Me Pitch Through Pain, Me Tough

• And me remarkably stupid:

When word got out that Stephen Strasburg was scratched from his start for the Nationals against the Braves because he couldn't get loose, Ron Darling said during the Mets telecast (I'm paraphrasing) that he'd never heard of that before. The implication was that Strasburg was either being a baby; the Nationals were being too cautious with him; or a combination of the two.

There's a mistaken assumption that because I'm against pitch counts and the treatment of pitchers as if they're breakable artifacts that I maintain a brain-dead "tough guy" outlook on how to handle pitchers as if any twinge or ache should be ignored and they should pitch as long as there's no bone protruding through their skins.

It's nonsense.

Under no circumstances should Strasburg have been allowed to pitch if he couldn't get loose. He was diagnosed with shoulder inflammation and is "day-to-day"----ESPN Story----and the Nationals are going to be more cautious than they were previously. And they're right to do it.

For someone as smart as Darling to revert to the ballplayer "code" of playing through pain as a means to either impress others or show how tough he is is a bizarre straddling of the line from the Yale educated philosophy buff and the old-school athlete who'd rather be perceived as macho than do what's best for himself and the club by speaking up when feeling something out of whack.

Was Strasburg supposed to pitch anyway? Was he expected to risk that Hall of Fame arm in the interests of pleasing others?

Despite the Nationals' questionable attempts to improve on the fly and stay in "contention" when they don't have current personnel to do so, they'd rather lose 95 games than have anything happen to Strasburg in the interests of a relatively meaningless game against the Braves in late July. The club's future rests on Strasburg and that shoulder which he couldn't get loose; had they pitched him or if he'd kept his mouth shut, it would've been the epitome of idiocy, just like Darling's comment. It'd be one thing if it was coming from someone like Rob Dibble, but Darling should----and presumably does----know better.

On another note, the Nationals had to start Miguel Batista on short notice and the fans expecting to see Strasburg were decidedly not happy about it. Batista's a piece of work; he writes poetry and novels; says what's on his mind; and is old-school on the mound in that he'll pitch wherever and whenever he asked and is willing to buzz the hitters when he needs to. Any team can use Batista on and off the field.

• A pitcher who couldn't get loose:

When I head the phrase, "couldn't get loose" with Strasburg, I thought back to an article about another pitcher who had a similar issue, pitched through it and began a long career of good-to-great pitching and rampant injuries with extended stays on the disabled list.

In 1990, Peter Gammons profiled former Red Sox, Pirates, Cardinals and Dodgers pitcher John Tudor as he was in the twilight of his career trying to hold on as long as he could. The entire article can be found here----Sports Illustrated, May 21, 1990.

Here's the relevant quote and what those who are immersed in the shaky premise of what defines a "man" should try to comprehend if they think Strasburg should've pitched last night regardless of his shoulder problem:

After his third start for the Red Sox in '79, he says, "My shoulder was such a mess that when I went to warm up for my next start, I couldn't get loose."

Burdened by injuries, he was labeled by some in the Red Sox organization as "gutless."

Tudor was an excellent pitcher when he was healthy; in fact, I don't think he was given adequate credit for being as good as he was. There were few better during his blazing hot streak in 1985 as the Cardinals marched to the National League pennant. Would he have been better had he been treated more judiciously by the club and himself? If he was willing to tell someone that he was in pain rather than drag himself out to the mound injured and make matters worse?

It was a different time then and had Tudor said something, there's every possibility that he would've been shipped to the minors; had his reputation besmirched throughout baseball as a supposed "wimp"; and seen his career go down the tubes. Plus Tudor wasn't the prospect that Strasburg is; he didn't have an entire organization's future----on and off the field----riding on him.

In short, he was disposable. But that doesn't make it any better that he chose to pitch injured based on some ridiculous notion that he's not a "man" if he doesn't.

• Speaking of Tudor...

This isn't to suggest that the team and the pitcher should be absolved of all blame for him getting hurt and pitching through the pain, but Tudor's mechanics had a great deal to do with his injury history. They were horrible. He threw across his body and barely used his legs or lead arm to gain leverage; plus he was a short-armer (he didn't extend his arm fully until he released the ball); it was only a matter of time before either his elbow, shoulder or both blew out----which they eventually did at separate times.

Mechanics play a large part in a pitcher's longevity; probably more-so than his workload. If he's overstressing his arm, he's going to get hurt sooner or later. Nolan Ryan and Greg Maddux had drastically different approaches to getting hitters out; but they both shared flawless motions that were honed to the point where they didn't have to worry about where their elbows were; where their landing spot was; where their glove was positioned----it was natural. Their long careers and absence of arm injuries is a testament to throwing properly.

This isn't to say that Tudor was wrong in pitching the way he did either. It's very possible that if he tried to copy a Ryan or Steve Carlton, he would've gotten rocked all over the ballpark. It was Tudor's motion that----in part----made him so effective. In the article linked above, it's mentioned how well he hid the ball and that his release point would get lost in his uniform; then he added great control to the mix. If he was more conventional, hitters would've been comfortable and gotten a better look at the ball and likely bashed him.

With Josh Tomlin making his Major League debut last night against the Yankees (and winning), I thought about former Pirates lefty pitcher Randy Tomlin who had a short but useful career.

Randy Tomlin had mechanics that could only be described as atrocious. He threw completely across his body (worse than most); he landed as if he was taking a step toward the first base dugout. Tomlin didn't throw hard and had something he called a "Vulcan" change-up that looked like the "live long and prosper" sign from Mr. Spock on Star Trek with the ball buried between his middle and ring fingers; he won 14 games in 1992 and got hurt in 1994. After hanging around the minors for a couple of years trying to come back, he retired at 31.

Would Tomlin have even had a big league career had he been taught to pitch more conventionally? Or was it that quirky motion that got him the few years----good years----in the big leagues? We'll never know, but my guess is that he wouldn't have.

Because of these different individuals and their effectiveness despite small stature or lack of "stuff", it's not feasible to try and create a one-size-fits-all pitching motion; and this, by extension, is the same reason that the arbitrary pitch counts, innings limits and babying rampant in baseball is not as cleverly planned an endeavor as the inside baseball and blind followers portray it. It's a result of self-justification and fear and why every individual should be treated as an individual while in an intelligent framework of how best to develop him and keep him healthy.

Cookie-cutter techniques are boring, paranoid and, most importantly, don't work.

• Viewer Mail 7.28.2010:

Jeff (Street Boss) at Red State Blue State writes RE Joba Chamberlain:

Ugh... Joba. Spot on with the man-child's sitch (it's never pleasant being compared to (Kyle) Farnsworth, I'm sure)...

I don't think the Yanks will get much for him at this point. Maybe he would do well with a change of scenery.

If he joined my team I'd kick his ass for every time he did one of those outrageous fist pumps in a meaningless situation.

They'd be able to get a star player with Chamberlain as the centerpiece of a deal; they're not going to trade him now though. In the long run, it might be beneficial to have this struggle happen as long as it doesn't cost them a shot at a title this year. If Chamberlain has become such a reviled character to Yankee fans and the media, then it'll be easier for them to stick him in their desired role for him. Tempered expectations will let him slowly rebuild his confidence and stuff; over time, they could get the pitcher they thought they were getting in their preferred role for him; it won't be as quick as they'd hoped, but plans and schemes don't always work immediately and end up better in the end.

With the fist pumping, I'd be stunned if he hadn't been spoken to by Derek Jeter and Mariano Rivera about his excessive celebrating; he's getting his comeuppance now and I think we can all pretty much imagine the stuff he's hearing from the opposing clubs' bench jockeys. (You may not believe this, but I was quite the bench jockey.) I'd also bet that Jeter is quietly applauding some of the things that are said to Chamberlain as he slumps because he asked for it and he's getting it.

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

I think sending Joba to the minors would be a good idea. Cliff Lee went to the minors and look how that turned out. Contrary to your comment on my blog, Joba was indeed rushed through the minors the first time around, rising through three levels to the majors in 07. Yes, there were The Rules, but the problem might be a case of too much too soon.

It's a fine line between rushing him to the big leagues and using him for the now. The Yankees felt----accurately----that he'd be a nuclear weapon out of the bullpen for the end of 2007; that they'd be able to deploy him in that role, win a title and then move him back into the starting rotation. Instead, the championship plans were casualties of the Cleveland midges; Chamberlain's stuff and personality became such a phenomenon that they took on a life of their own and infected those hopes for his future.

Joel Sherman wrote in the Post that the Yankees don't want to send a negative message by demoting Chamberlain directly from the set-up role to the minors and that his struggles aren't a result of laziness----he's still working hard----link.

If find this logic to be weak at best. Who cares about the message it sends? If anything, it's going to send the message that no one is safe if they don't do their jobs. And the hard work bit? They could put me in uniform and I'd work just as hard as Chamberlain. So? Does that have anything at all to do with me getting people out? If it takes three weeks in the minors to get him together, why's that such a bad thing?

Max Stevens writes RE the Angels:

While I like the trade for Dan Haren, I don't really get the Angels' acquisition of Alberto Callaspo, do you? He's a relatively inexpensive upgrade from Brandon Wood - and presumably the trade signals the beginning of the end of the Brandon Wood experiment for the Angels - but the acquisition of Callaspo doesn't really bolster the production the team will get from its infield, unless there's something I'm missing. Perhaps the idea is to platoon Callaspo with Maicer Izturis, or Callaspo and Kevin Frandsen? As an Angels fan, neither combination, nor the prospect of Callaspo getting the bulk of the playing time, fills me with much excitement.

Callaspo was cheap in terms of cost and he's a relatively unknown but solid player. He had a fine year last year with good numbers across the board and he's not making any money. Wood's gotten numerous chances and no one can ever say they pulled the plug on him too early; he's still only 25, but he's done nothing at the big league level to justify any more opportunity. The Angels are trying to win now; they need more offense and Callaspo provides that over Wood; plus he's versatile if they get a power bat for third base in the off-season or in a trade in the immediate future.

The Angels' offense hasn't been the major problem----pitching from the back of the rotation and the bullpen has. They did bolster the lineup quietly with Callaspo.

• The Prince on the Podcast:

I was a guest with Sal at SportsFan Buzz on Friday. You can listen directly here----link----or click on Sal's site and download it from I-Tunes.

• 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.

With Truncheons And Torches

• The pariah:

Joba Chamberlain has become the combination of Frankenstein; the hunchback of Notre Dame; the Elephant Man; and Kyle Farnsworth in the circle of Yankee fandom. In fact, I'm sure some of his teammates----who were subjected to the stifling attention doled on a young pitcher who'd essentially accomplished nothing aside from being a media phenomenon and blowing away big league hitters for little over a month----were somewhat rankled over the special treatment he received.

Dragged into the debate of whether he should be a starter or reliever, it had to have grown tiresome to hear this young pitcher canonized for nothing; to see his accomplishments placed on the side because of what he "could" be; because he bore a resemblance in motion and ability to Roger Clemens.

Now, the circle is almost complete. Fans don't even want to hear the name Joba Chamberlain as a starter or reliever; his former defenders in the media are suggesting that he be included in trade talks; and even the likes of Mike Francesa, who looked like his head was literally about to erupt (no doubt emitting a volcanic blast of Diet Coke from his bloated cranium) are only still lauding Chamberlain's talent as a self-justifying device rather than honest assessment----far be it from Francesa to ever admit he's wrong about anything; so invested in Chamberlain's success as a reliever after his daily bloviating on the subject that he'll stick to his "Joba is a reliever" mantra to the end of days, Chamberlain's career, Francesa's retirement, or all three.

As cynical as I am, the subjectivity of Chamberlain's rapid plummet is stunning. How he got to this point isn't in debate. The Yankees jerked him around; babied him; treated him as if he was a breakable and invaluable artifact; and have fostered his demise.

But that doesn't absolve the pitcher himself.

He has not been good.

The whole combination of nickname (I'm going to stop referring to him as "Joba"); hype (from team, fans and media); personality (the fist-pumping is only charming when he's doing well and only to Yankee fans); and ability (he's got brilliant stuff) have combined to build and incrementally dismantle this monster.

Can he be rehabilitated in a Yankee uniform in any role? And how can they salvage him as reality sets in and he's judged on what he does rather than an interpretation of what he can be?

The Yankees have several choices with Chamberlain. They can trade him while he still has value in the eyes of opposing executives or before he gets hurt; they can use him in a role less stressful and important as the eighth inning; or they can send him down to the minors.

Trading him is fraught with risks, but he could potentially be the centerpiece for the return of a star player. Opposing organizations would still give up a lot for Chamberlain; but the reality is that the Yankees: A) don't have the glaring need for a star player they'd get with Chamberlain fronting the deal; and B) the big chips for whom Chamberlain might have been worth moving----Dan Haren, Cliff Lee----are off the board. Plus with Lee and Carl Crawford, all the Yankees have to do after the season is throw money at them rather than give up a still valuable asset like Chamberlain. I don't see it happening until the off-season and it's highly unlikely then.

They're not going to stick him back in the starting rotation now. The public and media would slaughter them for the wishy-washy was in which Chamberlain has been handled and the repeated indecision on his role; plus, it wouldn't work. Given his stumble as a reliever, the call for him to remain there won't be anything more than the selfish bellow of Francesa and the brigade of not seeing truth as they're blinded by egomania of being "right". If they want to make him a starter, it has to be next season.

What they can do is what manager Joe Girardi suggested after using David Robertson and Boone Logan to get through the eighth inning last night and go by matchups and whoever is pitching the best. Right now, that's Robertson. They can't trust Chamberlain in a close game. Placing him in a lesser role in the sixth or seventh inning with a lead that is too ample to be blown is the best way to try and get him straightened out unless they're willing....to send him to the minors.

It's not crazy to demote him.

No one could reasonably argue that his performance isn't demotion-worthy and if it was anyone else, he would've been sent to the minors or traded already. Chamberlain might benefit from an increased wake-up call of being sent down, plus it's a strong message to everyone that the Yankees don't have a scholarship program that allows rotten performance to go unpunished. Would he be mentally tough enough to handle such a fall from grace? Would it be an opportunity to rebuild him out of the spotlight? It shouldn't be dismissed out of hand and after a few more bad outings, it could happen for the good of the pitcher and the team.

Everyone has a hand in the decline in results and reputation that has befallen Chamberlain. The Yankees insipid set of rules to ostensibly "protect" Chamberlain have sown the seeds of this burgeoning disaster. The fluctuating roles are a byproduct of internal and external debate of how best to use the pitcher and he's now a non-entity in the Yankees bullpen because Girardi is afraid to use him.

It's either rebuild him or get rid of him to give him a clean start; and either/or might be the best thing for him. Expectations have dwindled to the point where no one's going to much notice what they do with him as anything other than idle curiosity bestowed upon a freak or as a means to criticize Chamberlain's (mis)handling. In any event, what's done is done; what the Yankees do about it going forward is the question.

• Speaking of "insipid" and "Girardi":

With Yankees manager Joe Girardi's contract expiring at the end of the season, there's been talk that the Illinois native would have interest in the open Chicago Cubs managerial job.

On the one hand, it would be a revelation as to Girardi's true managerial skills if he did take the Cubs job, but does anyone really think that he's going to leave the Yankees for the Cubs? It's a negotiation ploy that's not going to work because if he actually did try to use the Cubs job as a hammer over the heads of Brian Cashman and the Steinbrenners, I can bet that they'd wish him well, let him leave and find someone else to manage the club without hesitation.

There's a part of Girardi that still has the "athlete's ego" and takes offense that his contribution to the Yankees' success is minimal; that anyone can take that group of players and win, but it's pretty much true. In fact, Girardi was lucky that his glaring mistakes in last year's post-season didn't cost the team the championship.

Girardi is very smart and still learning, but he'd neither make the money in Chicago that he'll make with the Yankees; nor will he have the prestige or guarantee of having the players to win.

He is not going to the Cubs.

• Eye of the beholder:
  

The Diamondbacks return on the trade of Dan Haren to the Angels is being roundly criticized. I can't sit here and say anything about the players they received aside from what I read on the stat sheet and what others are saying about them; there's no way to know much about those players aside from established big leaguer Joe Saunders. As I said yesterday, two of the three look good enough numerically and age wise that the Diamondbacks got a pretty good package in Patrick Corbin, Tyler Skaggs and Rafael Rodriguez.

Who knows?

It has to be taken into account that under their current regime the Angels haven't made many mistakes in trading youth for veteran help. The acquisition of Mark Teixeira in 2008 "cost" them Casey Kotchman and Stephen Marek. Marek is pitching well in Triple A for the Braves as a reliever, but he's also going to turn 27 in September; if he was a legit, big time prospect, he'd have made it to the big leagues by now.

The Diamondbacks liked the package they got from the Angels and the Angels took Haren's whole contract. To rip the trade now right after it was completed isn't just premature, it's stupid.

• Viewer Mail 7.27.2010:

Jeff (Street Boss) at Red State Blue State writes RE Bobby Valentine; Dan Haren and the Angels:

If he gets a gig, I would hope Valentine could manage a game better than his job jockeying.

There's another "OOPS" moment for ya.

As for the Angels and Haren... ruthless, those Angels. Ruthless. They don't ever give up. That's baller.

It's a shame how managers without half of Valentine's strategic skills are recycled, but he's done this to himself. You can cross off about 20 teams that would either want nothing to do with Valentine personally; wouldn't have the players to compete; or wouldn't pay him what he wanted. Then there are the teams that could handle him, were willing to talk with him----and he alienated them or things didn't work out (the Red Sox before hiring Terry Francona; the Orioles; and now, apparently, the Marlins).

Where's he going? I'd keep an eye on the Dodgers situation with Valentine. Tommy Lasorda loves him like a son and the club is going to need a big name with skills to replace Joe Torre if this is truly it for him. Valentine is a candidate there. The Cubs? I don't see it. Conceivably, a new regime in Texas might want a name to manage the Rangers and if they keep Nolan Ryan, he and Valentine were on good terms when Valentine managed the Rangers 20 years ago.

If he toned it down a little, he'd get another job; but he's Bobby V and he won't.

The Angels aren't simply ruthless; they're fearless too; and stealth; and aggressive; and smart; and they don't panic; I could go on and on.

Max Stevens writes RE the Angels:

In a response to a letter posted Monday, you suggested that Bobby Abreu is among a number of players who will be gone at the end of the 2010 season. I could be wrong, but my understanding is that the Halos gave Abreu a two-year deal after last season, worth about 18m. If this is the case, it seems to me that the club needs to get younger and better defensively at both corner outfield positions. Would they move Abreu to DH? Also, will the Angels be serious players for Carl Crawford in the offseason, or are they more likely to give Mike Trout and/or Peter Bourjos chances to make the team and be everyday players? Crawford is a solid player, but the Angels would be adding a lot of salary at a position where they have guys in their system who seem like they may be ready for the show sooner rather than later.

Max is right. My mistake. Abreu is locked in for next year with an option for 2012. The other contracts about which I spoke were accurately assessed. (I also said the Skaggs was a 40th round pick yesterday when he was actually the 40th pick in the first round----I'm a mistake machine!!!)

Since they value pitching, the Angels always have to be watched with the likes of Cliff Lee, but they are also enamored of Crawford. They're highly, highly, highly unlikely to overmatch the Yankees spending power in their desire to get Lee, so the next logical choice is to go for a bat in Crawford and use the pitchers they have while looking for a less-expensive name like Jake Westbrook to fill out the rotation.

With the youngsters, the Angels have never been shy about giving one of their kids a chance to play, so they might decide to go with one of their homegrown talents; but if they don't get Lee, Crawford is someone they're going to be after and one of the few teams with the money and venue to get him.

• The Prince on the Podcast:

I was a guest with Sal at SportsFan Buzz on Friday discussing all sorts of stuff. You can listen directly here----link----or click on Sal's site and download it from I-Tunes.

• 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.

They're Out There Having Fun...

• In the warm California sun:

What a shock.

Few people had seriously mentioned the Los Angeles Angels as big time players for Dan Haren...until Dan Haren was traded to the Los Angeles Angels.

It's a part of the way they do business to play their cards close to the vest and dive in aggressively and without warning; and of course, they went for pitching when they might have been able to survive with the current pitching staff and gone for a big time bat the likes of Adam Dunn or Prince Fielder. Instead, the Angels chose to acquire Alberto Callaspo to play third base and make the big strike two days later in getting Haren from the Diamondbacks.

In exchange for Haren, the Angels sent LHP Joe Saunders, LHP Patrick Corbin, RHP Rafael Rodriguez and a player to be named later, said to be minor league prospect LHP Tyler Skaggs. The Angels gave up a lot to get Haren, but they're trying to win now and they know they're going to have Haren for the long term.

That's not to say the deal is without risk.

Haren has not pitched all that well this year, but that may be due to being the last man standing for a decimated Diamondbacks team and that his mechanics are slightly off kilter (he doesn't seem to be pausing as much as he once did on his leg lift); Haren's going to benefit from the change-of-scenery and a stable organization as opposed to the rampant disarray currently en vogue with the Diamondbacks.

Saunders is the lone, established big leaguer going to the Diamondbacks and is, at best, a mid-rotation starter on a decent team. His stuff isn't particularly impressive and he's been terrible this season. He's a contact pitcher who allows a lot of home runs; doesn't strike anyone out; and is in for a rude awakening when he realizes how atrocious the Diamondbacks are defensively. Unless they shore up the defense and Saunders benefits from switching to the National League, he's going to be worse in Arizona than he was in Anaheim----not only now, but for his entire tenure with the club.

I wonder if the Angels would've tried to peddle Scott Kazmir to the Diamondbacks instead of Saunders if Kazmir wasn't on the disabled list. Kazmir's stuff is way better than that of Saunders, but he's fragile and has pitched poorly. Plus, he's far more expensive contractually.

Corbin is a 20-year-old starter who's got solid strikeout/control numbers in high A of the Angels minor league system. Rodriguez is going to be 26 in September and has spent time in the big leagues without much success; he was used as a starter earlier in his minor league career and switched to the bullpen; he's allowed a lot of homers and his strikeout numbers aren't good----a reliever who allows a lot of homers and doesn't strike people out isn't of much use. Skaggs, a top prospect, is only 18-years-old; he was drafted with the 40th pick in the first round last season and has put up terrific numbers in high A.

In short, the Diamondbacks dumped Haren's entire salary; got some volume in pitching and a big time, young pitching prospect. Skaggs could be on the fast track to the big leagues; the Diamondbacks have never shied away from bringing their youngsters up to the big leagues early (Justin Upton for example) and letting them learn on the fly.

On another note for the Diamondbacks, I find it interesting when teams have a GM with the "interim" tag attached to his name and allow him to make such important trades of franchise cornerstones.

Jerry DiPoto is a widely respected baseball man, but he's still only an interim GM; one would assume that he's a pretty good bet to get the full-time job, but he's still technically not the GM. It's an odd way of functioning; just as the Padres fired Kevin Towers after allowing him to deal Jake Peavy last season and almost trade Adrian Gonzalez; and as the Cubs are now doing with Jim Hendry on extremely shaky ground, but handling the possible sell-off of Derrek Lee, Ted Lilly and others; I question the wisdom; but it looks like the Diamondbacks made a nice trade here.

With the Yankees having set a hard line in their negotiations for Haren, the Diamondbacks were smart to jump on the Angels deal quickly. Part of that comes from knowing how the Angels function----their reputation precedes them in that if they have an offer on the table and their potential trading partner hesitates, essentially shopping the deal around as the Mariners did in their negotiations with the Yankees for Cliff Lee, the Angels are liable to tell you to take a hike; or not specifically tell you to take a hike, but let you know that they're no longer interested in your deal in a different way----by trading for someone else.

Had this been a rental of the Lee variety (although the Angels have the money to keep Lee whereas the Rangers don't), then the price would've been to steep; but the Angels know they're going to have Haren, can try to make a run at the Rangers this season and be prepared to contend in 2011 as well with Haren a giant step up from Saunders.

I don't think the Angels are going to be able to catch the Rangers this year; and they can forget about the Wild Card; but this isn't an acquisition for two months; Haren's an Angel and will remain an Angel for the long term.

It looks like a win-win for both sides.

• Desperation is repellent:

It's an fine line between showing interest in something while maintaining an air of attractiveness or seduction. Repeatedly declaring one's interest in that which has caught his or her eye is the surest way to lose it.

Bobby Valentine wants to manage in the big leagues again. His flirtation with the Marlins has either run its course and is over, or will have to wait until after the season to be rekindled. Now that the Cubs are going to be looking for a new manager with the retirement announcement from Lou Piniella, effective at the end of the season, Valentine has openly expressed interest in the job----ESPN Story.

Like anything else with Valentine, there's the potential of the eruption of a nuclear fireball and it's mostly due to the behavior of...Bobby Valentine.

Would Valentine be a good choice for the Cubs?

It depends on their intentions.

Valentine is well-versed in stat based theory, has a gambler's soul when it comes to in-game strategy and the experience and courage to make maneuvers based on what he feels will win a game rather than what's easier to explain to reporters and front office people. The Cubs have hired a stat guy, Ari Kaplan, to work in their front office and if they're going to do a drastic organizational rebuild, then Valentine is a bad choice; but if they intend to move forward and try to win on the fly, they do have enough talent at the big league level and in their system to make it a realistic and sensible option to hire Valentine.

They have contracts that are completely immobile like Alfonso Soriano, so a total overhaul doesn't make much sense; but the Cubs don't even know who their GM is going to be next season, so thinking about a manager before they keep GM Jim Hendry or replace him makes little sense.

I don't see Valentine with the Cubs next year; nor do I put much stock in the idea that Joe Girardi would leave the Yankees for that job; Ryne Sandberg is going to be the next manager of the Cubs.

For Valentine, he's running out of options. He pulled out of the running for the Orioles when all indications were that he was about to be named Marlins manager; now that that is on life support, he's talking up the Cubs. If they don't want him, he's either going to have to hope the Mets do something out of character and bring him back or the Dodgers go after him if Joe Torre retires. Aside from that, he's running out of big league jobs to "covet" and actually have a chance of getting.

Desperation leaves you at the mercy of that which you desire; and it's bad strategy as well.

• Viewer Mail 7.26.2010:

Jane Heller at Confessions of a She-Fan writes RE Dan Haren (prior to the Angels trade):

The Yankees are right to try to make the best deal they can - for them. If the Diamondbacks have other suitors for Haren and the deal is better somewhere else, then let them take it. But the trading deadline is looming, so who are the other teams and what are they offering?

This is another example of the Yankees wanting something, but not taking into serious account the other clubs who might be after the object of their affection. If the Yankees had agreed to take all of the Haren money, Haren might be a Yankee right now.

There's nothing wrong with asking for what you want (this can also be said of the Valentine situation), but there has to be flexibility. If the Yankees are comfortable going forward with their starting pitching as it stands now----and there's little reason not to be as long as Andy Pettitte will be back in a reasonable timeframe----then they could pull a "take it or leave it" with the Diamondbacks regarding Haren; or the Astros with Roy Oswalt; or any other starter available; but if they wanted Haren, they should've done what needed to be done to get him.

The competition for Haren appeared to be the Phillies and the Cardinals. I'm sure the Yankees were smart enough to know that the Angels would be monitoring the circumstances from afar and were always a threat to strike----and they did.

Kyle Johnson writes RE the Angels and Dan Haren:

With the acquisition of Dan Haren from the D-backs do you see the Angels catching the Rangers by season's end or are the offensive differences just too big? Also imagine what a starting three of Lee, Weaver, and Haren would be like if they were able to sign Lee next off season. Would be a very intimidating team, no?

I don't think the Angels are going to catch the Rangers, but they are going to be in position to capitalize on a young team's panic late in the season if they're close in mid-to-late September----you never know; and late season collapses are becoming an annual event in baseball.

The Angels have a lot of money coming off the books in the next couple of years. Bobby Abreu, Brian Fuentes, Hideki Matsui and Scot Shields will all probably be gone after this year; Kazmir after next year; and Torii Hunter after 2012. They could certainly figure a way to get Lee into their salary structure; but now that the Yankees are out on Haren and almost definitely not taking Oswalt, it's going to be hard to outbid them on Lee.

• The Prince on the Podcast:

I was a guest with Sal at SportsFan Buzz on Friday and it'll give you thrills and chills that you've never experienced.

You can listen directly here----link----or click on Sal's site and download it from I-Tunes.

• 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.

Sunday Lightning 7.25.2010

• Let's engage in some objective reality:

Considering how reviled he is throughout stat zombie circles (and I don't think much of him as a GM either), eyes must have been rolling out of heads when David DeJesus injured his hand crashing into the center field wall trying to catch Derek Jeter's drive earlier this week. In that one moment, Royals GM Dayton Moore's willingness to trade DeJesus were sabotaged.

The one reaction I saw was Jayson Stark (a non-stat zombie) saying, "Oops" on Twitter; but I'm certain that there are others who are ripping Moore up-and-down for: A) asking for so much in exchange for DeJesus; and B) not trading him earlier.

Both arguments are, of course, ridiculous.

The Royals were under no edict to move DeJesus despite their current situation of, well, of being the Royals. They're not going anywhere; they're building for a future that could be as far off in the distance as men walking on Neptune; and DeJesus is one one of their best players with a contract that pays him only $6 million next year. They have no reason to trade him unless they were bowled over by an offer. They might've gotten a break in DeJesus getting hurt so they can either deal him in the winter and possibly get more than they would've gotten now.

DeJesus is highly underrated; very versatile defensively; has some pop; gets on base; and he's affordable. Trading him prior to a lucrative enough offer being presented would've been a panic move by Moore and a justifiable reason to attack him; aside from that, DeJesus got hurt and is out for the season----accept it and move on.

None of this is the point. The point is that the agenda-driven criticism is doled out so unevenly that you'd think my repeated harping on it would yield a shift. But it hasn't.

In case you missed it, Ben Sheets of the Athletics was placed on the disabled list yesterday with a strained elbow.

In other words, Sheets is back in his office.

So, where's the criticism for Athletics GM Billy Beane for not trading Sheets earlier? The Athletics are now over .500, but in the grand scheme of things, they're not in any better a position than the Royals; not shielded from criticism for any reason other than the sacred cow that is their GM; the beacon of their "revolution" laid out in Moneyball.

The Sheets signing was a strange one to start with, especially for a guaranteed $10 million; people like me savaged it; and even the Beane acolytes in the media questioned its wisdom. Sheets didn't pitch last year after surgery on the same elbow; looked dishonest because of his knowledge that he was injured and was still trying to extract a contract from a pitching-hungry team before his season-ending surgery----it was as if he hoped someone would sign him and when no one did, he begrudgingly agreed to have surgery as if it was a cosmetic, elective procedure. I wouldn't want a guy like that on my team.

Sheets was horrible in the spring, but he did manage to get himself out to the mound every fifth day when the season started; he pitched well enough; and was a viable trade chip for the Athletics.

But they didn't trade him.

And now he's back on the disabled list.

The Athletics will be able to get Sheets through waivers after the trading deadline and if he can pitch after the stay on the DL, they'll be able to move him, but they won't get as much as they would've had they dealt him earlier.

Are the Athletics contenders for a playoff spot? They're 7 1/2 games behind the Rangers in the AL West----they're not catching them. They're 9 1/2 games behind the Rays in the Wild Card race----they're not catching them.

Aside from aesthetics and having a GM who "gets it", are they in any better position than the Royals?

No.

To me, the Athletics and Beane deserve more criticism than the Royals do for their reluctance to trade Sheets when they could've dumped his salary and gotten something for him even if what they got was a "tools" player who wasn't performing well; or a fill-in piece that could be of use later on. After the season, they're going to get nothing for him; while the Royals will still have DeJesus and could trade him in the winter or next season.

In both cases, I actually agree with the hesitancy to make a quick trade. It's the absence of equal analysis that I have an issue with. The criticism is again based not on fact, but on allegiance, and it's wrong.

Speaking of which...

• Disaster, thy name is Mariners:

Do you realize that the Mariners don't have one player who has 10 home runs.

It's late July.

And they don't have one player who has 10 home runs.

This is with a GM who was considered a "genius" as recently as three months ago.

I'm not blaming Mariners GM Jack Zduriencik for the entirety of the Mariners failure, but like the above section about Moore and Beane, I'm waiting for equality of judgment based not on partisanship, but on....objective reality.

Waiting, waiting and waiting.

A team that was built for defense has the 9th worst fielding percentage in the American League; and is at the top of the board in errors committed----the Zduriencik strategies of dealing on the fly while clearing players and adding other players has failed. It's another case of half-measures and "doing stuff" while not fixing fundamental problems.

What are the Mariners fundamental problems, you ask?

Ichiro Suzuki for one; a lack of talent for another.

Ichiro is a diva; he's too expensive and would only have use on a good team.

What does he do that makes him valuable aside from occupying a massive chunk of team payroll for hitting a bunch of singles and selfishly accumulating hits and a high batting average? Put Ichiro on the Yankees or Red Sox and bat him leadoff and he'll score 150 runs and presumably he wouldn't behave as he does in Seattle----running the show and dictating who the manager is as a prerequisite for him to stay as he's rumored to have done with Mike Hargrove; but with the Mariners, he, along with Felix Hernandez, is one of their few publicly marketable names, therefore he gets away with it.

Answer me this: if the Mariners put Ichiro on the market, who'd want him as anything other than an exchange of contracts? Set to make a guaranteed $34 million after this season, is he of any use to another team if he's going to be the selfish "I got my hits and that's what matters" player he is now?

The argument of "I got my hits" vs "I played for the team" is subtle, but unmistakable and baseball people know it and can spot it immediately. Ichiro could hit 25 homers if he wanted to. Easily. His average would suffer, but so what? What good is it if Ichiro singles and is stranded on the basepaths because there's no one behind him to drive him in? That's a fault of the Mariners upper management for choosing to bring back Ken Griffey Jr. and not sign Jim Thome, but Ichiro is also under their watch and he doesn't play for the team. The season is lost and Ichiro's going to accrue more stats that look glossy----but intelligent baseball observers know the truth; the truth that he's an expensive, selfish and losing player.

The lack of talent in Seattle is striking. Look at their roster and they look like an expansion team. They have Hernandez, Ichiro, Franklin Gutierrez and...and....and....what?

Nothing.

There are negligible pieces here and there; a young bat like Michael Saunders who could become something; Luke French could develop; Dustin Ackley, Johermyn Chavez are minor league bats that have promise; but what else is there?

This is all occurring as the Mariners----with a "genius" as their GM----are going to easily lose 100 games. Things went wrong for them this year and that's understandable and not the fault of Zduriencik to any greater degree than the Mets stumble in 2009 was the fault of GM Omar Minaya; or the Diamondbacks fall was the fault of their fired GM Josh Byrnes.

Mistakes were made in all cases----some explainable, some not; but the appellation of "genius" was so stupid and based on nothing other than shared beliefs that I fear I'm wasting my time in asking for the righteous and self-serving indignation that would be present in cases like Minaya and Moore.

Objective reality? I don't see it.

• Is any other fan base this negative?

Maybe I see it more closely because it's the Mets, but are fans of the Cubs, Indians, Royals and Orioles more negative than Mets fans? And why? The team has so far surpassed any expectations before the season that there should be baseline acceptance of their current state on one end of the spectrum; and joy on the other for the mere fact that they're over .500 in late July and still a viable playoff contender.

They're streaky and awful on the road; they're short in the pitching department and don't hit in the clutch.

But they're still hanging around playoff contention.

Mets fans don't want to hear this, but any playoff run at this point would be playing with house money. In 2010, they're incorporating a better-than-expected youth movement and cheap signings like R.A. Dickey and Hisanori Takahashi; and possibly moving toward a future that is very bright not for 2010, maybe not even for 2011, but for 2012.

A playoff spot is right there for the taking with any number of National League teams this season and it may come down to whichever club gets lucky in a trade or is hot in September. That could be the Mets; it could be the Giants; it could be the Phillies----it could be anyone.

The big picture provides clarity. The 2012 Phillies are looking more and more like they're going to be a very bad team due to ongoing front office idiocy. The Braves are loaded with young players; the Mets are as well. And the Mets, with all the Bernie Madoff-spurred allegations of an inability to spend money, are still going to be one of the higher ceilinged teams in terms of spending ability and will have a lot of room to do so as the dead money from Luis Castillo and Oliver Perez comes off the books, and Carlos Beltran's contract is set to expire after 2011; right now, it's iffy as to whether the Mets are going to keep Jose Reyes after he goes free agent following 2011.

The money will be there.

Jason Bay is having an atrocious year, but is it really that different from the year Beltran had in 2005? It's better in fact because the expectations for Beltran were much higher and he took a year to adjust to New York. Bay is experiencing the same thing and may be----as David Wright was----spooked by the vast dimensions of Citi Field; I'd expect a more relaxed Bay in 2011 and for the team to get something close to what they expected this year.

The front office has been smart in not acting desperately to win now as they did in 2004 by trading Scott Kazmir for Victor Zambrano. In retrospect, the trade of Kazmir was only a bad deal because they could've gotten a Tim Hudson from the Atheltics for Kazmir after the season, not because of anything the mediocre Kazmir has done since with the Rays or Angels.

This negativity is out of context; the target placed on a manager in Jerry Manuel----who probably won't be shepherding the youth movement anyway----is misplaced. Any playoff for this team in 2010 would be stolen similar to the way the Rockies used a blazing hot streak all the way to the World Series in 2007; the Mets future is 2011-2012. It's close and it's bright.

Brighter than that of a lot of teams in baseball.

The doomsayers need to look at that reality and react accordingly with a cold, realistic detachment rather than continually attack and play up their own pre-season predictions that were based on selfishness rather than accurate appraisal.

But that's prevalent today as well.

• The Yankees and Dan Haren:

If I were running the Diamondbacks front office and engaging in discussions to trade Dan Haren to the Yankees, and the Yankees had the audacity to ask for money to supplement Haren's contract and, in addition to that, were refusing to give up the players I wanted, I'd tell them that we'd continue a dialogue as the week wore on; then I'd hang up the phone, look at my assistants with head-shaking frustration and shock at the arrogance and say, "So, they want me to give up my biggest asset; give them money to pay him; and back off my demand for Joba Chamberlain----all so they can still have the money to sign Cliff Lee in the winter. Are they this self-absorbed or are they truly out of their *bleeping* minds?!?"

While the Yankees complaining about the way the Mariners and Zduriencik appeared to use them to get a better package for Lee from the Rangers had some basis, they're still behaving as if the rest of baseball owes them something. Why would anyone in their right minds want to help the Yankees both financially and in personnel? To think that the Diamondbacks are stupid enough to give the Yankees money to pay Dan Haren is so insane that only a lunatic would buy into and engage in it.

Are the Diamondbacks going to get a better deal for Haren now than they would in the winter? It's questionable; Haren's locked up contractually; the only risk for the Diamondbacks is if he gets hurt as DeJesus did----apart from any self-imposed edict, they're under no obligation to trade him.

It's obvious what the Yankees are doing----that they want Haren at their price in terms of players and want money to cover his contract so they can still find a way to sign Lee; I don't blame them for it; in fact, it's admirable that Yankees GM Brian Cashman would try to do that, but overall, it's madness.

If I were the Diamondbacks, I'd say straight out to Cashman that if he wants Haren, he's either taking the whole contract and giving me a nice package of blue chip youth; or he's getting a small amount of money and giving me a nice package headed by Chamberlain. If that's not acceptable, take a hike.

To me, playing harder ball with the Yankees or Red Sox than with other teams is part of doing business in the world of haves and have-nots. There's no restraint on salaries, so it's up to the individual clubs to check on the teams with big money and condescending attitudes by marking their territory and holding the line. This is why Zduriencik is probably being quietly applauded for his actions in the Lee negotiations----he beat the Yankees at their own game. The Diamondbacks should take heed as well.

• Viewer Mail 7.25.2010:

Jane Heller at Confessions of a She-Fan writes RE Chone Figgins:

Didn't hear about the Figgins thing. He must be homesick for the Angels, because everybody on Scoscia's teams hustles.

I don't think people realize that this stuff happens all the time off the field but it's more pronounced and a bigger case is made of these altercations when they occur in the dugout because they're public. It can be a useful air-clearing session when it finally blows up and it's not a bad thing. People don't have to get along personally to work together.

It's hard to imagine someone regretting getting the money they wanted, but Figgins looks miserable in Seattle; the team is dysfunctional and awful and he left the Angels----a great situation with an organized and successful team----to go into a wasteland that's not going to get better anytime soon. It's hard to give him a pass for repeated lack of hustle, but zoning out when losing day-after-day is understandable.

Angels people are probably looking at the Figgins-Don Wakamatsu incident and saying, "Chone didn't act that way here," and it's more of a comparative teamwide assessment than a simple statement of fact.

He's got his money though.

Joe writes RE my delving into the 80s:

Funny how you are stuck in 80's mode the day after I watched 'Hot Tub Time Machine.'

Did you watch the unrated version? I haven't seen it yet.

I'm sensing a future for you in the deadpan comedy arena, Joe. Maybe you can open for Ken Davidoff and his ventriloquist dummy, "Dolan".

The Brooklyn Trolley Blogger writes RE the Mets:

Cliff Lee ~ I wish I was as optimistic as you. In my heart I think Baby Jeff and Mets R Us are going to blow it. I don't think they'll be as committed to signing Lee as they'll need to be. You also must take this into consideration; Reyes' deal is up after 2011 as Wright's will be. The Wilpons should know at this very moment, at least in theory, if they are going to pay the big money needed to retain them. KRod's deal is up after next season and in two season's time the effective Johan window will close.

And a moment of silence for your boy and mine, Fernando Nieve; ruined by Jerry Manuel in 2010.

The Lee-to-the-Mets scenario is going to be determined by whether the Yankees get Haren and if the Mets pay Lee when he's available; but it's not a Hail Mary situation where they have no chance of getting him----things have broken relatively well for the Mets lately whether people admit it or not.

This idea that the Mets aren't willing to pay players is silly. They paid for Bay; they still have a high payroll----we're not talking a Marlins/Padres-style sell-off.

Wright is going nowhere. Not by trade, nor by free agency. He's locked up through 2013 anyway. Reyes might be allowed to leave; Santana's here to stay; Francisco Rodriguez? He has a $17.5 million club option for 2012 with appearance/health clauses that he'll easily reach. Even without K-Rod, they can find someone to close.

Regarding Nieve, people loathe admitting this, but there are players who you sign, use, exhaust and discard. Nieve has a good fastball and slider----ability to be a useful pitcher, but he's not someone you can say the Mets "ruined". Could Manuel have been more judicious with him? Of course, but it's not on the level with abusing K-Rod, Mike Pelfrey or Santana. Nieve served his purpose and they designated him for assignment. He might be back or he might not. Life will go on.

• The Prince on the Podcast:

I was a guest with Sal at SportsFan Buzz on Friday and the appearance was brilliant as usual. I'm always ahead of the game. Always.

You can listen directly here----link----or click on Sal's site and download it from I-Tunes.

• 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.

Give in and love it, what's the point in hating me? You can't argue with popularity.

Well, you could. But you'd be wrong.