Sunday Lightning 10.3.2010

• Where wings meet dream:

The above line is from Will Ferrell's Broadway show, "You're Welcome America. A Final Night with George W. Bush". It neatly encompasses the frequent language lapses of our 43rd president.

"Where wings meet dream" is where "sense" meets "doesn't make".

Wings will be meeting dream for two of the three National League teams whose playoff spots are still in flux. Here are the scenarios (culled from the NY Times):

Braves and Giants win----Giants win the NL West; Braves win the Wild Card.

Braves lose and Giants win----Giants win the NL West; Braves and Padres are tied for the Wild Card and play a one-game playoff tomorrow in Atlanta.

Braves lose and Padres win----Padres win the NL West; Giants win the Wild Card.

Braves and Padres win----they'd all be tied; Giants and Padres play a one-game playoff for the NL West tomorrow in San Diego; the loser goes to Atlanta on Tuesday to play the Braves for the Wild Card.

Complicated.

The point of this section isn't to predict what's going to happen----who knows? And presumably, by the time many of you are reading this, the games will be over. What today will determine will be whether or not a veteran team like the Giants will be able to take the next step from contender to playoff team; whether the Braves will recover from their four lost years in which they were trying to regain their excellence from 1991-2005; and whether the Padres will rise from the ashes of their fall to the depths in 2008-2009 and parlay their young core and terrific pitching staff into legitimacy by making the playoffs.

Bobby Cox guiding the Braves into the playoffs is the romantic story as he's riding off into the sunset of retirement when the Braves are done; but to me, the most interesting story is that of the Padres. After they spent the first half of the season surrounded by questions of realism and if they were going to trade Adrian Gonzalez and Heath Bell regardless of position in the standings, they held their own and built a large lead in the NL West and a safe one in the Wild Card; then they lost 10 straight games in early September and saw their leads dwindle to nothing.

On Thursday, they lost a 1-0 heartbreaker to the Cubs and entered San Francisco trailing the Giants by three games in the division; they were two games behind the Braves for the Wild Card.

Then they fought back.

Now they're right back in playoff position and don't appear satisfied. This is a flashpoint in the growth process for a young team.

Will they do as the Yankees did in 1996 as they built the foundation for their championship teams after losing in 1995? Those Yankees faced a heavily favored Braves team in the World Series, got hammered in the first two games and grittily won three straight in Atlanta before clinching the series in game 6 at Yankee Stadium. Without that victory, it's hard to imagine the Yankees cementing their place in history as a dynasty with three more titles in four years.

Or will they be the Mets? They staged a similarly heroic comeback in 1999 when they were in essentially the exact same Wild Card position as the Padres going to the final weekend; the caught the Reds and won the one-game playoff in Cincinnati on Monday as Al Leiter pitched the game of his life with a 2-hit shutout; they shocked the Diamondbacks in the NLDS; then came thisclose to being the first team to come back from a 3-0 series deficit against the Braves.

Those Mets went to the World Series in 2000 and lost; then they stumbled out of contention as Bobby Valentine's control of the team disappeared, GM Steve Phillips was fired and they didn't return to the playoffs until 2006.

There are many examples of teams facing the fork in the road to greatness and making a wrong turn.

If the Padres pull this off, they could be on the cusp of something special.

If they don't....

• Viewer Mail 10.3.2010:

PairFace writes re the Phillies and me:

Well Paul, you begrudgingly gave Amaro some credit, so I guess I can live with that. But you went out of your way to rip Amaro at length on several occasions, and only credit him when someone calls you on the carpet for it. I would think it would be to your benefit, as someone trying to sell objective baseball analysis, to handle your non-favorite teams with a little more objectivity (and not so much favoritism for your team).

I never said Amaro was a "top-tier" GM. He will have to prove that over time. But he has done a good job to this point, and has brought big pieces in at the last 2 trading deadlines. No other GM in MLB can make the same claim. Not even Cashman, with his endless reserves. (BTW, did you really call the Yankees "conscious of their finances"??? That would be the first time I've ever heard that term associated with that organization. Just saying.)

I agree that getting Oswalt was at least a partial admission of a mistake in dealing Lee away. But as it stands, the Phils will have Halladay, Oswalt and Hamels under control next year, and perhaps 2012. That's as close to guaranteed pennant contention as there is in baseball. Lee pitching out the year in Philly, and then leaving, would not have left the Phils in as good a position as they are right now.

Which is why the talk of prospects and/or draft picks is moot right now. The Phils are built for the here and now. I think every rational Phils' fan realizes the window for this group closes sometime after the 2012 season. Whether the window closes quickly or gradually is irrelevant to me. This is the time for this group to collect all the hardware it can. I am with you in that I would gladly trade some down years in the future for pennants and championships now. That's why Howard's contract doesn't bother me so much, because there are no more uncertain arbitration years to deal with, and Amaro will know exactly how much wiggle room he will have at next year's trading deadline.

Calling me on the carpet? That's garbage. I give credit when it's due; I rip when it's due. If you look at what happened with the Oswalt trade, I credited Amaro; with the Lee trade in 2009, I said the following: "They held onto their vaunted prospect Kyle Drabek and still managed to get a top-of-the-rotation starter in Cliff Lee."

Am I supposed to bow at Ruben Amaro at any little thing he does that I deem intelligent? I defended him with the Tyson Gillies, Phillippe Aumont and J.C. Ramirez. The prospects he got back for Lee were beside the point and we won't know about that deal until at least 2012 at the earliest. I've acknowledged the wisdom in placing his ego second while silently acknowledging the Lee error.

If anything, I'm harder on the Mets than I am on other teams. The same evenhandedness I gave to Omar Minaya when I went deal-by-deal on his tenure to provide full context while he was under siege is what I would provide for Amaro if I did a similar dissection.

Amaro is playing for the now----and that's the right thing to do----which exemplifies the glaring mistake he made in trading Lee. They were lucky in that Roy Oswalt finally asked out of Houston and agreed to go to an East Coast team which, prior to his frustration boiling over, was not going to happen. That said, the system is essentially gutted aside from Domonic Brown; they have those youngsters in the low minors like Jonathan Singleton, but by 2012, as I said they're going to be old and expensive.

The days of the Yankees spending unlimited money are over----they do have payroll constraints; it sounds ridiculous, but it's true. Brian Cashman had to get permission to expand the payroll to sign Chan Ho Park in the spring. They didn't make the aggressive play for Oswalt as they should've.

Howard's contract isn't due to any flaws in his game as much as it is the circumstances surrounding it. As I said when he signed it, where was he going? Adrian Gonzalez, Prince Fielder and Albert Pujols are up for free agency after next season just as Howard would've. No one was going to come close to matching that contract; in fact, they could've gotten him for far less than what they paid. They're going to regret that contract.

Trading Lee was still a mistake, but things worked out; sometimes it happens that way.

Jane Heller at Confessions of a She-Fan writes RE Billy Beane and the Mets:

Billy Beane to the Mets? Did I actually read those words? Now that would be a fun trip for you to write about.

His name has been mentioned repeatedly; I don't want him and he's not coming. Trust me when I tell you I'll have plenty enough to say if they bring in Sandy Alderson.

MacW writes RE Ichiro:

Prince, once again the assumption that Ichiro could hit 25 to 30 homers a year if he simply chose to is completely unfair. In Japan Ichiro hit as many as 25 homers in 130 games, and his slugging percentage in his seven years there was around .530. But in the U.S. where the parks are bigger, most of his fly balls die short of the fence. Gerald Perry, the Mariners hitting coach in 2001, encouraged Ichiro to hit the ball on the ground and use his speed, which Ichiro did. Was Ichiro selfish to do so? Perry seems to have had the right idea. Ichiro's lifetime average on fly balls is .163 and .305 on ground balls (you can find the info on Baseball-reference.com -- click on splits). Chone Figgins, who is ten pounds heavier than Ichiro, is hitting second in the order this year and has hit only one homer. Is Figgins selfish for not trying to hit more home runs?

And Prince, you're saying that Ichiro was giving his best effort in center field but showed everyone he was unhappy about it with his attitude? I personally couldn't see it. How could I with him giving his best effort. And is the only conclusion we can draw in Hargrove's departure was that Ichiro was personally involved? How about we take Hargrove at his word. How about that? Look, it's clear you're not coming off your point that Ichiro is selfish. As you say, it gives you pleasure. But please, deal in facts, not conjecture.

MacW had more to say than this, but I edited for space. You can see the full comments here.

You're picking and choosing facts and comparing two players who have nothing to do with one another. Ichiro has far more ability than does Chone Figgins. No one in their right mind would expect Figgins to try and hit homers.

I'm taking no pleasure in calling Ichiro selfish.

If anything, I'm saying he's not fulfilling his talents to the degree that he could if he made the conscious decision to do as Ted Williams suggested in his letter to Jay Johnstone and wait for a good pitch to hit, pull it and hit for power. The .163 average on fly balls is taken out of context. If he has a pitch to drive and turns on it to pull it, would his average be that low? I highly doubt it.

As you compare hitters of lower caliber and their power numbers from Japan----Kaz Matsui and Akinori Iwamura----you're doing Ichiro a disservice by lumping him in with players who are in no way up to his skill level. The other hitter you mention, Hideki Matsui, was a power hitter. No one is calling Ichiro a prototypical "slugger"; suggesting he swing for the fences on every pitch like Adam Dunn or Mark Reynolds and pile up the resulting strikeouts; I'd like him to consciously try to help his team by hitting in the middle of the lineup and driving in more runs.

Regarding the center field stuff and the Mike Hargrove allegations, you're right in a sense----it's circumstantial and anecdotal. Ichiro and Hargrove had made an uneasy peace, but Ichiro's contract extension occurring simultaneously with Hargrove's resignation was suspicious; Ichiro had let it be known that yes, maybe he would like to experience free agency in North America. Then it all went away when he was extended and Hargrove was gone.

I didn't say he wasn't giving his best effort in center field; I said he didn't like the position and let people know with his body language and whispers. Both he and the club were concerned that he would wear down with the extra room to cover; he wasn't happy out there and was thrilled when he was moved back to right.

This is neither here nor there in the grand scheme; the main idea is not to criticize Ichiro; it's to say that he could be doing so much more than he does as he accumulates singles instead of using his skills to hit for more power----and the Mariners are a team that desperately needs a run producer in the middle of the lineup; and that is currently not Ichiro even though it could be.

• The Prince on the Podcast:

I'm scheduled to appear with Sal at SportsFan Buzz tomorrow talking about the playoffs; Ichiro; and the Mets. Hopefully the playoff matchups will be set by tonight so I'll be able to write my playoff preview early and have it posted before the podcast.

I'm going to be doing a lot of writing in a very narrow timeframe if that's the case; if any of you remember the bursts of psychotic laughter on Twitter, it's very possible that another such eventuality is going to occur. Some were entertained; some were frightened; I was simply elsewhere.

• Paul Lebowitz's 2010 Baseball Guide:

My book is still available on Amazon, I-Universe and Barnes and Noble.com. It's available for download as an E-book here. You can also now get it for less that five bucks on BN via download here.

Last day I promote!!!

Is This A Shock?

• Big changes for the Mets----no kidding!!!!

I understand that it's a large market club that's been through the ringer in the past four years due to drastic mistakes, injuries, collapses, along with on and off-field embarrassments (many of which are no fault of the club itself), but why is there such a reaction from the leaked story that the Mets are replacing both manager Jerry Manuel and GM Omar Minaya as soon as the season is over?

Was anyone expecting either man to survive the rapid descent of a very expensive and underperforming team?

Of course not. Nor should they.

The Mets need to make fundamental structural changes with the way they do business. This is not a direct indictment of Minaya and Manuel----both of whom have admirable attributes----but it's time to go in a new direction. Nor is it to imply that the team has to be torn down from top-to-bottom and rebuilt from the ground up; they have plenty of talent permeating the entire organization and can be scotch-taped together to contend very quickly.

Anyone who suggests that any team can't be turned around need only look as the 2003 Tigers. That team lost 119 games and three years later were in the World Series. It's happened quicker with other teams. In today's game, a turnaround happens fast with intelligence and a little luck; and the Mets aren't in the same situation as those Tigers were.

Assertions that the Mets weren't going to do something substantial to alter the club's course stem from the perceived ineptitude of Jeff Wilpon. Fred Wilpon didn't help in August by suggesting that Minaya was staying. But this eventuality has been known; and it's been known for awhile.

Minaya may stay with the club or he may depart. It depends one whom is hired to take over for him and whether they have the self-confidence to deal with the former GM still being part of the organization. Minaya, for all his mistakes----mostly due to an inability to handle crises and difficulty with the English language----is still a keen eye for baseball talent; his charm and affability would be an asset to any organization. I do not believe that Minaya would undermine any new baseball boss. That said, it's natural if the new GM wanted to distance himself from the former GM and preferred that Minaya leave; Minaya would be well within his rights to go to another club and function as an assistant to try and rebuild his reputation.

Manuel will get a coaching job somewhere. Presumably, if Willie Randolph gets one of the managerial job openings after the season, that's a viable landing spot for Manuel.

So where are the Mets going from here?

Until a successor is named, we'll hear speculation from everywhere. Some will be based on factions; some on reality; some on tossing stuff at the wall. The names have been mentioned frequently----Sandy Alderson, Rick Hahn, John Hart, Jon Daniels, Billy Beane, Josh Byrnes, Joe Garagiola Jr, Logan White----all have their positives and negatives.

As decision time comes closer (and we know that it'll be leaked days in advance so the Mets get a gauge on the public reaction), I'll have more to say on the subject. It sounds as if the Mets intend to do their due diligence on their next hiring. The idea that Wilpon doesn't have the right to have his most important employee----the head of baseball operations----run his trades, signings and hirings past his boss is ridiculous. He owns the club and by definition can and should have a voice in what's done.

In the past, the Mets most important employees haven't been the head of baseball operations, but their medical staff and the PR man. This has to change and if that means bringing in an outsider to do the job correctly and giving him free rein to explore the heretofore unthinkable such as trading David Wright, then so be it.

Before the season started, both Minaya and Manuel knew that if things didn't improve greatly, they were out. Things didn't improve greatly. And they're going to be out. We knew. So did they.

• Viewer Mail 10.2.2010:

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

I wouldn't consider the Padres' situation a collapse for the simple reason that no one thought they'd be a contender in the first place.

I'd tend to agree. It was more of a stumble that happens with a young team. Collapses are sometimes more about perception than reality; if a team can overcome the late season nervousness that does them in, that's how repeated championship teams are sometimes built because they have the frame of reference to say, "hey, we won it before, we can do it again". That was one of the things that truly helped the Yankees during their dynasty.

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

I'm with Jane on this one. I'm pulling for the Padres to go on a roll and at least make it interesting after this weekend, but Hoyer & Co. gotta be happy about Year One whether they make it or not.

Remember 2008? 99 losses is a lot to overcome, even if given two years.

I was considering the 2008 disaster as part of the entire episode. Going from where they were in 2007 to that nightmare and then rising again only to falter early in September is all one larger narrative. I'm hoping they make it interesting as well----and it looks like they might.

Gabriel (Capo) writes RE the Padres:

I do consider it a collapse, since no one expected them to contend, but then they were in contention. What's important is as Jeff said, even if they do not qualify to the playoffs, it has been a good year, in which they surpassed expectations.

It's going to be a fight to the death. Great games to watch this weekend.

Like I said to Jane, if they can fight their way through this----something the Mets couldn't do in 2007-2008----they'll be the better team in the future because of it.

Macw writes RE Ichiro:

The idea that Ichiro could hit 25 to 30 homers if he chose to is the worst kind of conjecture. Ichiro's lifetime batting average on fly balls is something like .184. Compare that to a home run hitter like Ryan Howard who hits .450 on fly balls with most of them going for home runs (you can find this info in Bill James' 2009 edition of his Gold Mine). Ichiro has never hit a home run to dead center or to left center field, a classic indication of a player who doesn't have the power to consistently swing for the fences. To argue that Ichiro chooses not to hit more home runs because he's selfish is just fallacious character assassination, just like your argument that Ichiro was giving less than his best effort in Center field or that he drove Hargrove out of Seattle even though both parties deny it. To resort to innuendo and assumption to belittle a player is to give yourself away. You are not a reliable judge of Ichiro's character or his contributions on the field.

No one is saying he should "consistently swing for the fences"; what I'm saying is that he should get himself into more advantageous counts and try to manipulate the situation to get a pitch to pull and hit it out of the park. With his bat control, there's no reason he should not be able to do this.

Pitchers and opponents know that he's a hacker who isn't looking to drive the ball out of the park. The fear factor with Ichiro is non-existent specifically because of this fact.

In Jay Johnstone's book Temporary Insanity, he related a letter he received from Ted Williams. In part, the letter discussed an approach at the plate that any good hitter----regardless of ability----should take. One thing Williams said was the following:

Do not try to pull the ball. If you have figured the pitch properly, you are going to get enough pitches that it should be just like batting practice. I'm sure you pull a reasonable amount of balls in practice, so you should never make an effort to do it. It should come naturally.

Ichiro gets so many of his hits early in the count and walks so infrequently, that he's not waiting for a good pitch to drive; a pitch to pull.

How is it character assassination when I'm judging him based on his results and crediting him for having the talent to do more than he does to help the team win? I didn't say he was giving less than best effort in center field; I said he was unhappy about playing the position and let everyone know that with his attitude. The issues with Hargrove were known and the timing was strangely convenient for Ichiro's contract extension coinciding directly with Hargrove's departure. It's been denied by all parties that this was anything more than accidental timing, but considering Ichiro's importance to the Mariners, what other conclusion could be drawn?

PairFace writes RE me and the Phillies:

Sorry Paul, you don't get to have it both ways here. You don't get to trash Amaro for his dealing away of Lee, and say on the other hand that Oswalt fell into Amaro's lap by some divine intervention. Other teams had shots at Oswalt. (Yankees could use a starter right about now), but it was Amaro who landed him. Like it or not, Amaro has now produced TWO aces at the trading deadline for the Phillies - Lee last year, and Oswalt this year.

Also, I never claimed trading Lee was the "right" move. But your claim of Lee for Halladay being a lateral move turned out to be indeed inaccurate. Halladay out-pitched Lee this year, and is under club control for 3 more years. Lee is a pending free agent who will be asking for a 6 or 7 year deal (Mets should offer 8, LOL!). My point is this. If it was "wrong" for Amaro to trade Lee away, then it was "right" to pick up Oswalt. Don't come up with a laundry list of excuses. Just be a man and give Amaro his due.

To answer your question about if I was worried about the Phillies in July, my answer is an honest no. Two reasons - 1. The season doesn't end in July, and 2. The Braves needed to put a lot more distance between themselves and the Phillies than they did when they had the chance. As many injuries that the Phils dealt with through July (more than NYM, btw), they were never more than 7 back. The Braves had a chance to pull away, and they failed to do so. Once the trigger was pulled on the Oswalt deal, and Howard and Utley were back in the lineup, it wasn't a matter of "if" they were going to catch the Braves, only "when".

Bringing up your WS picks were just a harmless dig. But are you really hanging your hat on your predictions for the Diamondbacks, Marlins and Indians??? Man, you are really reaching.

One final point to correct: Hamels struggled through April, not "mid-season". Tough to deny that 2nd-half though. Not very Steve Avery-like, that's for sure.

You can't control yourself with the barroom shots: "Just be a man..."; that stuff has no affect on me. It's like in the Back to the Future movies when Michael J. Fox would go insane when someone called him a chicken----who cares? Lose that stuff.

It's not having it both ways if they're two different issues. I said at the time that the trade of Lee to replenish the prospects and get Halladay was a mistake. Teams cannot rebuild on the fly in such a way. The only way for a team to rebuild on the fly is to replenish the current core with free agents, trades for veterans and smart drafts; to try and do it by trading a star pitcher for another star pitcher while simultaneously maintaining the prospect base is walking a tightrope over the Grand Canyon----it's very, very hard to do.

What am I giving Amaro credit for and why are you so obsessed with it? I don't feel he's a top-tier GM; the Ryan Howard contract is going to haunt that team for years. It wasn't divine intervention that led Roy Oswalt to the Phillies unless you consider David Montgomery and Drayton McLane deities. You're absolutely right about the Yankees----you nailed that one----they should've gone after Oswalt, but they're conscious of their finances and couldn't have known that Oswalt would've been willing to make the concessions he did; nor that the Astros would agree to pay the amount of cash to supplement his contract----and a giant part of that was due to the owners' involvement.

I am giving Amaro credit for tacitly acknowledging the mistake in letting Lee go by getting another starter. Had they kept Lee, they could've also kept J.A. Happ; made the conscious decision to go for it this year with Halladay, Lee and Hamels; and let Lee leave as a free agent to take the draft picks which undoubtedly would've been better prospects than that which they got for Lee from the Mariners.

My argument for it being a lateral move was based on the pitchers----both are aces and Halladay had drastically outpitched Lee this year; if you remember, I also brought up Halladay having thrown 1000 more innings than Lee; given his work ethic and durability, that may or may not catch up to him. I did say he'd be terrific this year at least and probably next year as well, but it's not something to dismiss when you have a pitcher in his mid-30s who's been worked hard.

I don't know whether you were or weren't worried at mid-season, but they were swooning with both Utley and Howard in the lineup; the injuries came in the middle of their team slump.

Regarding Hamels-Avery, Hamels had been used heavily at a young age and his velocity dwindled into the mid-high-80s. This should've been a grave concern to everyone; he was inconsistent up until mid-season when they acquired Oswalt; Hamels did not pitch well last year. The if-when thing of catching the Braves was highly presumptuous.

With my predictions, I'm not getting into a back-and-forth about that; my point was that I got many things right and wrong. It's easy for the stat zombies to go with projections based on calculations and come to a conclusion----with a ready made excuse of "underperformers"----and present them. To me, that is not analysis. I could go through the book line-by-line and find certain aspects like Javier Vazquez that I nailed. I don't consider the Diamondbacks prediction to be "reaching" especially since so many had them as serious contenders.

That's neither here nor there.

The point is that you picked on my questioning of the Phillies as a basis for ridicule when it wasn't, as you first said, partisanship. I wouldn't betray my credibility for the Mets or to criticize the Phillies.

• Paul Lebowitz's 2010 Baseball Guide:

My book is still available on Amazon, I-Universe and Barnes and Noble.com. It's available for download as an E-book here. You can also now get it for less that five bucks on BN via download here.

Two more days of promotion!!!

• The Prince on the Podcast:

I'm scheduled to appear with Sal at SportsFan Buzz on Monday talking about the playoffs; Ichiro; and the Mets changes; among other things.

Would This Count As A Collapse?

• That would be two in four years for the Padres:

While it was more high-profile and embarrassing that the Mets blew playoff spots in both 2007 and 2008, these things happen relatively often. The 2007 Mets stumble was so egregious because it was the largest lead ever blown in such a short time-frame, but there have been many other such "collapses".

Off the top of my head, here are a couple. The 1987 Blue Jays coughed up a 3 1/2 game lead over the Tigers by losing their last seven games----four to those Tigers; the 1995 Angels had an 11 game lead on August 9th and blew it to the Mariners.

It happens relatively frequently and because they're of lower profile or have happened to teams for whom it's easier to formulate an excuse; that doesn't make it any better. Once in awhile, credit also has to be given to the teams that won.

So where do the 2010 San Diego Padres stand in the annals of such "collapses".

Contrary to prevailing belief, they're still alive. An advantage they have is that they trail the Giants by 3 games and are playing the Giants; they hold their own destiny in their hands. It's hard to imagine them sweeping the three games in San Francisco; but if they pull it off, by virtue of having won the season series, the one-game playoff would be in San Diego; if they somehow sweep the Giants, the momentum would belong to the Padres.

There's also the Wild Card route into the playoffs. Trailing the Braves by two with three games to play is also a daunting task, but the Braves are playing the Phillies and the Phillies, despite resting their regulars, aren't simply going to give the games away to the Braves. The last thing the Braves want is to lose and see the Padres coming to Atlanta for a playoff game on Monday.

But this too has happened before.

The 1999 Mets entered the final weekend two games behind the Reds for the Wild Card with three to play; the Mets swept the Pirates and the Reds lost two of three to the Brewers. The Mets won the playoff game that Monday in Cincinnati.

It's very possible.

Be that as it may, would the Padres blowing a 6 game division lead on August 28th; and a 4 1/2 game lead in the Wild Card be placed in the pantheon of epic failures?

There are easy caveats for the Padres----they're young; they have a low payroll; no one expected them to compete----but as far as I'm concerned, these go out the window once August rolls around. By then teams pretty much are what they are. They can have unprecedented hot streaks like the Rockies, but the "innocent climb" hump should be scaled at that point.

There's no one to blame this time. Bud Black is good at handling his bullpen, but shaky in other strategic aspects. So are many other managers. Even such luminaries as Mike Scioscia with the Angels aren't immune to criticism for their errors. (Scioscia famously refused to alter his gameplan to account for the increased power his lineup had with Mark Teixeira in 2008 and it cost them dearly in their ALDS loss to the Red Sox.)

Such was not the case in 2007 when the Padres, like the Mets, blew a playoff spot with a late season swoon. That was the responsibility to the inexperienced Black as he started Jake Peavy on short rest against the Diamondbacks on September 5th----ostensibly to "finish" them off since in that season, Peavy was dominating against all of baseball in general and the Diamondbacks in particular.

Of course, like the flashpoint scene from a great novel, Peavy got blasted; the insult was turned into a rallying cry for the young Diamondbacks and, led by the borderline deranged ranting of Eric Byrnes (who also hit some big homers for good measure), the Padres found themselves fighting for a Wild Card spot with the streaking Rockies; they went to Colorado for a one-game playoff and saw "Hall of Fame" closer Trevor Hoffman gack the game in the bottom of the 13th inning to put an exclamation point on the fall.

Because no one expected the Padres to come so far so fast, that doesn't make it any more palatable if they can't take care of business this weekend. This team is young and flush with pitching talent, but this would be the second time since 2007 that they had a playoff spot in their hands and let it slip through their collective fingers.

Will that be reported with glee and ridicule similar to other recent stumbles?

It's all about perception and whether it's discussed as such. Maybe it should be with the Padres because it's happened twice.

• Viewer Mail 10.1.2010:

PairFace writes RE the Phillies and me:

Hey Paul - Just checking in, because I said I would. I wanted to see who's side of the debate prevailed - yours or mine - when it came to the NL East. You had your Mets winning, and my "arrogant" Phillies finishing 3rd. Furthermore, you also had Reyes winning the NL MVP and Jerry Manuel winning NL MoY. Ooooof!!!

Normally, I don't rip pre-season predictions, because everyone's is off by varying degrees. But the way you dismissed my reasoning (feel free to re-read those exchanges from March/April) and the way you SAVAGED Ruben Amaro for his handling of the personnel, well, I hate to tell you I told you so, but...

I think at the very least, you owe Amaro some props for the job he did. I thought he overpaid on some of those contracts, especially Howard. But as it turns out, those contracts gave some cost certainty to the Phils' ownership group, and allowed Amaro to go out and get Roy Oswalt at the deadline. Now the Phils have, without question, the top starting 3 in all of baseball with Halladay, Oswalt and Hamels (btw, remember calling Hamels the next Steve Avery??? LOL!). All 3 are under club control next year, and possibly 2012 if the club picks up Oswalt's option.

You went on and on about what a mistake it was to trade "Stone Cold Assassin" Cliff Lee away. But let's face it, Lee has been a disappointment in Texas. He may turn it on in the playoffs. But when the Phils traded him, it wasn't just a move to re-stock the farm, it was also a vote of confidence in Hamels, who responded with a very good season, and a GREAT 2nd half.

As for the Mets - you've probably already said everything that needs to be said, so I don't need to add a whole lot. The Krod fiasco is just another symptom of the disease that is the Mets' organization. They are just not going to win under the Wilpons, because they don't appear to know what they are doing. They have some nice prospects in the system. But the core of the team just did not develop as planned. They'll make a half-hearted run at Cliff Lee this winter, and then will tell their fanbase "we tried" when Lee signs with the Yankees.

BTW - I don't think that Cards-White Sox WS is going to happen. Have a good day.

It's interesting that you waited until now to come back at me and try----not succeed, but try----to toss my words back at me with glaring omissions of fact.

You'll probably never admit this, but I'll guess in July, you were punching walls and trying to reconcile the words you were going to have to say, "My God, that (BLANK) Paul was right!"

The Phillies were playing not close to the way I predicted, but exactly the way I predicted. You pick and choose facts to support your claim to having been "right", but weren't right at all. Cole Hamels was pitching poorly into mid-season (2010 Gamelogs); the starting pitching was as questionable as expected behind Roy Halladay; the bullpen wasn't pitching well; and----shockingly to anyone and everyone----the lineup wasn't performing.

They were lucky that Oswalt fell into their laps and the Shane Victorino injury precluded an attempt to trade Jayson Werth. They have played phenomenal baseball since getting Oswalt.

You "told me so" regarding what? That the trade of Cliff Lee was the right thing to do? Your defense of Ruben Amaro is based on that? How is this possible when the acquisition of Oswalt was made to specifically address the hole that was created by the trade of Lee? As for him receiving "credit" for getting Oswalt, that was an accident of circumstance more than any laudatory statements being doled on Amaro for his part in the trade. If he deserves "props" for anything, it's for----as I said at the time the Phillies search for starting pitching was in full bloom----putting his ego aside and rectifying the problem that his trade of Lee created.

The Astros had few places to which they could trade Oswalt. The Cardinals didn't have the money for Oswalt and the Astros didn't want to trade him within the division, nor did they want to help the Cardinals; the Yankees and Red Sox weren't actively pursuing him; the Angels traded for Dan Haren; the Mets didn't want to give up the prospects to get him and it was no guarantee that the pitcher would've waived his no-trade to go to join them; the Dodgers were in disarray. If he was to be traded, it was to the Phillies and no one else; when the owners got involved and it was clear that Astros GM Ed Wade was steering the pitcher to his former club; the Astros paid a large chunk of Oswalt's salary and Oswalt agreed to forgo a guarantee for his 2012 option, what exactly did Amaro do to deserve accolades for the trade?

We can debate the merits of the Phillies as they grow more expensive and age in the coming years----they're likely to be very good next year. After that? That's an old team with limited prospects specifically because of these trades. I said on Twitter weeks ago, the team might have two more championships in exchange for a possible 76-86 record in 2012----a trade I'd gladly make.

Are you seriously coming back at me on the Lee front because of a few poor starts he's made with the Rangers? Which starts are "proof" of the Phillies having been "right" about Lee? Which ones are applicable for the Rangers having made a "mistake"? Were they the poor performances in August when his back was later revealed to have been bothering him? Or is it the good starts he's delivered since? This argument is nonsensical. (By the way, my name for him is the "Stone Cold Killer"; not the "Stone Cold Assassin".)

I think even you realize by now that my selection of the Mets in the division (at which people were bowing to me at mid-season when they were playing well) and the Phillies taking a tumble wasn't based on partisanship as you accused me of (and added threats, ridicule and bullying----which didn't work), was misplaced.

I judged the trade of Lee to be a mistake because it was making a lateral move rather than an improvement----and it turned out to be accurate. In case you didn't notice (or did notice and refuse to acknowledge), I defended Amaro as the get-back in the Lee trade has been nothing short of a disaster. Others used the Tyson Gillies cocaine arrest as another reason to hammer at Amaro----I didn't; unless the Phillies knew about a drug problem prior to the deal, how could anyone be blamed for it? The prospects weren't then, nor are they now, the foundation for criticizing the deal.

From whence this irrational hatred many members of your fan base hold for the Mets is a mystery to me; if they're so irrelevant, why do you even pay them any mind?

As I said when I selected Jose Reyes as the MVP and heard the laughter and scoffing, does he not have the talent to win an MVP? Injuries and illness----none of which could've been predicted----derailed his season. It's not as if I selected Gary Matthews Jr. to win it because he had the word "Mets" emblazoned across his chest. The Manager of the Year winner is always based on a team that either wins; or plays far over their expected heads. Picking the Mets to play well would automatically mean that Manuel deserved honors for said results and in the midst of the prediction, I said the Mets were going to go one of two ways----up or down; it turned out they pulled off the rare trick of doing both.

Are you really gloating over a missed World Series pick? Was it as if I made the White Sox vs Cardinals pick out of thin air with no reasoning behind it? Did I pick the Indians and the Pirates? Did I say that these teams were going to be good or bad just "because"?

Everything I wrote was based on a reason. I have purposely said little about the picks I've gotten right and have continually referred to the gaffes which are, in addition to the Reyes/Manuel selections, Jake Peavy winning the AL Cy Young Award; the Dodgers winning the NL West; the Reds playing poorly, among many others.

What about that which I got right? The Diamondbacks; the Marlins; the Indians; John Lackey----again----among many other things. Why the selectivity about the wrongs without admitting what I got right?

The ownership issues for the Mets are what they are, but to come up with such absurdities as "they're never going to win under the Wilpons"? How can that be said when they were a game away from the World Series----under the Wilpons----in 2006; as they would've made the playoffs in both 2007-2008 barring collapses, injuries and circumstances? It's all relative. They look bad now and it's easy to blame ownership for that.

They've said they're not going for Lee and, considering the way pitchers have repeatedly failed to live up to massive contracts, is that already judged to be such a mistake? Again, that will be proven accurate or inaccurate in time----just like my picks.

Underneath all the snark you so endlessly revel in, I truly think there's a good guy under there someplace; someone who could be of some use to me....if you actually think with your head before attacking me with a convenient twisting of reality.

Jeff (Street Boss) at Red State Blue State writes RE Francisco Rodriguez and the union:

K-Rod's actions were uncalled for. If I did that at my job, I'd be sitting in prison right now.

I understand that the Union is there to protect the players, but how does guaranteeing a massive contract to a massive asshole who royally screwed up protect the player? Where is the protection for the employer? For the victims?

The MLB Union is too strong and its message is clear: we can do whatever we feel like.

It's gotta end. Soon.

Understandably, they think that if they give on this one issue, other issues will follow----where does it begin and end? They have to protect union members even if they know he's wrong; they have to be worried that they're going to lose this time.

Matt writes RE K-Rod:

"...but it would give the employer some semblance of control over whether or not they have to pay a player whose behavior in any other sector would void his contract."

Any other sector except maybe financial. If K-Rod were an investment banker he would have had to at least kill his father-in-law on the boardroom table to void his golden parachute. Even then...

I was thinking about the corporate world while I was writing that yesterday, but chose not to mention it. You're right. They get their money one way or the other without much loss of the package no matter what they've done.

Sometimes it's easier just to pay someone to leave and that's what the Mets may end up doing with K-Rod, but if they win the grievance, they're not going to be paying the full load; in fact, they'll pay a small fraction of it; they'll gladly do it to get him out of their sight and free themselves from that financial albatross and public relations disaster.

Max Stevens at The Lonely One writes RE K-Rod and the Mets:

Fantastic posting today on the K-Rod situation. As an unabashed lefty, I almost always root for labor to defeat the bosses, especially since it happens so rarely in the US. However, it's very difficult to pull for today's MLBPA. The union is hardly the bearer of working class insurgency. When the players face off against the owners, it's more like big capitalists against huge capitalists, and it's a very different set of circumstances from what Marvin Miller was working to remedy back in the day. All of which is to say that I kind of hope you're right about the Mets. I wouldn't be heartbroken to see the club prevail against Frankie Rodriguez. Every time I attend a game, and I pay $100 for seats, $50 for food, $50 (at least!) for beer, and $50 for souvenirs if I take my niece, I feel like I have the MLBPA to thank for being $250 lighter. I know it's not an entirely fair way of looking at things, but it's not entirely unfair either.

I'm a moderate who, if anything, leans toward the right, but as Jeff said, the union is far too strong for their own good. To me, this isn't about breaking the sanctity of a contract; it's saying, "We're not going to allow you to do whatever you want and still collect tens of millions of dollars from us."

From management on down through the players, the clubs tend to forget the concept of money and that fans are paying such vast amounts of cash for the right to watch games. If they remember that fact, perhaps the idea of a legitimate code of conduct and resulting consequences for breaching it would be more prevalent and enforceable.

• Paul Lebowitz's 2010 Baseball Guide:

My book is still available on Amazon, I-Universe and Barnes and Noble.com. It's available for download as an E-book here. You can also now get it for less that five bucks on BN via download here.

Check what I got right and wrong! It's entertainment on a cold, rainy night. Just like me.