The Shady Non-Story of Keith Law and the Astros

How is it possible when any tiny little bit of baseball news on and off the field is reported by multiple outlets that---during a relatively slow time---no one has any details of the job Keith Law was supposedly offered by the Houston Astros?

What you’re telling me is that Jon Heyman, Richard Justice, Tracy Ringolsby, Ken Rosenthal, Jerry Crasnick and Jayson Stark (both of whom work for ESPN with Law) don’t have any details on this bit of “news”? On a baseball news day in which MLB Trade Rumors was posting stories entitled “Phillies Release John Bowker”; “Cardinals Shopping for Right-Handed Reliever”; “Phillies Interested in Jeremy Accardo”; and “Mets Re-Sign Miguel Batista”, the Law-Astros story received no attention and no digging apart from what Law himself said on Twitter?

Really?

What would be said if Sergio Mitre came out and said that he’d chosen to leave the Yankees rather than be the number two starter behind CC Sabathia?

Or if Grady Little said he’d chosen not to return to manage the Red Sox to replace Terry Francona?

They’d be ridiculed.

But because of his status as a former assistant in the Blue Jays front office who has carved out a snarky niche for himself as something other than a stat guy and is now a TV analyst and scout, his pronouncements are given credibility.

Do they warrant credibility?

It’s circular.

Highly educated at Harvard and other fine institutions of higher learning>>writer for Baseball Prospectus>>former Blue Jays assistant>>ESPN analyst/scouting and draft guru>>interviewing with the Astros.

But is it real?

Should we believe him?

It’s hard to tell.

Weeks ago, it was reported that Law interviewed for several front office positions with the new Astros braintrust led by Jeff Luhnow.

Luhnow proceeded to hire Sig Mejdal as his “Director of Decision Sciences” (whatever that is); and Stephanie Wilka as his Coordinator of Amateur Scouting.

But no Law.

Yesterday Law said the following at about noon Eastern time on his Twitter feed:

I have chosen to stay with ESPN. It was a difficult decision, and I'm very grateful to the Astros for the opportunity.

The opportunity for what is unclear.

Did they offer him a job or not?

The tweet was so opaque and laden with ambiguous phrasing and plausible deniability that it looks like a political cover story to protect Law’s reputation as the ultimate baseball insider; someone who knows his way around front offices, crunches the numbers and travels around doing “scouting”. He has a breadth of experience and knowledge, thereby according him as an "expert" in the media.

But is he?

Where is this story and why doesn’t anyone with inside informers and leaks have the details of the job that Law implies---doesn’t say, but implies---the Astros offered?

The only reporting I can find online ends up back with Law’s pronouncement. Here on Hardball Talk, Aaron Gleeman reports what Law said on Twitter.

No one knows what job he was offered?

Circular.

And back to Law.

Law has me blocked on Twitter. Why? Probably because I call him an armchair expert who regurgitates scouting terminology. I don't call people names or curse at them; his decision to block me is indicative of a skin far too thin to say the things he does in the tone he says them.

Blocking me on Twitter was, retrospectively, a bad idea. Truth be told, I don’t remember if I ever even followed him (I don’t think I did), so blocking me informs the world at large that he knows who I am. That’s unless he scours Twitter during his off hours and blocks random people. With (at the time of this writing) 364,584 followers, that’s highly unlikely.

Law strikes me as someone who’s very conscious of how he’s perceived and is desperately seeking to maintain and bolster his reputation; but when one is caught in prevarications or twisted facts as he was when he had his somewhat embarrassing slap fight with Michael Lewis over Law’s negative review of the film Moneyball and then backtracks like a trapped waterbug, his agenda reveals itself.

Later, in what was clearly an effort to say, “look, the Astros aren’t done hiring after Mejdal and Wilka”, Law tweeted:

Astros have received permission to interview Cardinals regional cross-checker Mike Elias for a Special Assistant role in scouting

Someone asked if that was the same job Law was offered and he replied:

no, I don't think it's the same job.

Here’s what I suspect: the Astros interviewed Law as a courtesy without any intention of hiring him; the story of said interview was leaked (possibly by Law himself); this was either an attempt on the part of Law to extract a better deal from ESPN or to shoehorn his way into a front office job with a GM in Luhnow who believes what Law believes in building an organization; the Astros may or may not have offered him a position, but that position was such that it was either designed for him to turn down because it was so low on the totem pole or didn’t happen at all and they're letting him kindasorta say they did in a face-saving gesture; and now he’s made a great show of “choosing to stay at ESPN” when he really didn’t have much of an alternative to leave from the beginning.

How is a story that begins and ends with one source---the subject of said story---to be taken at face value?

It can’t.

If I’m wrong, I’ll admit it.

But through the principles of deduction, what we’ve learned so far and from whom we’ve learned it, I don’t think I am.

Share|

Randolph's Return To Pinstripes; Livan Or Maddux---Is There A Difference?

• Randolph's return to pinstripes:

It seems the only one who wasn't taking subtle, wink-and-nod digs against the Mets during Willie Randolph's appearance at Yankees Old Timer's Day was Randolph. (There was

speculation that he hasn't said anything negatively against his former employers because of his contractual obligations, but I don't believe that's the sole reason; Randolph probably does appreciate the opportunity the Mets gave him and holds little animosity for anyone other than Tony Bernazard.) Instead, there were people like Jeff Torborg, Michael Kay and Al Leiter----each with their own issues concerning the Mets----taking their shots.
Torborg with his "we've both been through the same thing" of being fired; but at least Randolph had something called managerial success, which is alien to Jeff Torborg. Leiter gave Randolph a "welcome back hug", but is bitter because he was essentially told to take a hike by the Mets when Omar Minaya took over and wanted to end the Chatty Cathy atmosphere in the clubhouse in which it seemed that Leiter and John Franco were running the team; Leiter's 110 pitch counts by the fifth inning made him a liability and case of diminishing returns, and his performance after he left the Mets proved that Minaya was right; and for all of the implications of Leiter returning "home" to the Yankees, the guy's a Met; he was with the Mets far longer, had greater success and made much more money than he ever did in his brief times with the Yankees. And I'm not even going to get into Kay and how he despises the Mets to a degree where he has no business saying anything about them whatsoever and lacks the required guts to openly admit it. Kay's lack of courage was exemplified as he unloaded on Joe Torre as the former Yankees manager was out the door and claimed some nonseniscal attempt to protect the Yankees with his all-knowing opinions, as if anyone cared.
I hate getting into these Yankees-Mets arguments because they're pointless, but in what position are the Yankees to be criticizing how any other organization treats their employees?

Did they or did they not allow Joe Torre----four championships, annual playoff appearances and exuding class----to twist in the wind after 2006 and 2007? Would any Yankee fan or apologist want Randolph running their team after his foibles as manager of the Mets? All of this revisionist history is

offensive to those that were paying attention to what's gone on with both organizations. Torborg was a rotten manager----a cookie-cutter automaton who was unable to deviate from the "book" that does nothing other than provide a blueprint to be rightfully criticized for being unable to think for himself and to lose games and the support of the players; Leiter was finished when the Mets let him go; Randolph got an opportunity as manager with the Mets and needed to be fired if 2008 had any chance of being salvaged.
This group mentality of "we've experienced this before" is absurd because when put into context, the only thing that the Mets did to Randolph that he truly has a right to be bitter about was firing him in the shoddy way they did; in every other aspect of the story, the Mets have nothing to be sorry for and the Yankees are in no position to be judging anyone else given their history of callous ruthlessness in treating their employees including one Willie Randolph, who they dumped unceremoniously in 1989 after twelve years of loyal service in which he served as a captain, in favor of Steve Sax. It's convenient that these things are forgotten during the pageantry and history of Old Timer's Day, but they're still there nonetheless and can't be covered up by scoffing and ridicule by those that are in no position to exhibit such sentiments.

• We shall be Livan:

Keith Law writes in his blog on ESPN about players that he thinks will get through waivers and possibly be traded this month----Blog----and he mentions Greg Maddux as one possibility to go to the Dodgers. (Maddux refuses to go anywhere other than another West Coast team.)

In looking at Law's assessment of Maddux, calling him a "strike-throwing innings-eater" and remembering ESPN's Rob Neyer's continued ripping of Livan Hernandez, I decided to take a look at the numbers of both pitchers this year and came away thinking not only would they be similar acquisitions, a team looking for such a veteran "strike-throwing innings-eater" would in fact be better off going for Hernandez.
Neither veteran has been particularly good this year, but in looking at their numbers and taking into account that Maddux is pitching his home games in the baseball equivalent of Yellowstone National Park and Hernandez is pitching in the Metrodome, they're very similar. Maddux has been pounded in six of his 23 starts this year; Hernandez in six of his 23 starts. Maddux has provided 134 innings; Hernandez 139. Maddux is an 85 pitch/six inning pitcher except in extreme circumstances; Hernandez is willing to stay out there for 145 pitches if asked. Neither strike out many, nor walk many; both give up their share of homers. Maddux has been up and down in the post-season; Hernandez a former NLCS and World Series MVP.
I probably wouldn't want either of them as anything more than a fourth starter in a playoff series and wouldn't give up more than a mid-level prospect to get them, but I don't get how Maddux with his mid-to-low 80s fastball and mediocre performance is so in demand and

Hernandez, with his mid-to-low 80s fastball and mediocre performance is vying for consideration as the worst starting pitcher in the American League. If I had to choose between the two, I'd rather have Hernandez because at least I'd know he wouldn't beg out after 80 pitches saying he's "done" regardless of the game situation. The whole point of an innings-eater is that he eats innings by staying out there even if he's getting shelled and Hernandez can do that better than Maddux at this point and presumably would be willing to go to teams other than those that are conveniently located in his preferred destination.

The Mets Miss The Lincecum Memo And Other Stories

• Mets 7-Giants 0:

While they said all the right things about being impressed with Tim Lincecum's stuff and how bright the

diminutive righty's future is, the Mets apparently missed last week's issue of Sports Illustrated because they knocked him around pretty good on the field. Carlos Delgado sending one of Lincecum's fastballs deep into the Flushing Meadows night was impressive in and of itself considering how Delgado's had such trouble catching up to power fastballs this year; I would hesitate to think this is a renaissance for Delgado because the pitch was up and out over the plate; he still can't get around on a power inside fastball at all which indicates a location mistake on the part of Lincecum. Mike Pelfrey and his reliance on his power sinker is starting to make him look like a young Kevin Brown.

• Yankees 5-Rays 0:

Andy Pettitte was masterful against a hot hitting and tough lineup in the Rays. In looking at Pettitte's numbers----stats----if he hangs around for two or three more years and can win between 13-15 games each year in addition to this

year's likely 16 wins, he's going to make the Hall of Fame. A winner; a gutty innings-eater; honest about his brief PED usage; and a post-season record of 18-7 (as of now) plus around 240 wins will make Pettitte more of a no-brainer for the Hall than Curt Schilling. Another thing about Pettitte that many people may not know is that he wasn't even drafted; the Yankees signed him as an undrafted free agent in 1991. That's some pretty good scouting, luck or both.

• Did the Dodgers owner nix a deal for C.C. Sabathia?

The Pasadena Star-News reported on Monday that Dodgers owner Frank McCourt nixed a deal that would have brought C.C. Sabathia, Casey Blake and Jamey Carroll to the Dodgers for a package of youngsters----Story----the main reason is implied to be financial. McCourt may receive criticism for this after the fact especially if Sabathia pitches the Brewers into the

playoffs, but McCourt has every right to do what I see as the right thing for his franchise by stopping his GM from mortgaging a big chunk of his team's loaded farm system to win right now.
Dodgers GM Ned Colletti is already under fire for the team's underachieving and the huge money contracts he doled out to Andruw Jones and Jason Schmidt with literally no return. If the Indians, a smart organization that knows how to scout prospects, were trading three players with expiring contracts who are in demand, there would probably have been at least five prospects going to Cleveland including the likes of Matt Kemp, Andy

LaRoche and lots of young pitching. The Dodgers are getting their injured players back and with manager Joe Torre's history of hot second half finishes, along with the way the NL West is looking like it might only take 85 wins to take the division, why make such a desperation move? Add in that McCourt may be keeping an eye on the Brian Cashman/Yankees situation with the possibility that Torre and Cashman will be reunited on the West Coast after the season and there was no reason to allow Colletti to make this move.
Despite McCourt's attempts to win within a budget and create a clone of the Oakland Athletics when he hired Paul DePodesta to disastrous results, he's spent a load of money and allowed Colletti to be very aggressive in trying to win immediately over the past three years; he shouldn't receive criticism when he finally says enough's enough.

• Is there an agenda in place here?

I don't know the circumstances with Keith Law's departure from the Blue Jays in 2006, but reading between the lines in the comment about Chad Gaudin in the Rich Harden trade, and

you have to wonder if there's a bit of sniping going on underneath what masks itself as an opinion:

Chad Gaudin is an outstanding second player -- hate to call him a "throw-in" here -- for the Cubs, as a short reliever who could be dominant in that role in the NL. His fastball/slider combo has produced over 300 innings of above-average pitching since Toronto discarded him after a grand total of two big league starts, and his career-long vulnerability against left-handed batters has vanished this year, in large part because of his improved control.

If Law's letting personal biases enter into his judgments (intentionally or not), he should try and put them aside if he intends to be a credible media voice. For the record, I wouldn't have touched Rich Harden unless I was getting him for nothing because he's completely unreliable health-wise from one day to the next.