One of the bigger surprises of this year’s Hall of Fame vote to me was the fact David Cone went one-and-out on the ballot. In my January 14 Hardball Times article Daze of whine and posers all I had to say on the subject was “David Cone (3.9%) … I thought he might hang around and wouldn’t be surprised to see him get some attention from the VC.”
He strikes me as a guy that was probably a bit underappreciated by both the media and the sabermetric community hence he didn’t get a lot of attention during the vote. I do think however that his peers (or whatever form the VC will take) will one day show him a lot more love.
Probably the most striking aspect to his career from my point of view is that a David Cone likely would not happen today with the emphasis on protecting hurlers’ arms and pitch counts. Cone enjoyed a remarkable 12 year run from 1988-1999 and was known as a guy with a rubber arm. Indeed he made 348 regular season starts in those years and topped 120 pitches in 130 of them; of those 130 turns, 58 times he threw over 130 pitches, he tossed 140 or more on a dozen occasions and in one iron man outing--he tossed a 166 pitch shutout against the San Francisco Giants in July 1992 whiffing 13.
Amazingly, that was part of an eight start stretch where he went 6-0, 3.15 ERA, struck out 80 in 60 IP averaging 137 pitches per game; his pitch counts were 134, 136, 142, 134, 166, 132, 115 and 138.
Ouch.
Cone made his résumé in those seasons and it was indeed a very impressive 12 years: 175-96, 3.15 ERA (lg. ERA: 4.17), topping 200 innings eight times in ten full campaigns (1994-95 were shortened by the strike) and was over 190 frames in the other two non-strike seasons. He pitched 2468 innings overall and struck out 2331; over those 12 seasons he was third in ERA behind Greg Maddux and Roger Clemens, fifth in innings pitched, fourth in RSAA (Runs Saved Against Average) behind Maddux, Clemens and Randy Johnson, third in strikeouts (Johnson and Clemens), second in winning percentage (Maddux) and fourth in wins (Maddux, Clemens and Tom Glavine).
He won a Cy Young Award, enjoyed a pair of 20-win seasons picked up four World Series rings as a starter (he picked up a fifth as a reliever for the Yankees in 2000), and although he didn’t fare well in LDS play, he was 6-2, 3.01 ERA in over 80 LCS/Fall Classic innings and had a stellar 2.12 ERA in the five World Series in which he appeared.
During those 12 seasons he certainly held his own against the greats of that era. He was considered the team leader of the great Yankee team of 1996-2000 and has a perfect game on his ledger to boot--in all, I think a case can be made for the Hall of Fame for one David Brian Cone.
Chapeaus and such…
While the offseason the Yankees enjoyed has some clubs calling for a salary cap, I do think that Selig is serious about not being interested in one at the moment. To begin with, he is in a poor position to decry player costs when he’s pulling down $18 million a year--a level that only a small handful of players are currently at; also there is the small matter that MLB is actually doing a lot better than the other three sports (all with caps) insofar as percentages of revenue being devoted to player salaries.
A salary cap usually assigns a fixed percentage of revenues to be used for compensation and to match the other three sports baseball would actually have to agree to devote more money to salaries. Of course, if ownership does push for a cap and agrees to this (higher percentage) you can bet your bottom dollar/salary floor that management feels confident that it can hide a lot of revenues in third/related party transactions and funnelling funds to interests under the same corporate umbrella.
Still, it would be funny to watch Selig squirm in front of the microphones about how the sport needs to curtail player costs while being questioned about how much he makes. Of course, the big question that I would ask baseball’s commander-and-thief would be “How can a sport that loses so much money afford to pay their commissioner $18 million a year?” Heck, each club kicks in on average as much as all the clubs put in combined to pay his predecessor Fay Vincent’s salary; Vincent made about $600,000 when given the boot.
See ya on the other side…
This will be my last post for a little while--I go under the knife for the ol’ ticker at 7:15 AM Monday. Again, thanks for all the notes and well-wishes; once I’m fixed…er, repaired, I’ll be back with a vengeance. I’ve submitted a column for SMSN Sports that will run next week--beyond that it’s wait-and-see. Regardless, I’ve been a busy boy this week and here’s the latest:
Somebody needs A-Clue (SMSN Sports) A lighter look at Alex Rodriguez’s recent pratfall--my editor rejected my suggestion for a title: “Like A-Burgeon(ing problem).”
A-Reck (Hardball Times) I don my tinfoil hat and deal with something that I’ve always wondered about regarding the enigmatic-Rod.
Five questions: Toronto Blue Jays (Hardball Times) I do this every year with my usual mix of optimism and snark.
Best Regards
John
Saturday, March 21, 2009
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
Yank-ing chains...
I love classic cars--besides the styling, my favourite thing are those old big block engines where size matters and you’re judged on your cubic inches; there’s just something about seeing eight old oil can sized pistons to set the ol’ heart a-flutter.
After I retire I want to modify a smaller, economy style car by somehow managing to squeeze as big an engine block as I can, tricking it out to get maximum low end torque out of the beast and somehow succeeding to hide the “little car that could” (kick your butt)'s secret behind a dead-smooth idle with no hint of a lope.
But I digress--kinda.
Anyway, imagine for a moment you wanted to build the ultimate engine and money is no object. You do all kinds of research because you want all the biggest, baddest parts--top of the line for your creation: engine block, camshafts, pistons, alternator, manifolds, exhaust system etc. You find that different manufacturers (Ford, Toyota, BMW etc.) have developed the best of the best of these parts and when your shopping is done you have nothing but state-of-the-art, high end performance/output parts.
Now put the engine together.
If you’ve ever worked on an engine you know of what I speak. You’ll be doing a lot of work getting it assembled.
There used to be an old gag where a guy bought a new fangled carburetor guaranteed to reduce gas consumption 50%, spark plugs that would cut it down 10%, a high-tech air filter good for another 20%, synthetic oil that would kick in 15%, and a gas filter that would cut consumption 10% then proceeded to install them one afternoon--after he was done it was time to take it for a spin and he drove his car 15 miles and the gas tank overflowed.
We learn two lessons from these: one optimum performance does not rely on simply having a collection of the biggest, baddest parts simply thrown together regardless of whether or not they fit and just because you throw a bunch of stats together doesn’t mean that you add them up and come up with the correct total unless you understand what the numbers truly mean.
To me, this is my ongoing navel-gazing regarding the whole old school/new school battles over understanding baseball.
Every year, a given team will add a superstar player or two and it’s easy to assume that they can factor those totals (whether traditional/sabermetric/adjusted) onto the current roster and assume the team has added X number of wins.
A baseball team is not a collection of individuals acting in isolation--it’s a unit, a single entity, an engine if you will and for maximum performance a degree of thought has to be put into the individual parts and whether they can act as a single entity. A given part may not be a high end state-of-the-art piece of machinery but if it’s the correct part for the engine--one that improves its performance then that’s the piece the engine needs.
Just because you assemble a lineup of guys that average 100 runs scored per season doesn’t mean that a team is guaranteed to score 900 runs.
I’m not writing this to bash sabermetrics since I feel quite strongly that the sabermetric movement has been a major plus for baseball. To continue the analogy from a different perspective--if an engine needs a part, it would asinine to suggest (as an example) that a piece from a 1987 Crown Victoria is the correct piece just because 15 years ago the person making the suggestion bought a used Crown Vic and it was the best car they ever owned.
In short--the old school philosophy based on hunches, a previous good experience with no context is as disastrous as simply looking at players as numbers, throwing them together and adding the numbers together to see if it’s a winning combination and going from there.
An engine just doesn’t need parts--it needs fluids: oil, transmission fluid, antifreeze, power steering fluid etc.
If the players constitute the “parts” then perhaps the fluids represent the intangibles: chemistry, teamwork, leadership, hustle, grit--the never say die attitude--a team cannot function absent these things and the quality of them can be the determining factor between comparable engines/teams.
My point?
I’ve taken a lot of heat for my prediction that the Yankees are an 85 win team this year--many have pointed out the talent on hand and the additions made and all but guaranteed me a 95+ win club based on the numbers.
I know these things already.
However, I wasn’t dissing the Yankees--to me they’re a team in transition; they’re an old club--yes, they’ve added a couple of talented pitchers but then again in recent seasons they brought aboard other talented pitchers: Randy Johnson, Kevin Brown, Javier Vazquez, Carl Pavano (the man was talented--it just ended at the Adam‘s apple), Jose Contreras, Jeff Weaver (don’t laugh--Weaver was 25 when he joined the team and had a 3.97 ERA over his previous 551 IP), Jon Lieber (4.10 ERA in 686.2 IP from 1999-2001) etc. but for whatever reason the Yankees didn’t get what they expected from them. The numbers were certainly there but when added to the engine, their (the pitchers) performance suffered--it was a poor fit for these men.
Hence, I am not automatically assuming that C.C. Sabathia and A.J. Burnett will translate into Sabathia’s NL numbers or A.J.’s 2008 performance in 2009 with the Yankees. Yes, Mark Teixeira is a significant upgrade to Jason Giambi but Alex Rodriguez was an off-the-charts step up from Aaron Boone and what happened there?
The Bronx Bombers are still finding their way in the new information age; according to Joe Torre, Brian Cashman once suggested to him to bat Doug Mientkiewicz and Jason Giambi 1-2 in the batting order because of their high OBP.
Seriously.
They’re climbing a steep learning curve and are a bit behind--they’ll get there but there’s work still to be done.
Since Andy Pettitte was drafted, how many starting pitchers did the Yankees develop and retain that have tossed two seasons of 200 IP? How many have they drafted?
Almost 400.
Let’s face it--that is a staggering level of ineptitude…only Chien-Ming Wang (I’ll count 199.2 IP as good enough to qualify) since 1991.
This means that the organization has had to import their starting pitching--players developed by other clubs with differing philosophies; it worked when teams had trouble retaining their own talent but in Selig’s Brave New World fewer and fewer ace-quality pitchers hit the marketplace (or become available in trade) and have had to settle on guys that could perform in some environments but not necessarily in the Bronx.
The big change in the Yankees’ fortunes really came about between 2003-2004 when they lost Roger Clemens, Andy Pettitte and David Wells (the latter two being southpaws--duh) and went to an all right handed rotation (a bad fit in Yankee Stadium) and nobody in 2004 tossed 200 innings while the departed trio had all topped that mark the previous year.
Again, the importance of the right parts as opposed to the shiniest ones was demonstrated.
The Yankees added two right handed pitchers for 2009 but how many of the candidates for the rotation are consistent 200 inning starters and can be reasonably counted on to assume that kind of workload?
Sabathia is a good candidate, Pettitte might have one more 200 inning season in him, Wang might--but that’s far from a sure thing, Burnett has never had back-to-back 200+ inning seasons and the organization will not try to get that many out of Joba Chamberlain, Ian Kennedy or Phil Hughes.
Will Sabathia and Burnett be Mike Mussina and Roger Clemens 2.0 or the second coming of Javier Vazquez and Carl Pavano? We won’t know and can’t assume the former (or the latter to be fair).
As to the offense, aside from age issues, they’re hoping Nick Swisher will replace Bobby Abreu’s production and barring a miracle that’ll be a step back plus A-Rod will be out for awhile.
Sure, there’s talent there but the 1965 Yanks looked good on a paper as well and were coming off four straight pennants.
The Yankees will be fine but I think they are in transition--a lot of players came off the books and next year Johnny Damon, Hideki Matsui and Andy Pettitte will likely be gone as well.
Hence, I see an 85 win team and fair minds can disagree.
I’m not sure what all the fuss is about--the last time they won it all they were an 87-win team in the regular season.
Oh well, such are the hazards of prognostication.
P.S. For those who accuse me of being biased against the Yankees there’s a wonderful tool called “Google”--I think you’ll find about a 10:1 ratio of positive to negative articles when the club is a column topic for yours truly and there’s no way I could find work in the New York media with those kinds of numbers.
Best Regards
John
After I retire I want to modify a smaller, economy style car by somehow managing to squeeze as big an engine block as I can, tricking it out to get maximum low end torque out of the beast and somehow succeeding to hide the “little car that could” (kick your butt)'s secret behind a dead-smooth idle with no hint of a lope.
But I digress--kinda.
Anyway, imagine for a moment you wanted to build the ultimate engine and money is no object. You do all kinds of research because you want all the biggest, baddest parts--top of the line for your creation: engine block, camshafts, pistons, alternator, manifolds, exhaust system etc. You find that different manufacturers (Ford, Toyota, BMW etc.) have developed the best of the best of these parts and when your shopping is done you have nothing but state-of-the-art, high end performance/output parts.
Now put the engine together.
If you’ve ever worked on an engine you know of what I speak. You’ll be doing a lot of work getting it assembled.
There used to be an old gag where a guy bought a new fangled carburetor guaranteed to reduce gas consumption 50%, spark plugs that would cut it down 10%, a high-tech air filter good for another 20%, synthetic oil that would kick in 15%, and a gas filter that would cut consumption 10% then proceeded to install them one afternoon--after he was done it was time to take it for a spin and he drove his car 15 miles and the gas tank overflowed.
We learn two lessons from these: one optimum performance does not rely on simply having a collection of the biggest, baddest parts simply thrown together regardless of whether or not they fit and just because you throw a bunch of stats together doesn’t mean that you add them up and come up with the correct total unless you understand what the numbers truly mean.
To me, this is my ongoing navel-gazing regarding the whole old school/new school battles over understanding baseball.
Every year, a given team will add a superstar player or two and it’s easy to assume that they can factor those totals (whether traditional/sabermetric/adjusted) onto the current roster and assume the team has added X number of wins.
A baseball team is not a collection of individuals acting in isolation--it’s a unit, a single entity, an engine if you will and for maximum performance a degree of thought has to be put into the individual parts and whether they can act as a single entity. A given part may not be a high end state-of-the-art piece of machinery but if it’s the correct part for the engine--one that improves its performance then that’s the piece the engine needs.
Just because you assemble a lineup of guys that average 100 runs scored per season doesn’t mean that a team is guaranteed to score 900 runs.
I’m not writing this to bash sabermetrics since I feel quite strongly that the sabermetric movement has been a major plus for baseball. To continue the analogy from a different perspective--if an engine needs a part, it would asinine to suggest (as an example) that a piece from a 1987 Crown Victoria is the correct piece just because 15 years ago the person making the suggestion bought a used Crown Vic and it was the best car they ever owned.
In short--the old school philosophy based on hunches, a previous good experience with no context is as disastrous as simply looking at players as numbers, throwing them together and adding the numbers together to see if it’s a winning combination and going from there.
An engine just doesn’t need parts--it needs fluids: oil, transmission fluid, antifreeze, power steering fluid etc.
If the players constitute the “parts” then perhaps the fluids represent the intangibles: chemistry, teamwork, leadership, hustle, grit--the never say die attitude--a team cannot function absent these things and the quality of them can be the determining factor between comparable engines/teams.
My point?
I’ve taken a lot of heat for my prediction that the Yankees are an 85 win team this year--many have pointed out the talent on hand and the additions made and all but guaranteed me a 95+ win club based on the numbers.
I know these things already.
However, I wasn’t dissing the Yankees--to me they’re a team in transition; they’re an old club--yes, they’ve added a couple of talented pitchers but then again in recent seasons they brought aboard other talented pitchers: Randy Johnson, Kevin Brown, Javier Vazquez, Carl Pavano (the man was talented--it just ended at the Adam‘s apple), Jose Contreras, Jeff Weaver (don’t laugh--Weaver was 25 when he joined the team and had a 3.97 ERA over his previous 551 IP), Jon Lieber (4.10 ERA in 686.2 IP from 1999-2001) etc. but for whatever reason the Yankees didn’t get what they expected from them. The numbers were certainly there but when added to the engine, their (the pitchers) performance suffered--it was a poor fit for these men.
Hence, I am not automatically assuming that C.C. Sabathia and A.J. Burnett will translate into Sabathia’s NL numbers or A.J.’s 2008 performance in 2009 with the Yankees. Yes, Mark Teixeira is a significant upgrade to Jason Giambi but Alex Rodriguez was an off-the-charts step up from Aaron Boone and what happened there?
The Bronx Bombers are still finding their way in the new information age; according to Joe Torre, Brian Cashman once suggested to him to bat Doug Mientkiewicz and Jason Giambi 1-2 in the batting order because of their high OBP.
Seriously.
They’re climbing a steep learning curve and are a bit behind--they’ll get there but there’s work still to be done.
Since Andy Pettitte was drafted, how many starting pitchers did the Yankees develop and retain that have tossed two seasons of 200 IP? How many have they drafted?
Almost 400.
Let’s face it--that is a staggering level of ineptitude…only Chien-Ming Wang (I’ll count 199.2 IP as good enough to qualify) since 1991.
This means that the organization has had to import their starting pitching--players developed by other clubs with differing philosophies; it worked when teams had trouble retaining their own talent but in Selig’s Brave New World fewer and fewer ace-quality pitchers hit the marketplace (or become available in trade) and have had to settle on guys that could perform in some environments but not necessarily in the Bronx.
The big change in the Yankees’ fortunes really came about between 2003-2004 when they lost Roger Clemens, Andy Pettitte and David Wells (the latter two being southpaws--duh) and went to an all right handed rotation (a bad fit in Yankee Stadium) and nobody in 2004 tossed 200 innings while the departed trio had all topped that mark the previous year.
Again, the importance of the right parts as opposed to the shiniest ones was demonstrated.
The Yankees added two right handed pitchers for 2009 but how many of the candidates for the rotation are consistent 200 inning starters and can be reasonably counted on to assume that kind of workload?
Sabathia is a good candidate, Pettitte might have one more 200 inning season in him, Wang might--but that’s far from a sure thing, Burnett has never had back-to-back 200+ inning seasons and the organization will not try to get that many out of Joba Chamberlain, Ian Kennedy or Phil Hughes.
Will Sabathia and Burnett be Mike Mussina and Roger Clemens 2.0 or the second coming of Javier Vazquez and Carl Pavano? We won’t know and can’t assume the former (or the latter to be fair).
As to the offense, aside from age issues, they’re hoping Nick Swisher will replace Bobby Abreu’s production and barring a miracle that’ll be a step back plus A-Rod will be out for awhile.
Sure, there’s talent there but the 1965 Yanks looked good on a paper as well and were coming off four straight pennants.
The Yankees will be fine but I think they are in transition--a lot of players came off the books and next year Johnny Damon, Hideki Matsui and Andy Pettitte will likely be gone as well.
Hence, I see an 85 win team and fair minds can disagree.
I’m not sure what all the fuss is about--the last time they won it all they were an 87-win team in the regular season.
Oh well, such are the hazards of prognostication.
P.S. For those who accuse me of being biased against the Yankees there’s a wonderful tool called “Google”--I think you’ll find about a 10:1 ratio of positive to negative articles when the club is a column topic for yours truly and there’s no way I could find work in the New York media with those kinds of numbers.
Best Regards
John
Saturday, March 14, 2009
Tinfoil hat time!
Now what?
I was looking forward to doing a post-mortem with Jack Marshall when the decision in the Bonds collusion arbitration case came down however a wrench has been thrown into the works. MLB/MLBPA agreed to postpone the grievance until after the trial so what happens now that the trial has been delayed?
Let’s face it, absent Greg Anderson’s testimony or the unlikely overturning of Judge Susan Ilston’s decision to exclude evidence that was illegally obtained; if it does go to trial Bonds’ has an excellent chance of skating plus the government runs the risk of having its dirty laundry brought out into the public purview plus Jeff Novitzky--a hero in the minds of many--would end up looking as bad as Bonds once the defense got through with him.
If the other agents working initially on the BALCO case are called to testify by the defense, Novitzky will end up being mentioned in the same breath--not with Elliot Ness--but Mark Fuhrman, another lawman whose comments aided a different African American superstar of professional sports in a courtroom…O.J. Simpson.
According to these ones “Jeff has never held back what he felt about Bonds” stating that “Novitzky hated Bonds”; “[Novitzky] envisioned congressional hearings, book deals and TV” and that BALCO “…was turned into a publicity stunt” to forward Novitzky’s career and his vendetta against the slugger. According to another agent, Novitzky stated regarding Bonds "He's such an [anus] to the press, I'd sure like to prove [that he used steroids]."
Toss in the fact that the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) opened an investigation of Novitzky (that was nothing short of a godsend to BALCO founder Victor Conte) and the Bonds’ defense team has nothing short of a cornucopia of dirt on the agent.
Even if the government wins the battle and gets a conviction on any one of the counts (believe me, they’re willing to settle for that and declare victory) they could lose the war since their actions in pursuing the case will demonstrate that they are the ones that endanger the public well being and not the defendant.
After all, if you cherish your constitutional rights, Jeff Novitzky is the guy you need to keep an eye on--not Barry Lamar Bonds. Bonds might call you a nasty name or ignore you completely were you to approach him but he isn’t likely to break down your door without a warrant, seize your goods and later lie about what they did while inside or harass folks you care about.
The odds of seeing Bonds led away in shackles is a longshot at best.
One has to wonder why the government is pursuing this when it appears their objectives have been met regarding Bonds; I don’t think there is anyone that believes that he didn’t use anabolic steroids at some point in his career, his legacy has been irreversibly tarnished, his chances for the Hall of Fame is in jeopardy, he is out of baseball and will not return--in short: Barry Lamar Bonds has been disgraced.
To continue to pursue this would be to expose the low dealings of the government and Novitzky to the general public--many of whom still believe they’re doing the work of God in all this; they may get a conviction on one of counts but ultimately may end up looking like the real villains when all is said and done.
As of right now--they are at their best point in time: Bonds is wearing the black hat and the government can simply drop the case spinning it by saying they have bigger fish to fry and John Q. Public will feel that Bonds “got off” on a technicality but the Oedipus complexing offspring of unmarried parents was guilty of everything up to and including betraying Jesus Christ for 30 pieces of silver.
So why the delays?
Surely a man as intelligent as Novitzky has to realize that a trial will not serve his career or reputation well and the feds have to be suspecting that they might actually do the impossible and turn Bonds into a sympathetic character--especially if all the facts become public knowledge.
Even if they get Anderson to testify, the defense will most certainly detail chapter and verse the goon tactics used by the federal government to get his cooperation. When all is said and done (assuming their best case scenario and BLB is fitted with an orange jumpsuit) even the most ardent Bonds-basher may wonder if the right person was put behind bars.
Any fair minded person weighing the sins of Barry Lamar Bonds against those of the people pursuing him would be able to discern who are the truly dangerous folks and menace to their personal well being.
Therefore (pauses to don the tinfoil hat) are the two events somehow related? An indefinite postponement of the trial would seem to create an almost indefinite postponement of the collusion hearing. If the feds drop the case, the arbitration could proceed almost immediately and if MLB knows their guilty as sin they would have no illusion about how it would play out.
However, if they string it out a year or two, which would in turn delay the grievance which in turn would put Bonds at an age where there would be zero chance he could be given a major league job. It would certainly serve Novitzky’s vendetta well--he could crow to his friends that it was he that got Public Enemy No. 1 out of baseball thereby protecting impressionable children. Certainly the feds want to make sure Bonds is no longer part of the national pastime and if they cannot put him behind bars, they can take steps to ensure that he is barred from ever “contaminating” the game ever again.
While hard time would definitely cause Bonds’ anguish--could it be that the feds would consider inflicting the end of his career a nice consolation prize? After all, the bottom line in all this is making sure that the surly ballplayer learns some manners and if you’re going to be spoken of as one of the game’s greats then you have to make nice with the white power structure in society and the media.
I guess time will tell.
Best Regards
John
I was looking forward to doing a post-mortem with Jack Marshall when the decision in the Bonds collusion arbitration case came down however a wrench has been thrown into the works. MLB/MLBPA agreed to postpone the grievance until after the trial so what happens now that the trial has been delayed?
Let’s face it, absent Greg Anderson’s testimony or the unlikely overturning of Judge Susan Ilston’s decision to exclude evidence that was illegally obtained; if it does go to trial Bonds’ has an excellent chance of skating plus the government runs the risk of having its dirty laundry brought out into the public purview plus Jeff Novitzky--a hero in the minds of many--would end up looking as bad as Bonds once the defense got through with him.
If the other agents working initially on the BALCO case are called to testify by the defense, Novitzky will end up being mentioned in the same breath--not with Elliot Ness--but Mark Fuhrman, another lawman whose comments aided a different African American superstar of professional sports in a courtroom…O.J. Simpson.
According to these ones “Jeff has never held back what he felt about Bonds” stating that “Novitzky hated Bonds”; “[Novitzky] envisioned congressional hearings, book deals and TV” and that BALCO “…was turned into a publicity stunt” to forward Novitzky’s career and his vendetta against the slugger. According to another agent, Novitzky stated regarding Bonds "He's such an [anus] to the press, I'd sure like to prove [that he used steroids]."
Toss in the fact that the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) opened an investigation of Novitzky (that was nothing short of a godsend to BALCO founder Victor Conte) and the Bonds’ defense team has nothing short of a cornucopia of dirt on the agent.
Even if the government wins the battle and gets a conviction on any one of the counts (believe me, they’re willing to settle for that and declare victory) they could lose the war since their actions in pursuing the case will demonstrate that they are the ones that endanger the public well being and not the defendant.
After all, if you cherish your constitutional rights, Jeff Novitzky is the guy you need to keep an eye on--not Barry Lamar Bonds. Bonds might call you a nasty name or ignore you completely were you to approach him but he isn’t likely to break down your door without a warrant, seize your goods and later lie about what they did while inside or harass folks you care about.
The odds of seeing Bonds led away in shackles is a longshot at best.
One has to wonder why the government is pursuing this when it appears their objectives have been met regarding Bonds; I don’t think there is anyone that believes that he didn’t use anabolic steroids at some point in his career, his legacy has been irreversibly tarnished, his chances for the Hall of Fame is in jeopardy, he is out of baseball and will not return--in short: Barry Lamar Bonds has been disgraced.
To continue to pursue this would be to expose the low dealings of the government and Novitzky to the general public--many of whom still believe they’re doing the work of God in all this; they may get a conviction on one of counts but ultimately may end up looking like the real villains when all is said and done.
As of right now--they are at their best point in time: Bonds is wearing the black hat and the government can simply drop the case spinning it by saying they have bigger fish to fry and John Q. Public will feel that Bonds “got off” on a technicality but the Oedipus complexing offspring of unmarried parents was guilty of everything up to and including betraying Jesus Christ for 30 pieces of silver.
So why the delays?
Surely a man as intelligent as Novitzky has to realize that a trial will not serve his career or reputation well and the feds have to be suspecting that they might actually do the impossible and turn Bonds into a sympathetic character--especially if all the facts become public knowledge.
Even if they get Anderson to testify, the defense will most certainly detail chapter and verse the goon tactics used by the federal government to get his cooperation. When all is said and done (assuming their best case scenario and BLB is fitted with an orange jumpsuit) even the most ardent Bonds-basher may wonder if the right person was put behind bars.
Any fair minded person weighing the sins of Barry Lamar Bonds against those of the people pursuing him would be able to discern who are the truly dangerous folks and menace to their personal well being.
Therefore (pauses to don the tinfoil hat) are the two events somehow related? An indefinite postponement of the trial would seem to create an almost indefinite postponement of the collusion hearing. If the feds drop the case, the arbitration could proceed almost immediately and if MLB knows their guilty as sin they would have no illusion about how it would play out.
However, if they string it out a year or two, which would in turn delay the grievance which in turn would put Bonds at an age where there would be zero chance he could be given a major league job. It would certainly serve Novitzky’s vendetta well--he could crow to his friends that it was he that got Public Enemy No. 1 out of baseball thereby protecting impressionable children. Certainly the feds want to make sure Bonds is no longer part of the national pastime and if they cannot put him behind bars, they can take steps to ensure that he is barred from ever “contaminating” the game ever again.
While hard time would definitely cause Bonds’ anguish--could it be that the feds would consider inflicting the end of his career a nice consolation prize? After all, the bottom line in all this is making sure that the surly ballplayer learns some manners and if you’re going to be spoken of as one of the game’s greats then you have to make nice with the white power structure in society and the media.
I guess time will tell.
Best Regards
John
Friday, March 13, 2009
A match made in...?
Believe it or not, there is somebody on the players’ side of the baseball coin that has become almost indispensable to the New York Yankees.
Scott Boras.
To the casual observer it would seem it is the other way around--after all, with teams doing a lot of Selig-inspired belt tightening there appears to be only one club willing to break the bank with any kind of regularity and we all know who that is; that being the case how can it be said that the Yanks need Boras?
Glad you asked.
Revenue sharing has truly been a double edged sword to the fortunes of the Bronx Bombers: on the one hand, the amount of luxury taxes paid as well as baseball’s welfare program cost the Yankees a lot of coin (although they will pay less with the new yard since stadium costs can be deducted from their obligations), yet the other hand of the equation is what has harmed the Yanks.
This offseason has featured what has been the Yankees stereotypical modus operandi: look at free agent market, find highest profile player(s) on said market all culminating with massive amounts of money being thrown in the direction of said players. I forget who said/wrote it, but this offseason wasn’t so much a free agent spending binge as much as it was a simple restocking of the shelves since the club had so many expensive players with expired contracts. Their payroll will likely be lower this season than it was in 2008.
Regardless, it’s pretty clear that this is the Yankees primary approach to talent acquisition. The farm system isn’t where they look for raw materials and between high finishes and player purchases; they haven’t had optimal drafting positions for several years. All they can hope for is top amateurs falling in the draft due to signability issues and guess what kind of kids tend to be viewed as hard to sign in the draft?
Scott Boras clients.
However, this isn’t the main way Boras benefits the “Evil Empire.” After all, how many spots on the 25 man roster have been filled internally in recent seasons? There have been Melky Cabrera, Robbie Cano, Joba Chamberlain, Ian Kennedy and Phil Hughes and none of the latter trio has established themselves as rotation stalwarts. The Yankees look either to trades of other clubs’ superstar “buyers’ remorse” contracts (often negotiated by Boras) or the free agent market.
The thing is, a lot of teams have used revenue sharing funds--not as money spent in the free agent market, but--as a way of locking up their best young developed talent through the arbitration years and 1-3 free agent seasons. This trend, designed to give teams a degree of cost certainty, has (1) kept teams from trading away their best arbitration eligibles for fear of losing big time and (2) kept the best young potential free agents from even hitting the marketplace where the Bronx bankroll awaits.
There is one notable exception to this pattern: players represented by Boras.
Boras is a big believer in getting his players into free agency where competitive bidding takes place and it’s generally understood that a player that wishes to sign an extension absent testing the market is done so against Boras’s advice.
With the free agent market becoming an increasingly inefficient way to build a competitive roster (for example: I predicted that David Purcey will probably enjoy a better 2009 than A.J. Burnett) and teams realizing (at least this year) that a multi-tooled, albeit inexperienced, player from their own system has as good a chance at delivering comparable value than a 1-2 dimensional slugger that cannot run, field or throw well that wants eight figures and is hovering around his mid-30’s.
If a team has developed a stud, clubs are more frequently locking them up and in a lot of cases revenue sharing and equitable distribution of new revenue streams are giving clubs the capital to do just that.
Further, players seem more inclined to take the extension offered rather than wait a season or two for free agency figuring that the money is available now and there’s no guarantee they will not get injured before they reach the threshold.
A good example is Johan Santana--he’ll been in professional baseball almost two decades without ever becoming a free agent consistently taking the money when offered rather than trying to get out into the marketplace.
This offseason might exacerbate the trend as experienced veterans for the most part didn’t see the offers they envisioned when they declined arbitration. With clubs hoarding draft picks as never before and teams increasingly realizing what is replaceable talent and what is not (such as middle relievers) more and more players might be inclined to avoid the perils of the free agent market (now that clubs are using it to their advantages) and simply grab the extension when it becomes available.
This means fewer and fewer quality free agents available to the Yankees.
It looks as if Boras clients may be their best shot at top flight free agents in the coming years.
It’ll be interesting to see what occurs when the Bronx Bombers decide to building clubs more economically.
The latest…
I’ve done a “Five Questions” preview of the Toronto Blue Jays for the Hardball Times that should go up soon. I hope to do another article (or two) for THT before “the big day” and once I take a few days off to recover, get back into my regular slot there before they forget about me (they’ve been trying for years but I’m like the stench from a particularly noxious blast of flatus--I just don’t go away).
Who’s afraid of the big bad Yanks? (SMSN Sports): Hey, they signed some talent but there are more holes on that roster than in my memory after I turned 40.
Bringing the game back to baseball (SMSN Sports): Why I think the WBC rocks.
Best Regards
John
Scott Boras.
To the casual observer it would seem it is the other way around--after all, with teams doing a lot of Selig-inspired belt tightening there appears to be only one club willing to break the bank with any kind of regularity and we all know who that is; that being the case how can it be said that the Yanks need Boras?
Glad you asked.
Revenue sharing has truly been a double edged sword to the fortunes of the Bronx Bombers: on the one hand, the amount of luxury taxes paid as well as baseball’s welfare program cost the Yankees a lot of coin (although they will pay less with the new yard since stadium costs can be deducted from their obligations), yet the other hand of the equation is what has harmed the Yanks.
This offseason has featured what has been the Yankees stereotypical modus operandi: look at free agent market, find highest profile player(s) on said market all culminating with massive amounts of money being thrown in the direction of said players. I forget who said/wrote it, but this offseason wasn’t so much a free agent spending binge as much as it was a simple restocking of the shelves since the club had so many expensive players with expired contracts. Their payroll will likely be lower this season than it was in 2008.
Regardless, it’s pretty clear that this is the Yankees primary approach to talent acquisition. The farm system isn’t where they look for raw materials and between high finishes and player purchases; they haven’t had optimal drafting positions for several years. All they can hope for is top amateurs falling in the draft due to signability issues and guess what kind of kids tend to be viewed as hard to sign in the draft?
Scott Boras clients.
However, this isn’t the main way Boras benefits the “Evil Empire.” After all, how many spots on the 25 man roster have been filled internally in recent seasons? There have been Melky Cabrera, Robbie Cano, Joba Chamberlain, Ian Kennedy and Phil Hughes and none of the latter trio has established themselves as rotation stalwarts. The Yankees look either to trades of other clubs’ superstar “buyers’ remorse” contracts (often negotiated by Boras) or the free agent market.
The thing is, a lot of teams have used revenue sharing funds--not as money spent in the free agent market, but--as a way of locking up their best young developed talent through the arbitration years and 1-3 free agent seasons. This trend, designed to give teams a degree of cost certainty, has (1) kept teams from trading away their best arbitration eligibles for fear of losing big time and (2) kept the best young potential free agents from even hitting the marketplace where the Bronx bankroll awaits.
There is one notable exception to this pattern: players represented by Boras.
Boras is a big believer in getting his players into free agency where competitive bidding takes place and it’s generally understood that a player that wishes to sign an extension absent testing the market is done so against Boras’s advice.
With the free agent market becoming an increasingly inefficient way to build a competitive roster (for example: I predicted that David Purcey will probably enjoy a better 2009 than A.J. Burnett) and teams realizing (at least this year) that a multi-tooled, albeit inexperienced, player from their own system has as good a chance at delivering comparable value than a 1-2 dimensional slugger that cannot run, field or throw well that wants eight figures and is hovering around his mid-30’s.
If a team has developed a stud, clubs are more frequently locking them up and in a lot of cases revenue sharing and equitable distribution of new revenue streams are giving clubs the capital to do just that.
Further, players seem more inclined to take the extension offered rather than wait a season or two for free agency figuring that the money is available now and there’s no guarantee they will not get injured before they reach the threshold.
A good example is Johan Santana--he’ll been in professional baseball almost two decades without ever becoming a free agent consistently taking the money when offered rather than trying to get out into the marketplace.
This offseason might exacerbate the trend as experienced veterans for the most part didn’t see the offers they envisioned when they declined arbitration. With clubs hoarding draft picks as never before and teams increasingly realizing what is replaceable talent and what is not (such as middle relievers) more and more players might be inclined to avoid the perils of the free agent market (now that clubs are using it to their advantages) and simply grab the extension when it becomes available.
This means fewer and fewer quality free agents available to the Yankees.
It looks as if Boras clients may be their best shot at top flight free agents in the coming years.
It’ll be interesting to see what occurs when the Bronx Bombers decide to building clubs more economically.
The latest…
I’ve done a “Five Questions” preview of the Toronto Blue Jays for the Hardball Times that should go up soon. I hope to do another article (or two) for THT before “the big day” and once I take a few days off to recover, get back into my regular slot there before they forget about me (they’ve been trying for years but I’m like the stench from a particularly noxious blast of flatus--I just don’t go away).
Who’s afraid of the big bad Yanks? (SMSN Sports): Hey, they signed some talent but there are more holes on that roster than in my memory after I turned 40.
Bringing the game back to baseball (SMSN Sports): Why I think the WBC rocks.
Best Regards
John
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
WBCito
I haven’t written much about the WBC (except for last week’s SMSN column that I’ll provide a link for as soon as this week’s is up) but it isn’t from a lack of interest in the event.
For me, I haven’t gotten too worked up about Canada’s fortunes in all this--I’m too busy enjoying watching real live baseball and checking out the talent that is being developed around the world. There has been some tremendous play from faces both familiar and otherwise and some great storylines and upsets.
Speaking of which--I may be risking my hoser citizenship but I was appalled when Rogers Sportsnet switched away from the first Dominican/Netherlands game with the underdogs protecting a one-run lead in the bottom of the ninth with none out and the speedy Willie Taveras on first to the Canada/US contest. I mean, here we’re watching an upset unfolding along the lines of the Miracle on Ice or Tyson/Douglas and instead of seeing the denouement of this remarkable game we get to see Jake Peavy pitch to the top of Team Canada’s batting order.
Look, I want the locals to win as much as the next guy but I prefer watching history being made. Nobody talks about what other program they were watching when Paul Henderson scored in the 1972 Summit Series and if in a few decades from now that game (as well as the rematch) becomes the stuff of legend nobody is going to give a rip about my telling folks how Peavy handled the top of the first inning against a team that was eliminated by the Italian jugger-not.
Jeff Passan of Yahoo Sports was nice enough to let me cry on his shoulder about this and he assured me that I wasn’t crazy (shaddap) for feeling that way.
But I digress.
While enjoying watching Pedro Martinez (hopefully for not the last time), Joey Votto and thinking that the first team that really goes bonkers (bonkers?) in international scouting will have a huge advantage until other teams catch up, my mind (such as it is) began mulling about how all this might impact the Toronto Blue Jays in 2009.
Granted, there might seem to be much correlation at the moment but I did witness something of which I think Cito Gaston could make good use this season. Obviously, the biggest blow to the Blue Jays in the offseason was the fact that 60% of their rotation is gone and with Dustin McGowan’s setback it could be a long time before we see any resemblance to the 2007-08 starting staff at the Rogers Centre.
As of right now--three rotation spots are set with Roy Halladay, Jesse Litsch and David Purcey with Matt Clement coming on strong; now what to do with the fifth spot or if one of the other quartet goes down with an injury?
Yes, perish the thought that a Jays’ pitcher might get hurt but it helps to deal with every possible scenario regardless of how far-fetched it may seem at the time.
Currently, there are a ton of available pitchers: Casey Janssen, Rickey and Davis Romero, Brett Cecil, Brad Mills, Scott Richmond and possibly Wade Miller but there are concerns about overworking the likes of Cecil, the Romeros, Janssen and the rehabbing Miller--how does Gaston make it all work?
How about doing it WBC style?
In the tournament, starting pitchers are limited to 70 pitches in round one although they can finish the plate appearance of the hitter to whom they’ve thrown pitch No. 70. Why not take a variation of that and have co-starters--one day you start the game and let Cecil toss 70 pitches (unless he’s ineffective) and follow that with Casey Janssen for 70? The next time open with Janssen and follow with Cecil (and mix and match accordingly)--that way, the kiddie corps gets experience without the risk of overuse while the creaky corps (the rehabbing vets that make the 25-man roster) gradually get to rebuild their arm strength without worrying about carrying a load they haven’t borne since the U.S. government was in the business of catching big criminals and not large cranials.
The best part of this is that the rooks (hopefully) get reinforcement about the importance of throwing strikes and getting ahead of hitters--if they want to last long enough for a “W” they’d best not nibble and give the batters too much credit and attack the strike zone with their “A” material the same way they did in the minors.
A common stumbling lock for promising youngsters at the big league level for the first time is they stop doing what got them to that point in the first place; they sometimes give hitters too much credit and try to be too fine. One thing we’ve learned in watching the WBC is that a well thrown pitch in the strike zone is tough to hit--we’ve witnessed pitchers on Team Netherland that will likely never sniff a major league job get big league hitters--in some cases, elite bashers--out. Anything that drills into the heads of the youth movement that strike one and pitching ahead on the count is always a recipe for success--even at the major league level--is a good thing.
It probably won’t happen but I’m married with two teenaged daughters and I’m used to giving out advice that is completely ignored and made fun of--c’est la merde!
Thanks everyone…
I was genuinely touched with the show of support regarding my recent medical issues--thanks for the notes and mentions offering their best wishes. I met with the surgeon on Friday and says I should be in the O.R. in the next 2-4 weeks (although they haven’t given me a day and time yet). He seemed fairly confident that all I will need is an angioplasty but he can’t know that for a certainty until they get inside and have a look around.
Bottom line--I don’t expect to be down long; on the small chance that things to terribly awry I have made my wishes known that I want the surgeon to approach things “Mythbusters” style and do whatever it takes to blow me up. I’ve taken in a lot of nitro and don’t want it to go to waste.
If I gotta go…I wanna go out with a bang!
Best Regards
John
For me, I haven’t gotten too worked up about Canada’s fortunes in all this--I’m too busy enjoying watching real live baseball and checking out the talent that is being developed around the world. There has been some tremendous play from faces both familiar and otherwise and some great storylines and upsets.
Speaking of which--I may be risking my hoser citizenship but I was appalled when Rogers Sportsnet switched away from the first Dominican/Netherlands game with the underdogs protecting a one-run lead in the bottom of the ninth with none out and the speedy Willie Taveras on first to the Canada/US contest. I mean, here we’re watching an upset unfolding along the lines of the Miracle on Ice or Tyson/Douglas and instead of seeing the denouement of this remarkable game we get to see Jake Peavy pitch to the top of Team Canada’s batting order.
Look, I want the locals to win as much as the next guy but I prefer watching history being made. Nobody talks about what other program they were watching when Paul Henderson scored in the 1972 Summit Series and if in a few decades from now that game (as well as the rematch) becomes the stuff of legend nobody is going to give a rip about my telling folks how Peavy handled the top of the first inning against a team that was eliminated by the Italian jugger-not.
Jeff Passan of Yahoo Sports was nice enough to let me cry on his shoulder about this and he assured me that I wasn’t crazy (shaddap) for feeling that way.
But I digress.
While enjoying watching Pedro Martinez (hopefully for not the last time), Joey Votto and thinking that the first team that really goes bonkers (bonkers?) in international scouting will have a huge advantage until other teams catch up, my mind (such as it is) began mulling about how all this might impact the Toronto Blue Jays in 2009.
Granted, there might seem to be much correlation at the moment but I did witness something of which I think Cito Gaston could make good use this season. Obviously, the biggest blow to the Blue Jays in the offseason was the fact that 60% of their rotation is gone and with Dustin McGowan’s setback it could be a long time before we see any resemblance to the 2007-08 starting staff at the Rogers Centre.
As of right now--three rotation spots are set with Roy Halladay, Jesse Litsch and David Purcey with Matt Clement coming on strong; now what to do with the fifth spot or if one of the other quartet goes down with an injury?
Yes, perish the thought that a Jays’ pitcher might get hurt but it helps to deal with every possible scenario regardless of how far-fetched it may seem at the time.
Currently, there are a ton of available pitchers: Casey Janssen, Rickey and Davis Romero, Brett Cecil, Brad Mills, Scott Richmond and possibly Wade Miller but there are concerns about overworking the likes of Cecil, the Romeros, Janssen and the rehabbing Miller--how does Gaston make it all work?
How about doing it WBC style?
In the tournament, starting pitchers are limited to 70 pitches in round one although they can finish the plate appearance of the hitter to whom they’ve thrown pitch No. 70. Why not take a variation of that and have co-starters--one day you start the game and let Cecil toss 70 pitches (unless he’s ineffective) and follow that with Casey Janssen for 70? The next time open with Janssen and follow with Cecil (and mix and match accordingly)--that way, the kiddie corps gets experience without the risk of overuse while the creaky corps (the rehabbing vets that make the 25-man roster) gradually get to rebuild their arm strength without worrying about carrying a load they haven’t borne since the U.S. government was in the business of catching big criminals and not large cranials.
The best part of this is that the rooks (hopefully) get reinforcement about the importance of throwing strikes and getting ahead of hitters--if they want to last long enough for a “W” they’d best not nibble and give the batters too much credit and attack the strike zone with their “A” material the same way they did in the minors.
A common stumbling lock for promising youngsters at the big league level for the first time is they stop doing what got them to that point in the first place; they sometimes give hitters too much credit and try to be too fine. One thing we’ve learned in watching the WBC is that a well thrown pitch in the strike zone is tough to hit--we’ve witnessed pitchers on Team Netherland that will likely never sniff a major league job get big league hitters--in some cases, elite bashers--out. Anything that drills into the heads of the youth movement that strike one and pitching ahead on the count is always a recipe for success--even at the major league level--is a good thing.
It probably won’t happen but I’m married with two teenaged daughters and I’m used to giving out advice that is completely ignored and made fun of--c’est la merde!
Thanks everyone…
I was genuinely touched with the show of support regarding my recent medical issues--thanks for the notes and mentions offering their best wishes. I met with the surgeon on Friday and says I should be in the O.R. in the next 2-4 weeks (although they haven’t given me a day and time yet). He seemed fairly confident that all I will need is an angioplasty but he can’t know that for a certainty until they get inside and have a look around.
Bottom line--I don’t expect to be down long; on the small chance that things to terribly awry I have made my wishes known that I want the surgeon to approach things “Mythbusters” style and do whatever it takes to blow me up. I’ve taken in a lot of nitro and don’t want it to go to waste.
If I gotta go…I wanna go out with a bang!
Best Regards
John
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
