the cost is too great, perhaps it's time to accept that and move forward in a different phase of life, as hard as that is. The hitters have told Mulder that it may be time to give up; and what's more, his body is screaming it. Hanging on now will prolong the inevitable. It's sad, but it's the truth.

• This could be BIG trouble for the Braves:

Jair Jurrjens hasn't gotten enough attention considering how good he is. Had he had better run support last season and a superior bullpen, he would've won 20 games easily. If he's healthy, he's a Cy Young Award contender. But considering this news, the Braves could have a big problem.

Jurrjens is having an MRI on his aching shoulder. Despite the Braves uttering all the calming phrases----"precautionary"; "no structural damage"----there have to be waves of terror flowing through the entire Braves organization.

After trading Javier Vazquez and relying on Kenshin Kawakami as their fifth starter, they must have Jurrjens healthy if they want to make up for their lack of offense with superlative starting pitching.

Maybe I'm paranoid after seeing what happened to the Mets in 2009 with the "day-to-day" status and inconclusive medical diagnosis, but the mere fact that the Braves are sending Jurrjens to be checked would lead me to panic, specifically with the small margin for error the Braves will have in being a team barely above .500 and winning 92 games.

Bottom line, if they lose Jurrjens for an extended period of time, they're screwed.

• Mmmmmm.....Kooool-Aid:

Line up Philadelphians, and drink your Philippe Aumont Kool-Aid.

Are they going to continue to justify this forever?

We couldn't afford Cliff Lee....blah, blah, blah.

We wanted to replenish the system....blah, blah, blah.

We love the young players we received....blah, blah, blah.

In reading this NY Times column, I still get the feeling that the Phillies front office is desperately trying to convince themselves that they did the right thing in dealing Cliff Lee for prospects and replacing him with Roy Halladay----and they're having trouble believing it.

Never mind the front office though; think about this. Do you really believe that the Phillies manager Charlie Manuel (age 66); and the core of the team (Ryan Howard-30; Chase Utley-31; Jimmy Rollins-31; Roy Halladay-33) care a whit about some Double-A closer, Phillippe Aumont, and how the front office loves him and his stuff?

A Double-A closer?

The veteran players and the manager wanted to keep Lee. Bank on it.

Let's be enthusiastic and say Aumont's in the majors by late 2010 and is very good in the Phillies bullpen; will it still have been worth it? The only way that this deal will make sense in retrospect is if the Phillies manage to win the pennant again in 2010; or if Aumont turns into Mariano Rivera. Aside from that, do you think the Phillies veteran players wanted this 21-year-old kid as a "future star" instead of throwing Cliff Lee and Roy Halladay to the mound two of every five days?

With the Phillies insisting that they did the right thing for the organization, the fan base is skittish about losing Lee; and the media is jumping on the bandwagon----my bandwagon----in savaging the short-sighted stupidity of the move. There's a lot of pressure on Aumont; and a lot of pressure on GM Ruben Amaro, Jr.

We'll see how long the manager and players are in lockstep on the decision if they stumble this season. My guess is it won't be long.

Keys To 2010----National League

Yesterday, I examined the American League; now it's time for the senior circuit. The following player performances will determine team fate. Let's take a look.

• Philadelphia Phillies----Cole Hamels:

After the insipid and absurd decision to trade Cliff Lee for Roy Halladay, the Phillies failed to address any of the glaring needs that were glossed by a second straight pennant. They needed bullpen help and didn't get it; they've made ridiculous gaffes with contract extensions; and the back of their rotation is shaky at best. All of this can be covered if Hamels performs anywhere close to the way Lee would've had he stayed.

Which Hamels will show up this spring?

Will it be the gutty and fearless lefty who won both the NLCS and World Series MVPs in 2008 post-season? Or will it be the mentally fried and whiny baby who angered his teammates by saying he couldn't wait for the season to be over----mid-World Series----when there was a very real possibility that he'd be handed the ball in game 7? He didn't pitch very well during the 2009 season either. If Hamels doesn't pitch well, the Phillies are in a lot of trouble.

• Florida Marlins----Andrew Miller:

Miller has reminded some of a young Randy Johnson. I wouldn't go quite that far, but the comparison isn't unreasonable. Miller isn't the strikeout artist Johnson was; he's not as intimidating; but his motion is similar and he has the stuff to be a top starter in baseball. He's about to turn 25 and if he's able to stake his claim in the big leagues behind Josh Johnson and Ricky Nolasco in the Marlins rotation, they'll have a chance to dominate.

Randy Johnson didn't find his way in the big leagues until he was in his mid-20s either. It takes time for a lefty with that kind of gangly motion to bridle his stuff. If and when Miller puts it together, watch out.

• Atlanta Braves----Chipper Jones:

With their failed efforts to boost their offense to support a strong pitching staff (Troy Glaus? Melky Cabrera?) the Braves need Chipper Jones to be somewhere close to what he was in 2008 when he had a .364 batting average, and ridiculous .470 on base percentage as one of the biggest threats in baseball.

Jones showed his age in 2009 in losing a step----that 99% of the other big league players never had----as he fell to .264; his on base to .388. Jones is injury-prone and at age 38, the Braves are asking a lot for him to still carry the team. You can never count out a player who's known greatness----he can recapture that at any moment----but if Jones is what he was last year or (disaster warning) gets hurt, the Braves are going to have trouble scoring enough runs to be as good as they could've been.

• New York Mets----John Maine:

You'll hear names like Jose Reyes, David Wright or Jason Bay as the keys to the Mets; others will point to Johan Santana or even Mike Pelfrey and Oliver Perez; but the real key to the Mets season is John Maine.

It's reasonable to expect a return-to-normalcy production from the Mets bats; Santana will rebound to be one of the best pitchers in baseball; the bullpen will be okay; Pelfrey will improve simply by the presence of Reyes behind him defensively; and Perez could hardly be worse than he was last year.

No.

Maine is the key.

With dominant stuff, a deceptive motion and fearlessness on the mound, Maine has to stay healthy and give the Mets 190 innings and 15 wins. If he does that behind Santana, the Mets are contenders; if not, they're an also-ran.

• Washington Nationals----Stephen Strasburg:

The Nationals have spent a lot of money on bargain basement junk/replaceable parts to make it look like they're trying to drastically improve from last season's 100-loss monstrosity; but the key to their season and off-season renovation is the righty with the 102-mph fastball, Strasburg.

The Nats are intent on giving Strasburg every chance to make the club out of spring training; the pressure on the club and the pitcher will be intense to start him in the big leagues. Personally, I would not under any circumstances start him in the big leagues. He'd start at Double A and I'd say that he's not coming to the big leagues until September, period; and only then if he shows he's completely ready. (I'd reserve the right to change my mind and only share that information with a few key people.)

That said, the Nationals might find themselves hanging within the vicinity of the Wild Card race if everything goes right for them and be a 1998 Chicago Cubs-type of club (interestingly managed by the same man, Jim Riggleman) that gets lit on fire by the emergence of the young fastballer. I wouldn't risk it, but with the moves the Nats have made this winter, they're having delusions of grandeur and I don't put it past them.

• St. Louis Cardinals----Matt Holliday:

Holliday was great after coming over in the mid-season trade with the Athletics and he'll provide much-needed protection to Albert Pujols that was non-existent for much of 2009. Holliday has to have an MVP-quality year for the Cardinals to be title contenders. If he slumps under the pressure as he did in Oakland, the Cardinals will still be good, but they'll have to rely on the wizardly managing of Tony La Russa more than they thought they would after spending all that money to keep Holliday.

• Chicago Cubs----Carlos Zambrano:

Which Zambrano is going to show up? The unhittable righty who gobbles innings and battles his way through? Or the lazy and tempestuous flake who looks like he'd rather inhale the lunchtime buffet at Pizza Hut and take a nice, long nap?

At times, manager Lou Piniella looks as if he'd like to strangle Zambrano----with good reason. If Zambrano fulfills his potential (and he's about to turn 29; it's enough already with the "potential" crap) the Cubs are contenders. If not, they're going to stumble to mediocrity.

• Milwaukee Brewers----Yovani Gallardo:

Gallardo has 18-22 win, Cy Young Award stuff. At age 24, he has to step up and become the full-time horse for the Brewers. This is a club that has to get off to a fast start or manager Ken Macha is going to get fired. (He might get fired anyway and, truth be told, they'll be better off with Willie Randolph managing the team.) Gallardo is the key as the front man of a mediocre starting rotation.

• Cincinnati Reds----Jay Bruce:

Bruce slumped in 2009 after a hot start in 2008 and if the Reds are to continue to trend upward as they did late last season (take with a grain of salt, please), they need Bruce to hit. If he doesn't hit, they have one of the worst outfields in baseball and their offense is sorely lacking in firepower.

• Houston Astros----Roy Oswalt:

The best thing for the Astros to do would be to hope Oswalt is healthy and pitching well, and hold him up for ransom at mid-season to the highest bidder. He's guaranteed $33 million through 2011 and the Astros farm system is weak. They've discussed Oswalt in the past (he wants out), but have pulled back each time a deal was pending. He'd facilitate a rapid rebuild if the Astros got the bounty he'd be worth on the market.

• Pittsburgh Pirates----Andrew McCutchen:

McCutchen is going to be a MEGA-star. There's nothing he won't be able to do and has the potential to be one of the best players in baseball----better than Carl Crawford. It's hard to see the Pirates screwing him up as long as they write his name in the lineup and leave him alone, but these are the Pirates we're talking about and there's a history there that's hard to deny; a history of being dunderheads.

• Los Angeles Dodgers----Clayton Kershaw:

Kershaw's either going to bust out and become a dominating, Tim Lincecum-style ace at the top of the Dodgers rotation or he's going to struggle with his control and command. He has the stuff to blow people away and he'll probably still be on an innings-limit, but the Dodgers rotation is short and if they're going to make the playoffs again, they must have Kershaw step and be the ace of the staff, even at age 23. He could strike out close to 300 batters one day.

• Colorado Rockies----Jeff Francis:

If anyone thinks that Jorge De La Rosa is going to win 16 games again, I have a Luis Castillo for you----take him (please!). The Rockies got lucky with De La Rosa stepping into the injured shoes of former ace Jeff Francis last year; but now Francis is back and the Rockies need him to be at least as good as he was in 2006-2007 when he won 30 games and was their ace.

• San Francisco Giants----Pablo Sandoval:

The Giants made some ancillary, "sum of the parts" pickups in Mark DeRosa and Aubrey Huff; and they brought back Bengie Molina; but they need Sandoval to continue his development into a power-hitting, clutch, on-base threat. Their pitching is good from top-to-bottom; scoring is their issue and Sandoval has to produce.

• San Diego Padres----Adrian Gonzalez:

The fastest way for the Padres to rebuild as quickly as possible is to deal their remaining asset in Gonzalez. There will be teams lining up to get their hands on Gonzalez at mid-season and we'll see how quickly the Red Sox tune changes as their vaunted shift from power to pitching and defense fails miserably and leaves them on the cusp of missing the playoffs. New GM Jed Hoyer's tenure will be largely determined by what he does with Gonzalez.

• Arizona Diamondbacks----Brandon Webb:

Returning from shoulder surgery, Webb's health is the key. Combining with Dan Haren and Edwin Jackson, the Webb from 2005-2008 when he was one of the top three pitchers in the National League will vault the Diamondbacks into the thick of the NL West race and the Wild Card; if not, they've got a problem. A big one.

Keys To 2010----American League

I got to thinking about the narrow view taken by both stat zombies and the dogmatic old-school types who don't take numbers into account at all. The zombies don't listen because they're so immersed in the inhuman aspects of numbers crunching that they can't comprehend that they're dealing with human beings; the crusty old-school types who don't ever want to see a statistic because they're too lazy to try and understand them or don't have the mental capacity to get them to start with.

Both camps move the goalposts when it's convenient for them to bolster their arguments.

If one chooses to focus on small ancillary aspects of a larger issue when justifying their beliefs and don't listen to anything that doesn't come with a numerical value attached to it, what can you say to them? If they refuse to accept anyone else's viewpoint and choose to run away or make hit-and-run comments without confrontation, it's a waste of energy to pay them any mind. This goes for both divergent camps.

The fault in the pure computer projections comes from the complete absence of accounting for variables like injuries, managerial stupidity or the career year from a player who'd never before and will never again reach such heights. If you examine the 2010 predicted standings from entities such as PECOTA, after you take note that----judging from the alterations that keep happening on a daily basis (there's a great pre-season pennant race going on)----you'll also note that it's little more than an assessment of a team's roster and their prior production all added together to come to bottom-line calculations for runs scored and runs allowed. Then they get a prediction.

This is not analysis.

Even those systems that use history, comparable players and calculate variables don't take into account any subjective analysis which does have value. Such subjective analysis could only be deduced by someone who's played the game and understands how hard it is; has taken the time to watch a game; can examine a player and have the ability to judge that the way he moves, hits, throws or something that gives reason to think he's going to be more than the sum of his statistical parts.

It's a telling statement when the exalted Billy Beane (whose kingdom is crumbling around him) says such nonsense as (I'm paraphrasing) that he'd "be a better GM if he never watched a game". Given the number of stupid things he's done in recent years, he may be right because he couldn't have done much worse if he'd holed himself up in a basement surrounded by machines (and I'm not talking about Paul DePodesta); and Beane was a player!! You'd think he'd know better.

So what is it that tips a season one way or the other?

Is it the off-season building of a club into an on-paper powerhouse?

Is it finding players whom other clubs don't appreciate or add the fractional skill that makes the difference between 83 wins and also-ran status or 90 wins and a Wild Card berth?

Is it the acquisition of players from whom you know exactly what you're getting to come as close as possible to fulfilling calculations?

Or is it that one small tweak that makes the difference? A difference that no one saw coming and neither scouting nor statistical formulas could've expected?

Is it blind luck?

It happens all the time. One player alters the course of a season for a team. The Cubs of 1998 were lit up by the fireballing emergence of Kerry Wood and made it all the way to the playoffs when not much was expected from them before the season started. They'd lost 94 games the previous year. Wood created a buzz; the team's confidence on the whole rose as they started to think they had something special happening and they made the playoffs.

Another example was the 1985 Cardinals. Having slumped in 1983-1984 after winning the World Series in 1982, they were a team in transition without a closer and still clinging to the foundation from that championship club...until Vince Coleman was recalled for what was supposed to be a brief big league stay in the absence of regular left fielder Lonnie Smith. Coleman stole every base in sight; sent the opposition into disarray every time he got on base; and a Cardinals team that was questionable as to whether they were going to have the run scoring ability to keep up with the Mets, suddenly had Willie McGee as an MVP; and Tommy Herr----Tommy Herr----driving in 110 runs. All of this was because of Coleman and how he arrived and lit a fire every time he set foot on the field.

These things happen sometimes and they can't be quantified by statistics except in retrospect; and that retrospect isn't done to analyze, explain or understand, it's done to self-justify an argument that was pockmarked to begin with.

With all that in mind, let's take a look at the key players to the 2010 season for the American League. (I'll work on the NL tomorrow.)

The phrase "key player" is relative. For some teams, the goal is World Series or bust; for others, they need these players to either develop or provide leadership and contribute to what they're trying to build.

• New York Yankees----A.J. Burnett:

Of course a team like the Yankees would be able to withstand an injury/poor year from Burnett, but the Yankees are a "World Seres or bust" club and if they lose Burnett, that would move everyone behind ace C.C. Sabathia up a notch on the depth chart; and that would mean more expectations for Javier Vazquez, and we've seen what happens to Vazquez in pressure situations or when the spotlight is shining on him directly, and it ain't good.

After a career filled with injuries to just about every part of his arm, Burnett has had two straight fully healthy seasons. If he's hurt, the Yankees are going to have major concerns heading into the playoffs. He has to stay healthy.

• Boston Red Sox----David Ortiz:

A productive Ortiz will make the difference between the "pitching and defense" Red Sox from having to (again) abandon a stat zombie-oriented plan of focusing on market inefficiencies or move forward with what they're currently doing.

If Ortiz is hitting and producing from the DH spot, the Red Sox offense will be strong enough for their pitching and defense plan to work. If not, they're going to have to make a big trade for a bat (Adrian Gonzalez?) at mid-season to save themselves. It's interesting how the plan of pitching and defense will come down to the aging and declining DH, but that's where the Red Sox have stationed themselves.

• Tampa Bay Rays----James Shields:

The Rays are going to score; their bullpen is serviceable; but they must have the "Big Game" James Shields from 2008 and not the up-and-down pitcher he was in 2009. Shields's ERA jumped by a half run and he got rocked far too many times for a pitcher of his ability. With the absence of Scott Kazmir, Shields is the veteran in the Rays rotation from whom the rest of the staff is going to feed. He has to pitch well for the Rays to contend.

• Toronto Blue Jays----Brandon Morrow:

The Blue Jays are retooling; they've made some very good moves this winter in doing the best they could cleaning up from the wreckage left behind by former GM J.P. Ricciardi; and while the Roy Halladay trade was the most high profile deal, the acquisition of Brandon Morrow could lead the Blue Jays back into contention if they straighten out the damaged (mentally more than anything) former first round pick; and they got him for Brandon League and a low-level minor leaguer which wasn't much at all.

• Baltimore Orioles----Kevin Millwood:

The veteran Millwood will be the anchor to the Orioles young starting rotation and if he teaches them how to pitch and handle adversity just as Millwood learned from his time with the Braves and Tom Glavine/Greg Maddux/John Smoltz, the Orioles could advance faster than anyone imagined. There's a load of young pitching talent that needs to be nurtured and taught how to win. Millwood can show them the way.

• Minnesota Twins----Joe Mauer:

For all their flashy acquisitions on the cheap, the Twins are Mauer's team. He's the best hitter in baseball this side of Albert Pujols; and he's a Gold Glove catcher. Without him, the entire lineup comes apart and with their average starting pitching, they need Mauer at the plate and behind it to guide them through.

• Detroit Tigers----Austin Jackson:

The trade of Curtis Granderson will only make sense if the designated replacement, Austin Jackson, fulfills his potential. Jackson will receive every chance to play this year and the Tigers need him to perform. That's a lot of pressure on a 23-year-old.

• Chicago White Sox----Jake Peavy:

With Peavy, you can never be sure if he's going to be the dominating NL Cy Young Award winner he was in 2007; or if he's going to see his arm go flying to the backstop as he fires one of his all-out, mechanically horrific fastballs. He hasn't been fully healthy since that 2007 season, but he looked fantastic in three September starts for the White Sox. If he's back in form, the White Sox are legitimate contenders; if not...

• Cleveland Indians----Grady Sizemore:

With the Indians in their current financial and practical position, they may have to think seriously about trading Sizemore. A couple of years ago, it would've been unthinkable to deal a five-tool talent and off-field solid citizen; but what better way to rebuild as quickly as possible than to deal the best asset? GM Mark Shapiro has shown the guts to make such moves pre-emptively before; it's not something to dismiss out-of-hand.

• Kansas City Royals----Luke Hochevar:

There's no denying Hochevar's ability, but the big righty has only shown flashes of the stuff that made him the number one pick in the draft. His command is all over the place and he doesn't appear to trust his stuff. Body-wise and in mannerisms, he reminds me of Roy Halladay----not in results though. Reality didn't kick in for Halladay until he was 25 and he reinvented his pitching style; Hochevar has to do the same thing. He's 26 now. If he can develop, he and Zack Greinke are a tough 1-2 punch. If....

• Los Angeles Angels----Brandon Wood:

2010 could be Wood's last chance to make it in the big leagues as a regular player, with the Angels at least. He's put up massive power numbers in the minors, but struggled horribly in the majors. He's 25 and the third base job is his to lose. He has to hit.

• Texas Rangers----Rich Harden:

Replacing the leader and innings-eater Millwood with Harden is a large gamble. The Rangers have so much young pitching that they needed a veteran to function as a solid 1A with Scott Feldman. If he's healthy, Harden is unhittable; but he's never healthy and it's always a different part of his body that's hurt. A healthy season from Harden and the Rangers are contenders.

• Seattle Mariners----Milton Bradley:

One never knows----literally----whether Bradley is going to hit .300 and put up great across-the-board numbers or walk into the stands with a bat and attack someone. The Mariners are offensively challenged and need Bradley to produce at the plate. More importantly, they need him to behave and not do anything psychotic to a teammate; an umpire; a coach; a manager; a media member; or a fan. He's also injury-prone.

• Oakland Athletics----Ben Sheets:

Sheets will front the A's young rotation if he's healthy. But he's never proven that he's able to stay healthy. When he's right, he's one of the best pitchers in baseball, but considering his history, there's no way to count on him. The A's are paying him $10 million and if the rest of the strangely constructed club falters, they can still get something of use for Sheets by trading him at mid-season----if he's able to pitch.

Sunday Lightning 2.14.2010

• And the point of this is what?

For some inexplicable reason, Angels first baseman Kendry Morales fired his prior representation, the Hendricks Brothers, and hired Scott Boras...while he's still under contract for $700,000 for 2010; isn't arbitration-eligible until next year; and won't be a free agent until 2013----ESPN Story.

What does he need Boras to do exactly? Get him out of Anaheim? Because that's all this hiring is going to do.

As has been stated numerous times, the Angels have no interest in playing Boras's game because they, as a club, don't have to play Boras's game. Certain clubs who haven't had the success of the Angels or are in desperate straits to retain or acquire players do have to deal with Boras----the Angels are not one of them. With most teams, the anger against a player agent lasts only as long as they can feasibly maintain said anger while putting a winning product on the field; with the Angels, it's different.

The club threw their hands up in the air at the duplicitous nature in which the Mark Teixeira negotiations went after they felt they'd met the demands to keep him, and saw the $160 million offer shopped around again so Boras could gain that extra $20 million from either the Yankees or Red Sox; and from the looks of things, they're maintaining the stance that they don't want to deal with Boras. This is the way they work with agents and players. They make a fair, competitive offer, expect an answer and move along if it's rejected.

What does Morales expect Boras to do when there's literally nothing to do? Any experienced agent can argue an arbitration case and they're always a flip of the coin as to who's going to win. The Angels are not going to deal with Boras in a long-term extension for Morales, so it's more likely that they'll keep the player as long as he's under the arbitration constraint, and let him walk after 2013. This hiring made no sense.

On another note, an interesting comment made by Boras shines a light into the increasing megalomania of the superagent. After being fired by Felipe Lopez, here's a clip from the above-linked story regarding Lopez:

Boras said he was given reasons by teams why they didn't offer Lopez a starting job, but he declined to mention them. Boras said Lopez was unhappy with the reasons and it was then when he decided to fire him as an agent.

"Once I get the information, I'm going to confront the player," Boras said.

Boras said he wished Lopez well.

Felipe Lopez would've gotten an offer of a starting job for a multitude of teams. At the very least, he would've received an offer of the job of a roving utility player who'd see action on a daily basis at various positions around the diamond a la Tony Phillips. The reason no one wanted to sign Lopez was because Boras's demands were probably so extravagant that it wasn't worth the aggravation or the money to try and sign him.

In addition to that, take a look at the comment from Boras: "Once I get the information, I'm going to confront the player." (Italics added.)

Confront the player?

Aside from a disgruntled employee wandering back into his former place of employment toting a gun and shooting at will, what does that exactly mean? He's going to "confront" the player? And do what? Is Scott Boras the all-seeing, all-powerful mob boss who demands an explanation when a player decides to make a business decision because he needs a job and such a job wasn't forthcoming with his prior representation? Because it appeared as if Boras was more concerned with saving face in the Johnny Damon negotiations than getting a deal for the lower echelon player like Lopez who should've gotten a contract by now?

Felipe Lopez was the employer.

Scott Boras was the employee.

Lopez made a change because he wants a job, as is his right.

I'd dearly love to see this confrontation, if Boras indeed does confront Lopez, because it's liable to be entertaining based on the out-of-control arrogance of Scott Boras who, contrary to his own bloated self-image, is not the puppetmaster for all of his clients as Lopez's gutsy decision to make a change proves.

• Tim Lincecum avoids arbitration:

Even with back-to-back Cy Young Awards, there was no guarantee that Tim Lincecum was going to win his arbitration hearing with the Giants. The disparity between the Giants offer of $8 million and Lincecum's request for $13 million was so vast; Lincecum's desired leap from $650,000 to $13 million so massive, that I think he would've lost.

Lincecum signed a 2-year, $23 million deal which avoids arbitration for the next two years and gives the club time to prepare a long-term contract for the diminutive righty. There's been buzz that Lincecum cost himself money by taking this deal; of course any player who signs a long-term contract runs the risk of costing himself money; but he also guarantees himself a set salary no matter what happens.

If Albert Pujols wanted to, he could go year-to-year with a contract and, gambling on his health, make a lot more money than he would if he agreed to a long term deal. It would be admirable and gutsy for a player to do that, but why? Players want security, and Lincecum's deal puts any animosity that would've cropped up between the two parties in a contentious arbitration hearing on the backburner and makes a long-term deal possible without hurt feelings.

• The argument against Frank Thomas for the Hall of Fame is what?
  

Frank Thomas hit 521 homers; drove in 1667 runs; scored 1494 runs; batted .301; had a career on base percentage of .419; a slugging percentage of .555; won two MVPs; finished second in the voting once; third twice; and fourth once; for a power hitter he rarely struck out; and he played clean in the era of PEDs.

The argument against Thomas for the Hall of Fame on the first ballot is what?

That he was a primary DH?

So?

I've made this argument for the case of Edgar Martinez (which is far less certain that that of Thomas), but I'll make it again. Would it have been better for Thomas, with an eye on the future, to demand to play the field when it was better for the team to have him as the DH? Would it bolster his candidacy if he was standing at first base like a statue, run the risk of injury and hurt the team with his defense? Isn't it more of a team-oriented decision to accept his limitations and stay a DH for the good of the team rather than the good of a far-off future and enshrinement in the Hall of Fame?

Thomas was one of the most dangerous hitters in baseball for almost his entire career; his numbers are ridiculous. There is absolutely, positively no viable argument to be made against his induction. Not even the old-timers and buffoonish writers can keep a straight face with the insipid "I know a Hall of Famer when I see one" nonsense because if they look at Frank Thomas and don't see a Hall of Famer, then they're blind, drunk, stupid or all three.

• Viewer Mail 2.14.2010:

Jeff (Street Boss) at Red State Blue State writes RE Felipe Lopez:

Lopez's new agency is the same group that manages Albert Pujols. As you mentioned, the Cardinals are rumored to have interest in him. They could use another experienced infielder to cover third and/or second if needed. But I'm not sure they'd offer more than $5 million as they're said to only have $6-7 million to work with.

It's so late in the game that he's going to have to take a short-term/short-money deal. The few teams with the money and the remaining hole aren't going to give Felipe Lopez anything more. The best he can hope for is a 1-year, $5 million or so base and some incentives based on performance and playing time. I have no issue at all with changing representation, but he should've done it in November before other players like Mark DeRosa signed. Now, no matter who his agent is, he's going to have to take whatever he can get.

Jane Heller at Confessions of a She-Fan writes RE the English language:

I had to re-read Neyer's headline too. It made my eyes cross.

In case anyone missed it, the headline Jane refers to is the following: Phil Hughes Works On Changes Needs Chance.

What would you say Jane? Clunky? Awkward? Bizarre? Or just plain bad? Making the reader's eyes cross is a bad thing 99.999999% of the time. I manage it on occasion, but only because what I've written is so orgasmic that they lose control, but that's me.