The baseball ethicist: Episode 3--Revenge of the Myth...

Yeah, I’m still at it. Let’s pick up where we left off…

But no one could deny that Bonds was the face of baseball’s steroid disgrace. That gave him special status, or perhaps a better word is infamy.

I would say that he was the successor to Mark McGwire and the only reason for that was the fact that McGwire disappeared after his appearance before the government oversight committee while Bonds continued to play and was the subject of nonstop media scrutiny. A minor point but one worth noting and it’s good to remember that at the outset of Jose Canseco’s allegations, MLB went out of its way to protect and defend “Big Mac.”

A team could employ one of the many mediocre, borderline or journeyman players whose names appeared in the Mitchell Report without making the implied statement that it was endorsing and rewarding a cheat. Signing Brendan Donnelly, Paul Lo Duca or Paul Byrd would not be seen as an enlistment in the Dark Side.

Why? Suppose players were involved in a kiddie-porn ring; would the same logic be applied? Only the most notorious ringleader need be culled from the game while teams could sign those that weren't as involved without enlisting in the Dark Side?

What if it wasn't steroids but another drug, perhaps a second cocaine scandal--same rule of thumb apply?

Again, I am not comfortable with this line of reasoning.

Bonds was a different matter entirely, if for no other reason than he had ridden performance enhancement drugs to the pinnacle of baseball’s records. He was the Big Enchilada, the Numero Uno: his career stood for the proposition that steroid use could turn a great player into a super-human juggernaut, shattering all previous limits; that they could allow players to improve dramatically when historically athletes began to decline; that the drugs could lengthen their careers, make the players become more valuable to their teams, and earn them millions more dollars than they would have earned otherwise—and they could get away with it.

He became numero uno with MLB's help--he became the Big Enchilada because MLB wished to employ him until Aaron's record fell because there was money to be made. Earlier, Marshall stated "The evidence that Bonds was a long-time, intentional, unapologetic and incredibly successful chemical cheat had been mounting for years" but it was only at the end that MLB was right to act despite long standing knowledge that Bonds was juicing? Had the sport acted earlier he would not have become “the Big Enchilada” is that not so? Doesn’t that make Bonds’ becoming such a joint effort between MLB and BLB?

Bonds was regarded differently because he was different. His success made him different. His arrogant public stance that there was nothing wrong with his conduct made him different. How a team regarded Barry Bonds was unavoidably going to be a statement about steroids, rules, lawbreaking, character and baseball’s values.

Let's see, MLB arrogantly denied there was a drug problem, Bud Selig slapped a gag order on the sport regarding the subject, Selig deliberately presented misleading information before the government reform committee regarding the effectiveness of its drug test program and gleefully cashed the checks from the home run boom knowing that the achievements were tainted (surely, if Bonds usage was known “for years” plus they had the statements from David Wells, Curt Schilling, Ken Caminiti and Jose Canseco that must have given them an inkling about it)--not to mention illegal--and didn’t act until government pressure made it impossible to avoid or ignore any longer.

Baseball’s values? I’m sorry; all I see are two sides of the same coin.

Regarding Bonds’ effect, Marshall states to sum up his point of cognitive dissonance:

I would not continue to follow or support the team if it embraced the warped ethics of Barry Bonds and the steroid apologists by signing him. I would, I am quite sure, actively dislike the team until a new regime took over, and it would probably never regain my previous level of loyalty or good will. Cognitive dissonance dictates that the team’s unavoidable decline on the value scale would also pull down others associated closely with it, such as its players, management, and major league baseball itself.

Two things jump out regarding this—one, he fails to cite a single other example in the history of the sport where such a thing might take place ignoring that statutory rapists, racists, spouse abusers, drug users and dealers (both PED and narcotic), tax evaders, those that issue legitimate death threats toward their children and so many other anti social disgusting acts have yet to trigger such a reaction in the marketplace. Two, Marshall projects his own very strong feelings on Bonds and projects them onto the population at large without taking the aforementioned history of such things into account. Yes, he could take a poll and probably get enough people to agree with him but talk is cheap—what have the actions of fans since the institution of the National League demonstrated to be the case regarding such things?

The team that hired Barry Bonds would be making a devastating statement of its own values and priorities, which would be this: "Cheating and using performance enhancing drugs is not as big a negative on our scale as winning is a positive. So if you help us win enough games, cheating is OK. In fact, it will be rewarded: observe how we hire Barry Bonds despite overwhelming evidence of steroid use and multiple federal indictments." Hiring Barry Bonds would specifically contradict the Mitchell Report and what it stood for, which was essentially setting the cognitive dissonance value for using performance-enhancing drugs as prohibitively negative.

One would have to ask that were the above true, what does it say about a team’s values (and MLB as a whole) about hiring and retaining in recent years: Darryl Strawberry, Doc Gooden, Steve Howe, Willie Wilson, Sidney Ponson, Luis Polonia, Albert Belle, Brett Myers, Julio Lugo, John Rocker, the Mitchell Report players, Dave Parker, Keith Hernandez, Elijah Dukes, Jose Mesa and so many others but to avoid Bonds suddenly sanctifies the sport?

Don’t forget that the Mitchell Report got its names from (1) the BALCO investigation (2) Kirk Radomski and Brian MacNamee (3) The Signature Pharmacy and that’s it. Does anyone think that those were the only sources for PED used by players? However, that turned up almost 90 names—tip of the iceberg indeed yet banishing Bonds suddenly gives the sport an air of sanctity and integrity and undoes over a decade of damage and allows baseball to expiate its sins?

Sure: some factors could raise a player’s score: cooperating with Mitchell (Giambi), apologizing (Pettite), minimal use (Paul Byrd), not being good or healthy enough to matter (lots of guys). But Bonds had many factors that deepened his negative score: greed, warping the records, encouraging other players to use by his success, arrogance, embarrassing the sport through his prominence, and more.

Again, Marshall forgets that records were warped because MLB wanted the money from Bonds “warping” them and didn’t act until after they were “warped” yet assigns no harm, no foul to the sport’s complicity in the “warping.” As to the other issues…

Greed: See MLB—BLB’s accomplice.

Encouraging other players to use by his success: Who encouraged Bonds to use? What about "chicks dig the long ball?" What encouraged usage more?

Arrogance: Like asserting that the sport didn’t have a drug problem and threatening fines for anyone discussing it and later trying to rewrite history in their favour? Oops—that was Bud Selig…not Barry Bonds.

Embarrassing the sport through his prominence: MLB profited handsomely from his prominence did it not? It failed to act until that prominence paid off is that not so?

Again, all I see are two sides of the same coin: BLB/MLB--a big head and a horse's tail (end).

Thus it should not have come as a surprise to anyone that no team took that course, nor should any team have been accused of negligence or collusion for reaching the only responsible and logical conclusion available. But a lot of sportswriters and sports commentators think values, standards and ethics are irrelevant to baseball.

They are so wrong.

And if collusion is established—then what? Sadly, Marshall misses the point—this commentator and writer feels quite strongly that “values, standards and ethics” aren’t irrelevant in baseball, he just feels that they simply do not exist there and the unofficial expulsion of Barry Lamar Bonds is proof of that...not proof that the sport possesses such things because it never has.

Sadly, I think Marshall—most likely a conscientious and good-hearted man has fallen into a trap and come to a conclusion and bent his values and data to fit that conclusion and has allowed his strong dislike of Barry Bonds to cloud his ethics in this particular instance.

If that makes me unreasonable and unethical—so be it. I will recant what I have written over the last year if an independent arbitrator looks at the evidence and determines that MLB did not collude in this instance. What will Jack Marshall say if they are indeed found guilty?

Best Regards

John

The baseball ethicist: Episode 2--Attack of the Clown...

Well, more on Jack Marshall’s THT column dealt with yesterday…

Cynics may scoff ... but baseball is the one professional sport that carries with it a duty to the American culture. Character counts in America, and baseball is bound by history, tradition and its role in legend and myth to make certain that character counts on its playing fields as well. ... What it does have that no other professional sport even values very much is integrity, or at least an appreciation that integrity is important.

I envy Mr. Marshall—really I do, to be able to view baseball in such a light is something I wish I could return to; from that point of view ignorance is indeed bliss since it would allow us to enjoy the game in all it’s beauty unencumbered by the baggage that can besmirch the experience.

However, as a student (albeit a level below Steve Treder) of baseball’s history I find his statement incredible; this is a game that excluded non-Caucasian players, had an owner that tried to aid the cover-up of the Black Sox scandal until it became impossible, tolerated gambling until it turned on them, exploited players at every turn, broke rules that they themselves agreed to abide by (collusion), extorts tens of billions of dollars for stadium scams through lies and fraudulent claims, provided illegal drugs for players (amphetamines), were major enablers of the steroid scandal (something Marshall acknowledges), bold-faced lied to the federal government as respects their financial state and effectiveness of their drug program etc. I cannot see how anyone can make the claim that the sport has “an appreciation that integrity is important.”

Corruption is what has defined the game—not integrity; integrity is an illusion that the sport has consistently tried to sell to the public the same way it does hot dogs, beer and souvenir caps. It sells integrity the same way Disney tries to sell “magic” and “enchantment” but nobody deludes themselves into thinking that profit isn't the primary motivational directive of such a strategy.

Players who have serious criminal charges, who are accused of rape and spousal abuse, drunk driving and drug arrests just fade out of the game.

When their skills fade—they didn’t come up with the phrase “If you can hit a curveball you can get away with murder” because it was fun to say and rolled off the tongue. His statement would have more credibility if he had cited examples of players whose careers ended long before their productivity waned but the facts state otherwise: how many chances did Steve Howe, Daryl Strawberry and Sidney Ponson receive? This is far from a comprehensive list Let's see how Brian Giles career plays out.

Baseball made a serious mistake in the ‘90s by looking the other way while steroid abuse mutated its players, distorted game results and warped its record book.

It’s amazing that baseball is said to have made “a mistake” while Bonds is vilified and needs to be removed from the game. To me, this is no different than banning the Black Sox for life and putting Charles Comiskey into the Hall of Fame. Have we learned nothing from history? Barry Bonds uses steroids to make money and hopefully win a World Series from his improved performance. The New York Yankees strike every reference of steroids from the contract to Jason Giambi to make money and hopefully win a World Series from the team's improved performance. The owner skates and the player is banished. Plus ca change.

But the Mitchell Report, released a year ago, was a crystal-clear announcement that the sport was banishing its ethical ambiguity on the matter of performance-enhancing drugs. For this purpose, it was irrelevant that the report was incomplete and limited in scope. The Mitchell Report announced that Major League Baseball believed that steroid and HGH use was wrong, unacceptable, and sullied the game. It would condemn and embarrass any player found to violate this standard. Cheating was not cool, and cheaters were not welcome. The conduct was officially inconsistent with the values and best interests of the game (as it had, in fact, always been), and the owners, players, teams and fans were hereby expected to heed that fact.

No, this happened because Congress was breathing down its neck. The reason steroids gained such a foothold is that the government hadn’t gotten involved yet. As Craig Calcaterra outlined in his chapter in the THT Annual (that I hope Marshall reads at some point), the Mitchell Report was designed to “officially” end “the steroid era.” Steroids and HGH are still used by many because the tests are not comprehensive enough to catch all the cheats. The Mitchell Report is to baseball what the blanket is to Linus—something they can cling to for a measure of security that keeps problems at bay. As with Linus, the blanket does nothing regarding the difficulties of life but merely allows the person holding it to feel that it does—in the same way, the Mitchell Report allows MLB to think the steroid problem has been dealt with when it really hasn’t.

As to Bonds—never forget this one point: MLB never found its conscience about employing Barry Lamar Bonds until all the checks from the home run chase were cashed and Bonds had given services rendered for the money his contract dictated that he be paid. Only when all the revenue had been wrung out of Bonds’ talents and no member of the ownership cartel would have to swallow a nickel in losses before he became too obnoxious to employ.

Think about it: MLB allowed Bonds to break the record because of the money it made for the sport but now he has to be removed from the game because now that Bonds is a record holder he has become a symbol of why steroid use is wrong and needs to be exorcised from the sport for the sake of its integrity.

I’m sorry—I do not get it.

More to come—this will take some time and I’m going to have a difficult time reducing my rebuttal to one THT article.

Best Regards

John

The baseball ethicist: Episode 1--The Random Menace...

Well, after having this article (Why Nobody Signed Barry Bonds) passed along to me multiple times (thanks to all that did so), I guess I should offer a comment or two since Mr. Marshall mentioned yours truly by name.

Obviously, I think it was collusion but I’m willing to change my mind if an independent arbitrator looks at the evidence and says that teams didn’t (collude).

I’m not that crazy about Barry Lamar—it is, as I’ve said too many times to mention, not about Bonds for me; it’s about collusion and hypocrisy.

I’ll probably do a rebuttal on THT in the New Year so this post can serves as its genesis. To state the obvious—I disagree but don’t expect a rip job or a snark-fest. He has a good-faith opinion that he has put some thought into and it will be treated as such and not the ill-informed, error-riddled vitriol we read in the media about Bonds that I love to drop the gloves when replying to it.

Marshall also discussed his article on Ball-Hype and I’ll address some of his points made there as well.

Probably my biggest difficulty with what he wrote was the implication that as a symbol, Bonds warranted different treatment than the multitude of steroid abusers received. Lady Justice is pictured as blindfolded for a reason—ideally she treats everyone the same. Further, when you turn people into symbols you dehumanize them and some of history’s greatest atrocities occurred when people became symbols of society’s ills and treated accordingly. In recent history we’ve seen what occurred within the United States regarding African Americans and Germany with Jews (did I just invoke Godwin’s Law?) when people became symbols of a given problem rather than, well…people.

The easiest way to inflict massive injustice on a person is to turn them into a symbol of a given scourge (of society)--after all, it's just a symbol...it's not like it is human being or anything, right? Plus, it serves a greater good does it not?

Not.

For true justice, the blindfold cannot be lifted for a nanosecond to see who is involved. Put another way—even Osama bin Laden deserves a fair trial. It may not be a popular stance or a particularly efficient one but then again, the expedient solution generally leaves a lot more problems in its wake.

Another implication is that the sport needs to move on from the steroid era.

Baseball also needs to move on from the spitball era but guess what?

Sadly, the genie is out of the bottle and to think that the game is now steroid-free (or close to it) is naïve—its use of detectable steroids is down and that’s about it. What Marshall is suggesting is that the game allows the public to think that the steroid era is over; to pretend that the game is now clean and pure when it is clearly not. What Marshall is saying is that Bonds is keeping MLB from creating an illusion it can sell to the public.

I cannot see how converting a man to a symbol so different rules can be applied to him in order to create a false front is somehow of benefit to anyone. Is he advocating that MLB be allowed to move on from a problem it never solved?

Who benefits from such a situation? What does that teach the public about values if that's the big issue?

On Ballhype, Marshall stated:

“A sport ignores its image, built by its stars, at great peril. Do you think the decline of pro boxing was accelerated by having a "champion" like Mike Tyson? At one time, boxing's peak, the heaveyweight champion was supposed to be a national hero and role model. Once that had been obliterated, the public interest in the sport waned.”

Boxing was on the wane long before Tyson—what eroded the sport’s popularity was Pay-Per-View. It used to be you could watch big bouts on free TV and it had a larger audience that created fans. When it took all of its big events out of the public eye it marginalized the sport and the next generation of fans were never cultivated. I used to be a big boxing fan but after a time there was little boxing on the tube and it was hard to follow; toss in the splintering of organizations where several different men could lay claim to a world title (WBA, WBC, IBF, WBO etc.) and it began to be even harder. A sports fan knows that the New York Giants are champions of their sport, as are the Detroit Red Wings, L.A. Lakers and of course the Philadelphia Phillies—the line is clearly defined but in boxing the era of “the champ” is over.

We follow sports and derive a satisfaction of determining the best among them but that beast no longer exists in the pugilistic world.

This is why boxing is where it is and not the fact that Mike Tyson once wore the belt.

Another point from Ballhype:

“Yes, lots of players have cheated, but the vast majority of players have not, and a cheating player who rises to the pinnacle of the sport like Bonds threatens to make cheating the norm rather than the exception.”

I’m not sure what to make of this statement—Bonds didn’t invent cheating; to take this point to its logical conclusion is that it appears Bonds should be made an example of because of his natural talent and work ethic. He should be penalized for being born with natural gifts and the willingness to fully develop (or over-develop if you will) them. Maybe I’m misinformed, but cheating is the norm—it’s just that the bulk of it occurs unnoticed and unremarked upon. At the same time, he has little difficulty with the barons of the sport cheating whether it’s defrauding municipalities of public dollars, the pre-1947 collusion against African Americans, the collusion under Peter Ueberroth, their complicity in the steroid scandal etc.

No sanction for these crimes—not even the flagship franchises' participation in them; is it O.K. for teams that reach the pinnacle of their sport to cheat but not players? Isn’t that a bit of a double standard—the best of management can cheat and participate in the steroid problem but not the player? No sanction for the Yankees for removing every mention of steroids from Jason Giambi’s contract so they could sign the best hitter on the market in order to try and win the World Series and increase revenues but at the same time Bonds deserves to be punished with extreme prejudice?

Marshall seems to be concerned about protecting a sanctity that the sport never had—he’s protecting a myth that doesn’t hold up to critical examination and taking the blindfold off of Lady Justice in order to accomplish that.

I cannot go along with such a stance.

Anyway—that’s a start; I will follow up with more as times goes on. There’s just too much to cover in one post or article.

The latest…

I’ve been negligent of late in posting my SMSN (Chin Music) links:

The 2008 Toronto Boo Jays part 1

(Part 2 should be up in a day or two.)

Great expectations

Best Regards

John

Happy blue tears...

Where have you gone Bill Veeck? A nation turns its lonely eyes to you.

I have to admit—were I an executive of Rogers Communication I would absolutely cringe every time J.P. Ricciardi opens his mouth; I’m beginning to enjoy it as much as your average coroner does in opening a just exhumed casket from an eight year old grave that has been laying in groundwater.

I mean, it’s like a receptionist at a dentist’s office reassuring patients that not only is it going to hurt like hell, she hopes they had the foresight to put on Depends before the procedure. We know that the Blue Jays are going into Opening Day 2009 without A.J. Burnett, Shaun Marcum and Dustin McGowan plus the offense—that screamed that if ‘chicks dig the long ball’ there was going to be a nasty case of carpal tunnel syndrome afflicting the entire lineup—was not upgraded from last season’s slap-fest but is it necessary to remind us that the Jays are finished with next year’s roster while the Yankees are blowing close to a half-billion on the roster while the AL champs Tampa Bay Rays and two-time former world champ Boston Red Sox are looking for berths in October?

Wow—that was some kind of impressive run-on sentence eh?

But I digress … even when I can’t be bothered to catch a breath.

I’m amazed, but not in a good way, about how Ricciardi feels that Adam Dunn’s not having a passion for baseball is such a drawback yet is trying to inspire the same emotion among the Blue Jays’ fan base.

What precisely are they selling next year?

The fans have had high expectations since Ricciardi came on board and that has been heightened since year five of his five year plan has come and gone. The last three years have been exercises in “we would have won if [insert reason/excuse/general whining] hadn’t happened…” and even having the best pitching and (among the) defense in baseball wasn’t enough to reach 90 wins and now that the Rays have conclusively proven that it’s possible to best the economic behemoths in New York and Boston Toronto fans are wondering when it’s their turn.

It’s good to bear in mind that when the Jays were granted an expansion franchise in 1977 they weren’t allowed to participate in the re-entry free agent draft (where you acquired the superstar talent), drafted last in the amateur draft and didn’t receive national TV money in that span. On top of all that, unlike recent expansion teams, they didn’t have the opportunity to build a farm system before beginning play. It took seven years (1983) to build an 89-win club (something Ricciardi has yet to accomplish—in 1983 and 1984 89 wins would have won the AL West handily) and nine years to reach the post season.

Ricciardi is telling us that year nine might be, if things break right, for the Blue Jays to accomplish the same thing with none of the restrictions that they had back when disco was king.

When you consider that only the hapless Kansas City Royals are the only other AL team since the strike not to find their way into the post season it is hard not to understand why the fan base may start becoming disenchanted.

Despite this restlessness, when the fans need hope, reassurance and something to get excited about for 2009 Ricciardi goes out of his way to keep expectations low. Just how does this help sell tickets? I mean, can you imagine trying to sell season’s tickets packages to fans that follow the Jays’ offseason moves or lack of same?

At the very least, a savvy GM. (or front office) would be hyping the kids: Travis Snider, Adam Lind, David Purcey, Davis and Rickey Romero, Brett Cecil, Brad Mills, Brian Jeroloman, J.P. Arencibia etc. telling us that they’re ready, that these are the guys that will lead the team to the Promised Land against the big bad AL East and remind them early, often and repeatedly that this was how the Rays pulled it off.

Instead, we get to hear the excuses of October several months early.

Last year, a bunch of radio stations dropped carrying Blue Jays games—are J.P.’s comments going to help add radio affiliates? Sponsors are dropping the Blue Jays and this is going to convince new ones to come on board? These entities like winners, not quitters, not excuse makers, not promotional vehicles for Rogers Communication.

I just do not get it.

I honestly think that the Blue Jays will not make it under Ricciardi—he doesn’t have a winner’s mentality; he’s too busy looking to the future and excusing the moment to do what is necessary to succeed in the present. The only thing he does in the here and now is tell us why it (the current roster) is not going to the post season and what moves will not be made to change that.

I pray Paul Beeston realizes this—if they are punting on 2009 then it’s pretty obvious very few believe that Ricciardi is the man to accomplish something that he has been unable to do in the previous eight years. They need someone who can take the team to the next level and J.P. is content with the present one; always being a year away, having a promising future but never having to lay it on the line and be defined as a winner or a loser. Right now, he tries to portray himself as unlucky—therefore unable to be in that position where that definition can be made.

That of itself is a guarantee that playoff baseball will happen under Ricciardi—he had a window of opportunity in 2008 and did his level best to avoid having to commit to it. I think we’ve seen enough.

Best Regards

John

Pinstripe peril produce purple snits!!!

Yeah, yeah, stack up the canned goods and fresh water, head to the underground bunker and load the assault rifles for truly the apocalypse is nigh. The New York Yankees are hogging all the toys again!

I scarcely know where to start.

O.K., to begin with; let’s look objectively at what the Yankees gained this offseason:

Thus far, it appears that C.C. Sabathia replaces Andy Pettitte in the rotation. Now, don’t forget that Sabathia’s heroics occurred in the NL—before the trade to Milwaukee Sabathia was making most of his starts pitching in the AL Central. In 2008, he posted a 3.83 ERA (116 ERA+) and he faced the A’s three times, the Royals three times and made five other starts against poor offensive teams. That’s 11 of 18 starts he made before the trade against inferior clubs—it was admittedly a bit of a fall off from 2007. However, he made no starts against the Red Sox, Yankees or Rays before being shipped across league lines.

Sabathia is a 1-8, 6.18 ERA against the Yankees lifetime so he’s protected against that. He’s 2-4, 3.91 against the Red Sox, pitched well against the Rays although he did not face them in 2008 and has had little difficulty against Toronto (weak offensively the last two seasons) and Baltimore (‘nuf said).

Last year, Andy Pettitte logged 204 innings with a 98 ERA+ (4.54 ERA) making 13 starts within the division.

In short, the Yankees made an upgrade here but it’s not like they went from replacement level to what C.C. did in Milwaukee. Bear in mind that this will not be the Sabathia we’ll see in the Bronx—he is a career 121 ERA+ starter that toiled in what has often been a weak division. Oddly enough—the most comparable to him statistically at this point of his career is Freddy Garcia. Obviously he is better than Garcia but it is good to remember that Sabathia’s biggest asset is his durability and that he delivers a lot of quality innings but nobody is talking “future Hall of Famer” here.

A.J. Burnett replaces Mike Mussina: last season Burnett threw 221.3 innings at a 105 ERA+ (4.07 ERA), Mussina tossed 200.3 IP for an ERA+ of 132 (3.37 ERA)—now over his 18 seasons Mussina has averaged 198 innings with 11 seasons over 200 yet bear in mind that “Moose” has actually had 16 162-game seasons due to work stoppages so he has actually had 200 innings campaigns in almost 70%of his career. A.J. has averaged 137 innings per season with three of 10 full (seasons) of over 200 IP and as we’ve discussed before, Burnett has never had back-to-back 180-inning campaigns while Mussina’s season average is 198! A.J.’s 200 inning seasons traditionally translate into injury shortened ones immediately after; simply put Burnett will need to enjoy one his better seasons to match what Mussina did in 2008.

So, as far as 2009 goes it’s probably a bit of a downgrade.

Mark Teixeira is a huge boost from Jason Giambi defensively but offensively Teixeira’s last three seasons (as stated) consisted of OPS+ of 126, 150 and 151 with 96 HR while Giambi was 148, 108 and 126 slugging with 83 jacks—a pretty good upgrade but at a position of minimal defensive importance.

Right now, when you consider how the offensive core will be a year older, the defense remains poor and the middle relief is still iffy and the end of the rotation still has question marks it’s hard to see how this $424 million spending spree has turned the pinstripes from a third place team to a world champion. I think the Yankees will be better over the long haul with the trio but I don’t see a big difference between the 2008 and 2009 clubs.

I’m thinking the panic is a wee bit overblown.

At any rate, it is hard to ignore that the advantage the Yankees enjoy is now on bold display. Right now, J.P. Ricciardi is trying to ensure that there are a lot of available seats at the Rogers Centre for 2009 with his proclamations that it’s never too early to fire up the “wait ‘til next year” mantras or make a concession speech.

Ricciardi is a lousy salesman—I mean, here are your division rivals reloading in a big way and he chooses this opportunity to let the fan base know that, as a franchise, they’re not even going to try? Folks are speculating that there could be significant bargains to be had, that some quality players could be available without any long term commitments as free agents might simply wait for a year or two before inking a long term deal but the Jays are saying that they’re not even willing to take advantage of a potential discount special?

I really think that Ricciardi has been assured that he will be employed until his contract expires so he is not going to sweat a mediocre 2009 season.

But I digress—I’ll save my self-loathing as a Blue Jays’ fan for another post.

Getting back to the Bombers’ operating on another plane financially is having a lot of folks wanting to see a salary cap brought into the sport.

While I’m not a fan of caps for a lot of reasons, I do think it is inevitable and all the more so now that the MLBPA has fallen so far and the vast majority of teams are simply part of larger corporate portfolios and can withstand a stoppage until the players cave. I think this offseason will splinter the players even more in that we’ll see the elite get their money as we have already witnessed but a lot of lesser free agents are going to see a lot less and the rank-and-file player is simply not going to sacrifice just so the top guys can go to the Yankees for top dollar because that is to what it all ultimately boils down.

If you’re a superstar free agent your best bet is the New York Yankees—they have close to unlimited resources and are willing to spend it. There are a small minority of teams that are also willing to spend big but as A.J. Burnett stated "Whether you love them or hate them, everybody wants to be a Yankee." It’s not because everybody dream of playing in pinstripes but simply that if the Bronx Bombers decide that they want you as part of the team they will make you very wealthy in a way that no other team is prepared.

So, in effect, why would your average player forgo a year (or more) of his earnings in a career that is so uncertain just so top talent can be paid hundreds of millions of dollars by the AL franchise in New York?

Further, the biggest problem isn’t the Yankees’ spending as it is the lack of investment by other clubs. The Steinbrenner’s are nowhere near the wealthiest member of the ownership cartel. Getting back to the Blue Jays for a moment, it’s not that Rogers Communication cannot increase payroll, it’s that they choose not to do so.

I mean, to me, the what the Yankees are doing is far less reprehensible than the fact that what the Bronx Bombers spend in luxury taxes and revenue sharing is more than what teams like the Marlins spend in total payroll. It is unconscionable for a club to spend less on the major league roster than they receive in revenue sharing.

Ultimately, while Bud Selig gives lip service to competitive balance and parity, the primary motivational directive is and always has been profits. That being the case, the money flows better when the big market teams are good and this system helps make it happen and further, if Selig had his utopia of 100 % revenue sharing and a hard salary cap teams would have no reason to hit up municipalities for hundreds of millions of dollars of corporate welfare for their stadium scams.

An “unfair” system is used as the reason for public support and if the league had the aforementioned utopia how can a team say they need a new stadium to be competitive if their revenues and expenses are pre-set due to sharing and a cap?

The conclusion of the matter is this: there is way too much hysteria over what the Yankees are doing—they haven’t won a World Series since 2000 despite their spending going meta. Always remember this one fact: it’s not that teams cannot spend more for the most part, it’s that they will not. I, for one, would love to have the Jays owned by a group so committed to putting a winning product on the field. The Yankees have massive revenues but at least they spend it and the fans know that even though they’re paying more, at least the franchise is making sure they get full value for the money spent.

Isn’t that what your typical consumer wants with the businesses with whom they deal?

Best Regards

John

Manu, manu, manu, oh shi…

I wonder if the mainstream media knows that Scott Boras needs them more than they need him.

I mean, I know how hard it is sometimes to put a story together and we’re always grateful to our sources that help us fill out columns with something resembling substance. I imagine that a lot in the press have a love-hate type relationship with the man in that they hate what he does and they must realize at some level they’re being used but at the same time he’s always willing to talk and provide information (*cough* bold-faced lies *cough*).

I’m guessing it’s a lot like a farmer’s relationship with manure--they know what it is and it stinks and they feel dirty after dealing with it and crave a long hot shower afterward but they know it helps crops grow tall. In the same manner speaking with Boras creates more or less the same sensations and sentiment but he does help the column inches grow.

Make no mistake though; Boras plays the media like an impresario to enrich his stable of players. I mean, how many of the following headlines this month is the result of a conversation with the agent or a team sending a message to him? We’ll limit ourselves to one player: Mark Teixeira…

Hard to imagine Teixeira in D.C., no matter the price (Boras: “You guys want Teixeira? Think A-Rod money!”)

Red Sox a finalist for Teixeira (Boras: “Hey, Mr. Steinbrenner--look what your main rivals are gonna do; shouldn't you do something to stop them?”)

Orioles not planning to increase offer to Teixeira (Message to Boras: “Have you lost your mind? We have 24 other guys that are gonna want to be paid too!”)

YANKS TO GO AFTER MANNY, TEIXEIRA (Boras: “Memo to the teams I've been discussing these two with; your offers are too low and it's time to get stupid!”)

Mark Teixeira, the One That Got Away From the Red Sox (Boras: “Hello Misters Henry and Epstein, Mark thinks he'd look just dashing in pinstripes, what do you think?”)

For Sox, Mark Teixeira deal would be 2nd to none (Boras: “Yes, that's a generous offer, even an ridiculously obscene one considering my client's talents but it's still way too low. Try digging a little deeper. You wouldn't want me to say that Teixeira is now ready to hear 'serious offers' now would you?”)

Sources: Teixeira to Orioles unlikely (Boras: “Look losers, if you want Teixeira to play in the purgatory of the AL East, we demand 50% of the payroll.”)

Other baseball advocate are encouraging the Red Sox to go nuclear (Boras: “Big Papi is slowing down and you don't have to pay Manny his $20 million so why not use that as a starting point in negotiations?”)

Sources: BoSox close to getting Teixeira (Boras: “Uh, Mr. Steinbrenner, you need a first baseman, I need an obscene commission--do I have to draw you a map?”)

Teixeira will get his payday, but is he really worth it? (Message to Boras: “The real world: spend a week there some time.”)

For Red Sox and Teixeira, Sound and Fury Signify Bluffing (Message to Boras: “We may print money here in Boston but you can't have all of it.”)

Sources: Sox still in Teixeira hunt (Boras: “Well, I'm off to talk to Brian Cashman and Hank Steinbrenner.”)

Teixeira back in talks with Yankees, Angels (Boras: “I know you print money in Boston and we only want 95% of it.”)

…and so it goes.

In one story it states that Teixeira’s ‘imminent’ deal with the Red Sox was about eight years averaging $23 million per. I can almost guarantee that Boras was the origin of that. Heck, I’m willing to bet that any story mentioning a specific dollar figure is from Boras--it’s his way of creating, or hoping to create, a sense of urgency and frantic bidding where the baseline is already set high. Even before teams could offer money to other clubs’ free agents, Boras informed the press that the market for Teixeira was “aggressive” in effect telling the big spenders that, while it’s against the rules to talk money before a certain date, a lot of teams have given ol’ Scotty boy the nudge-nudge, wink-wink that they’re willing to give their souls, their firstborn, their daughter’s virtue and close to a half billion dollars as an opening bid for the greatest first baseman to hit the market since Will Clark (OPS+ for his age 26-28 seasons: 125, 154, 150; Teixeira: 126, 150, 151 although Clark didn‘t become a free agent until he was 29 but was ever bit as slick a defender).

I’m guessing one of two things is occurring: one, Boras has a first class pigeon that he’s slowly reeling in a la Tom Hicks and has them bidding against himself and this is his way of “assuring” le grand surgeon that he is involved in an auction for the ages. The other possibility is that things aren’t going well in the marketplace and nobody is buying his spiel since Teixeira is no better than Will Clark and not as good an offensive player as Jim Thome, Carlos Delgado and Fred McGriff at the same age and greatly inferior to Frank Thomas as a hitter and Jeff Bagwell as an all around first sacker and are making offers accordingly. Therefore Boras is simply trying to pump up his client’s value using every trick he has at his disposal.

Regardless, it would be a lot more fun if the fourth estate simply decided not to use Boras as a source or even better, were perfectly honest about what he planted:

"Boras, frustrated because he can’t get any of the large revenue teams to commit his hoped for 8-10 year $200+ million deal has informed The Post that he has a meeting scheduled with the Yankees’ brass and that the Red Sox have implied in an earlier discussion with the agent that they’re willing to make an offer in the nine year/$207 million range even though Theo Epstein has yet to speak to John Henry about how much there is in the budget available for a deal with Teixeira.

Since teams cannot discuss contract offers with other teams, Boras is hoping that the bogus offer he has ‘leaked’ to The Post from the Red Sox will be viewed as the genuine article by GM Brian Cashman and Hank Steinbrenner and the Bronx Bombers will react accordingly. Boras hopes to be able to take time out of his busy schedule for a pilgrimage to Delphi. “I admire, the Delphians…” the disgruntled agent said “…they had the courage to kill Aesop and as well they should. Were he alive today I would do him in myself. As it is, I’ll simply have to be satisfied with urinating on [Aesop’s] grave."

That would be awesome.

Best Regards

John

The yelling prose of Teixeira...

What’s all the fuss?

Seriously?

Mark Teixeira is a pretty good ballplayer--his career OPS+ is 134, he’s good for 30 taters and 100 RBI, knows the value of a base on balls and is a pretty slick gloveman for a first sacker. Here are his last three seasons from age 26-28:

 AVG    OBP    SLG  Runs    HR   RBI  OPS+
.282   .371   .514    99    33   110  126
.306   .400   .563    86    30   105  150
.308   .410   .552   102    33   121  151

Pretty solid. Yet hardly anything that would indicate that he’s the second coming of anything yet Scott Boras has teams soiling themselves in anticipation of landing him for the next eight years at $20 million annually at the minimum. To put his numbers into some kind of perspective, let’s see how some other recent first basemen fared at the same age:

 AVG    OBP    SLG  Runs    HR   RBI  OPS+
.292   .385   .592    94    38   115  150
.272   .377   .571   113    44   134  137
.344   .470   .664   115    41   137  181

Any guesses? Would you rather have Teixeira or Carlos Delgado? Let’s look at another example:

 AVG    OBP    SLG  Runs    HR   RBI  OPS+
.286   .423   .579   104    40   102  156
.293   .413   .584    89    30    85  153
.277   .426   .540   101    33   108  141

Again, a superior offensive force but not as good defensively. Yet, that was Jim Thome at the same age. Now to really blow your minds:

 AVG    OBP    SLG  Runs    HR   RBI  OPS+
.353   .487   .729   106    38   101  211
.308   .454   .606   102    40   111  179
.349   .459   .626   110    40   134  178

Not even close--but those were “The Big Hurt” Frank Thomas’s totals for his age 26-28 and guess what? His age 26 and 27 seasons were shortened by the strike of 1994-95 yet still put up better counting numbers than Teixeira. One more:

 AVG    OBP    SLG  Runs    HR   RBI  OPS+
.368   .451   .750   104    39   116  213
.290   .399   .496    88    21    87  142
.315   .451   .570   111    31   120  178

O.K. his age 27 season might not look so hot, but bear in mind that like Thomas, Jeff Bagwell’s age 26 and 27 seasons were likewise strike shortened. He was every bit as good a defender as Teixeira plus he was a better base stealer going 30-30 on a couple of occasions.

Were any of these guys lusted after the way Teixeira is right now? We get a good idea of how effective the Scott Boras hype machine is; nobody would’ve thought of dropping the years and dough on the four players cited above for 8-10 years even though Teixeira is probably the worst offensive player of the bunch.

That glove must be really special though eh?

I think whatever team ponies up for him will experience the truth of “the winner‘s curse” in that once his offense starts to decline the club will be left with a roided up version of Lyle Overbay (I’m not saying Teixeira uses steroids, I’m just saying that if Overbay was a user his offense would likely be better plus he’s a pretty slick gloveman himself).

As always, I’m rooting against Scott Boras and I’ve given up hope that teams will see Teixeira for what he really is and not what Boras portrays him to be; I’m nowhere near ready to celebrate the reduced contracts that may be given to his other big clients (Manny Ramirez and Derek Lowe) since it’s far too early to say that they won’t get vastly overvalued deals from some sucker.

We should never lose sight of what Boras did for Magglio Ordonez--he was coming off knee surgery, feuded with the White Sox front office and played just 52 games in 2004 at age 30 batting .292/.351/.485 (114 OPS+) and looked to be only good for a one-year deal to re-establish his market value. Then out of nowhere in the first week of February word came out that the Detroit Tigers were giving him a five year/$75 million deal.

I’m looking forward to Boras’s decline and fall but there’s too much offseason remaining for me to hope that he’s badly misread the market and being fired by a couple more of his clients. Teams are too desperate for starting pitching for Lowe not to land a deal not unlike A.J. Burnett’s and if Boras can corner Hank Steinbrenner one-on-one anything can happen.

He’ll blow it big time one day--I’m just not sure that this will be the year.

Best Regards

John

A little perspective...

To begin with, I really hope this isn‘t true; as reported by the San Diego Union Tribune…

The suit, filed in San Diego Superior Court, states the abuse began in 2002. It accuses Giles of “hitting and slapping plaintiff in the face; pushing plaintiff; shaking plaintiff; kicking plaintiff; hitting plaintiff in the chest; knocking plaintiff to the floor, battering plaintiff twice when she was pregnant with the parties' child, causing plaintiff to suffer a miscarriage.”

Obviously Brian Giles deserves his day in court and is fully entitled to the presumption of innocent until proven guilty. If it’s true, it is truly a heinous act.

What is going to drive me crazy if it is true will be people’s reaction to it. Oh sure, most will stand up and unequivocally condemn the cowardly act (as well they should) and insist that the full weight of the law be brought to bear on Giles.

However, the vitriol and condemnation by the fans and media will not reach the levels given to Barry Bonds.

Even worse, most will be completely oblivious to the disconnect in their thinking.

The press will not stand up and declare that employing Giles would be bad for business and teams will not worry about clubhouse issues should Giles be employed by their team. There will be no concerns about a consumer backlash or ticket sales and it will not be said that a club would be “selling their souls” by giving him work.

A team will be more concerned about whether he can still be effective in the outfield or if he can rediscover his 20 HR power or if he is still capable of batting .300 and drawing 80-100 walks. Rest assured that he will continue to find work as long as he’s productive and while the fourth estate may lob the odd rock in his direction, they’ll be more concerned with ripping Bonds a new one when he is again in the news cycle with his upcoming trial and later the arbitration hearing regarding MLB potential collusion against him.

Oh yeah, screw the whole “innocent until proven guilty” thing for Barry Lamar since as I have been informed all too many times in my e-mail “OMG…your such a idiot of course he‘s guilty look at teh size of his head!!1!!”

Of course, it’s not like the media has given the fans the straight dope on Bonds. If you don’t believe me, look at how many times a story has Bonds saying “whatever dude” to the grand jury or a government prosecutor. It makes Bonds sound surly, arrogant and completely disrespectful to the Grand Jury and/or prosecutor but guess what? It’s completely bogus. Here is the actual context of his “whatever dude” remark:

...everyone tries to give me everything. You get companies that provide us with more junk to try than anything ... I was fatigued, tired, just needed recovery you know. And this guy says: ‘Try this cream, try this cream.' And Greg came to the ballpark and said, you know: ‘This will help you recover,' and he rubbed some cream on my arm, like, some lotion type stuff, and like, some lotion type stuff, and like, gave me some flax seed oil, that's what he called it, called it some flax seed oil man. It's like "Whatever dude." And I was at the ballpark, whatever, I don't care. What's lotion going to do to me? How many times have I heard that: "This is going to rub into you and work." Let him be happy. We're friends. You know? [bolding and italics mine]

The “whatever dude” is what he testified he said to Anderson and was not directed at anybody in the grand jury room. Sure, he’s a surly, arrogant cuss but it does illustrate that the media isn’t above mangling the facts to make him look as evil as possible.

Plus, it’s exactly what people want to hear--they don’t want the truth, they just want to hear the spoiled rich ballplayer get skewered.

That’s what I find so frustrating. I’m not writing this in defense of Bonds but rather how maddening the hypocrisy of it all is; the fact that Barry Bonds isn’t unique--he’s a PED using athlete with an attitude problem. The only thing unique about him is that none of the others that fit that description have hit 762 HR.

There have been a lot of players that have done what Giles is being accused of; there are a lot of players that have done far worse than what Barry Bonds is accused of; there are bigger jerks out there and bona fide felons in MLB. The sport of itself has raped communities (collectively) of billions upon billions of dollars that should have been used for essential services for children, the sick and the elderly.

Yet folks decide to use up their vitriol on Barry Lamar Bonds--that he is the evil that needs to be purged from the sport so that it might regain a sanctity it never had and they base their opinion on what sources tell them and that source distorts the truth on this and many other issues. Make no mistake, the aforementioned billions upon billions of dollars taken out of your pocket and given with no strings attached to the feudal lords of baseball would not have happened had the media been truthful about what was transpiring. Instead they faithfully disseminated the propaganda given them by MLB without any critical analysis. The steroid scandal that causes so many to loath Barry Lamar Bonds might not have taken the shape it did had the press not lied for years that the sport didn’t have a drug problem.

Barry Bonds may be a first class jerk but it doesn’t speak well of us if we view him as the biggest demon that needs to be exorcised from MLB.

Best Regards

John

DOA.J.?

Tell me about a guy having this for a season:

 AVG    OBP    SLG  Runs    HR   RBI  SB
.303   .413   .574   120    41   123  21

Now, what do you think about someone doing that for five straight years?

In those five seasons he was an All Star, won a pair of MVP, and three times was given the Silver Slugger for being the best hitter at his position.

What would you think if some of the fans of the team for which he plays viewed this player with a degree of disappointment? Probably the first thing that would come to mind is what would cause that level of performance to be viewed in such a manner?

Well, one theory might be how well he played up to that point in time--maybe he regressed. So, let’s take a look at the previous eight full seasons this man played in the big leagues. He averaged:

 AVG    OBP    SLG  Runs    HR   RBI  SB
.311   .387   .590   124    42   121  21

Pretty consistent if you ask me--13 straight seasons of inner circle Hall of Fame greatness.

Then why are some of the fans of his current team down on such a prodigious talent?

Ever hear the expression about the importance of first impressions? Here’s a look at his first season with his current club:

 AVG    OBP    SLG  Runs    HR   RBI  SB
.286   .375   .512   112    36   106  28

That’s still a pretty good season by anybody’s reckoning. Let’s add a visual:

Slappy McBluelips begins...

Ah yes…Alex Rodriguez.

Yes, to some, A-Rod has never lived down 2004; the poor-for-him season and the final four games of the ALCS against the despised Boston Red Sox. Had the Yankees won that series and Rodriguez went on to win World Series MVP chances are good that subsequent post season flops were simply sample size and that acquiring Rodriguez would rank up there with the acquisition of George Herman Ruth.

Obviously, the more baseball savvy members of the Yankee fan base recognize that he’s a good guy to have on the ol’ 25-man roster even if they’re not enamoured with his persona, his agent or the other red herrings that make ones long for the misty watered coloured memories of Scott Brosius.

If you’re a hired gun of the New York Yankees you will not be given the grace and the allowances made for any shortcomings that are enjoyed by the likes of Derek Jeter, Jorge Posada and Mariano Rivera--homegrown Yankee lifers all. Although Andy Pettitte had three years away from the Bronx, he could count on more slack than Mike Mussina. The bottom line is that if you’re an interloper pulling down the big bucks you’d better produce from Day One or else. Jason Giambi batted .314/.435/.598 with 41 HR while reaching the rare trifecta of 100+ in the runs/RBI/BB and followed that up with a .357/.526/.571 performance in a losing effort in the ALDS in his inaugural season wearing the pinstripes and was set. As long as he continued to hit he would be forgiven in the whole BALCO scandal that caused so much angst. 2004 would not be held against him as he posted OPS+ of 161 and 148 the years following his part in the mess.

What will the next five years hold for A.J. Burnett?

As will be discussed in more detail in this week’s upcoming SMSN column, his tenure and happiness in pinstripes will be decided in year one of the deal--succeed and he’s gold, fail and he hears the name Ed Whitson, get hurt and Carl Pavano will be invoked.

It’s not fair and the comparisons are bogus but that is the reality of the situation and the current circumstances coming into 2009 do not bode well for A.J. Burnett. Every season he has tossed 200+ innings have been followed by a pair of injury shortened campaigns. The Yankees’ problems last year had as much to do with the offense as it did the pitching and bullpen leading up to Mo Rivera--areas that haven’t been addressed as of yet.

Burnett will not have the stellar defense behind him in New York that he did in Toronto and his occasionally erratic command (3.71 B/9; 14 starts in 2007-08 with four or more walks) will be more of a problem since more balls in play will become hits rather than outs and double plays. He will need more pitches to get through more innings than he did the last two seasons.

If he wants to throw 200 quality innings next season the circumstances do not bode well for A.J. He has yet to throw 200 (yet alone 180) innings in back-to-back seasons. A poor debut in the Bronx might mean his five year deal could be a five year sentence.

He has the stuff to succeed there--he is a superb pitcher when healthy however it takes more than talent to thrive with the Yankees as history attests. Hopefully he can pull it off because as much as I want to see the Yankees lose, I hate to see talented players not fulfill their potential since watching them is what makes baseball fun.

Best Regards

John

Blame J.P. not A.J....

I really hope the Toronto media and the fans cut A.J. Burnett some slack.

I mean, here were the man’s choices--go to a team that last season had one of the best pitching staffs and defenses in baseball yet did nothing (yes, Brad Wilkerson, Kevin Mench and Jose Bautista qualify as that) all season to upgrade the one aspect of the club that needed a boost to take the next step, have spent the following offseason informing anyone within hearing distance that the organization--barring all the breaks falling their way--is taking a mulligan in 2009 and is already pimping the 2010 team and offered four years at possibly $13-14 million per that went to Las Vegas and secured the services of Matt Clement.

The other option was to go to a team that offered five years averaging $16.5 million per annum had already signed the biggest bauble on the free agent market in C.C. Sabathia and have signalled that they’re nowhere near finished adding to the roster because they’re opening a new stadium and annually have the mindset that anything short of a ring is a failed season.

One team is committed to winning right now, the other speaks about some indefinite future time when they’ll make a run for the roses but under the current regime has never said ‘Now we go for it.’ One team makes excuses, the other one accepts none.

Don’t forget, after the trial of Barry Bonds there will be an arbitration hearing about whether or not MLB colluded against Bonds and if indeed baseball (and by extension the Jays) are guilty then potentially the final piece of the puzzle was out there for the entirety of 2008 at the cost of no players and the pro-rated major league minimum and Toronto chose losing to be part of a conspiracy. Yes, the Yankees are equally guilty but among the two teams which one is loading up for a post season run?

If I have any fire in my belly and want to pitch in October--the choice is a no-brainer; the money is gravy.

What has to be remembered is that a major league career is a fragile and finite thing…especially for a pitcher. Each time they take the mound they run the risk of throwing their final pitch. Tomorrow never comes in a lot of cases and these athletes must live in the present and get what they can while they still can be it money or championship dreams. The Toronto Blue Jays have a future--they will still be around in 2010, 2011, 2012 etc. and they may even end up in the playoffs again at some point.

Will A.J. Burnett still be throwing a baseball in the major leagues in 2010? 2011? 2012?

Who knows?

The New York Yankees offered A.J. the present: $82.5 million and a de facto guarantee that the club has every intention of doing everything in its power to win the World Series in 2009. The Toronto Blue Jays offered almost $30 million less and said “Hey, things might be a lot better in 2010…maybe.”

C’mon.

The New York Yankees have reached the post season 13 times since the Jays were last there.

I can almost guarantee that if Burnett solicited Roy Halladay’s advice on what to do that he would’ve told A.J. to not be an idiot and sign the Yankees’ offer before they changed their mind. The Bronx Bombers offered him the ballplayer’s dream: a generous contract on a team obsessed with World Series rings.

What could the Blue Jays offer to compete with that?

For those of you that decry Burnett’s lack of loyalty just remember this: our loyalty to him would have vanished as soon as his considerable skills begin to leave him. It’s a two-way street.

So…Godspeed A.J. I wish you nothing but the very best for you at your new address save for hoping that the Jays kick your butt every time the two teams play one another.

For more on this, here is a recent SMSN column on the subject.

Best Regards

John

Wallglowers....

Ugh … five years/$80 million for A.J. Burnett?

At least that is what Gerry Fraley is reporting.

As we stated earlier today, this needs to be taken with a degree of caution since John Deere and Massey-Ferguson may as well have held trade shows in Las Vegas to demonstrate the effectiveness of their manure spreaders.

On the bright side, Bud Selig’s head must be near critical mass by now; first he spoke at the G.M. meetings (through a video feed), then he had Paul Volcker address the owners and other executives regarding the economy and, despite a slow start, it appears not to have slowed teams down a whit. First C.C. Sabathia signs a record deal for pitchers and wrung an extra year and $21 million (plus an opt out) from of the New York Yankees without anyone else being close to the Bombers original six year/$140 million package, then Derek Lowe is reportedly getting a shorter version of the contract the Giants gave to Barry Zito as the pinstripers are seemingly close to a four year pact averaging somewhere between $17-18 million.

Argh…I hate it when Scott Boras wins.

Well, I hope that the Yankees up their offer to Burnett--may as well land the trifecta of top starters.

Sure it’ll reek to follow the Blue Jays next year but at least I can enjoy a bit of schadenfreude in about three years when the Bronx Bombers may have close to $60 million tied up in 3/5 of their rotation and Lowe is old, Burnett is out and C.C. will have the infield orbiting his mid-section with nothing due to come up in the farm system until 2015.

In the short term I can take a degree of solace in knowing that Brian Cashman will have as much to do in the amateur draft as J.P. Ricciardi does right now in Vegas.

If money is so tight for the Blue Jays, why didn’t they save a few bucks and keep Ricciardi at home? Heck, J.P. himself said "Personally, I think (the winter meetings) are kind of antiquated," Toronto Blue Jays GM J.P. Ricciardi said. "There's so much communication that's done (other ways). If we decided we were going to change it one year, it wouldn't bother me." (Hat tip to the Drunks)

That’s not to be taken seriously but it’s really frustrating to hear what other teams are doing in Vegas and having to listen to what Ricciardi isn’t doing there.

Still, there might be some wisdom in what Ricciardi says about the Winter Meetings; Scott Boras for one revels in that environment since it makes it easier for him to play one club off the other with all the decision makers in one place. All he has to do is take an offer, go a few doors down and ask the other interested team if they’re willing to top it.

It would certainly make bidding wars more logistically difficult.

The thing is, if the Jays’ attendance takes a significant dip in 2009 they only have themselves to blame. Without a doubt, Ricciardi and Co. have been an absolute buzz-kill to the fan base; they’re doing everything in their power to make sure that the fans approach next season with a profound sense of dread and hopelessness.

It would be like Rogers Communication putting out ads informing consumers what their products cannot do and pointing out why the competition’s product is so much more desirable.

One person that has been conspicuously silent through all this is Cito Gaston. I’m guessing he wants to be a good company man but I cannot think he is happy with all this industrial strength inertia.

One would think that at the very least the organization would be extolling the wonders of Travis Snider, David Purcey, Brett Cecil, Davis and Ricky Romero etc. Why not let it be known that the future is now and the kiddie corps will dazzle us as they go mano a mano against the big bad AL East?

Right now, it’s hard not to get the feeling that the Toronto Blue Jays are marketing 2009 as “Come watch our bums get a good kicking.”

This is salesmanship? I would love to hear the sales pitch the club is going to give Roy Halladay to stay onboard. If he leaves for greener pastures I will personally take to task any writer that blames Halladay, greed, disloyalty or any other such nonsense for his moving on. If the Jays are not committed to winning then why should a winning athlete commit to them? Doc has given the team his very best--can the organization say the same thing to Halladay?

Other stuff…

• The BBWAA just added four internet writers: Will Carroll and Christina Kahrl of Baseball Prospectus and Rob Neyer and Keith Law of ESPN.com. Congrats to all!
  
• My latest offering at SMSN Sports is Against his will? where I wonder if the long arm of the MLBPA played a role in the Yankees acquiring C.C. Sabathia. One of my favourite parts of my weekly column is waiting to see what my boss Matt Parkinson has planned for the photo, caption, and lead-in for the article. When you check it out (and any earlier pieces) be sure to see what Mr. Parkinson has cooked up. He's as demented as I am and that ain't easy.
  
• Just some props for The Drunks for their tireless coverage and takes on the Winter Meetings; it has been an ordeal as a Jays' fan but at least I know I am not suffering alone.
  
• It's nice to see Joe Gordon finally take his rightful place in baseball's Hall of Fame. I have been stumping for Flash for almost a decade now. I did a post at my previous blog about Gordon's worthiness. Hopefully that opens the door for Bobby Grich but it's a real shame Ron Santo was again excluded--c'mon guys...enough already. Other Hall of Fame wishes for this year include Tim Raines, Bert Blyleven, Rickey Henderson, Alan Trammell and Andre Dawson.
  

Best Regards

John

A Boras hole?...

Those of you that have subjected yourselves to my drivel over the years (some would call you readers, others would classify you as masochists) it would not be unfair to characterize Scott Boras as a guy of whom I am not particularly fond.

Yes, I generally am supportive of the players' side of most issues and feel they’re entitled to every blessed dollar they can get for their talents (I mean--are we any different? Do we not want the most money somebody is willing to pay for our abilities?) but I do think there are a right way and a wrong way to go about it.

Despite pushing 44, I have not lost my naïveté that the end does not justify the means and I feel there is value in turning the other cheek; just because somebody is a skunk of a human being doesn’t mean that it gives me license to do likewise. If somebody treats me like dirt, I do not think it gives me free rein to act in the same manner. It’s a variation of the saying about never arguing with an idiot since they’ll drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.

But I digress--it’s what I’m best at.

It should be noted though that not cheering for Scott Boras should not be equated with cheering for the men that wear argyle and not stirrup socks with their pinstripes.

Yeah, yeah, there is a point to this stream-of-consciousness monologue.

Tim Brown reports on Yahoo Sports that the market for Manny Ramirez is light according to a lot of executives.

Obviously, I take everything coming from the Winter Meetings with a major grain of salt. Among the 12 labours of Hercules was the cleaning of the Augean Stables in one day. Well, only a day in the Winter Meetings would require an equitable amount of male bovine manure handling and any information emanating from there should be viewed through that messy, stinky prism.

Bottom line, the market for Ramirez may be red hot but everybody is playing their hands close to the vest. Heck, I wouldn’t be surprised if some agents and executives spread misinformation just for the fun of it just to see the mileage it receives. It is said that a lie can get halfway around the world before the truth even gets its shoes tied and we see evidence of this on an hourly basis.

However, there is a part of me that wants to see Ramirez get either less than $20 million a year on a contract or--if he gets more than that--a deal of only two years. Let’s be serious; Manny would hardly be harmed by having to deal with someone giving him eight figures after finishing a contract that paid him $160 million but it would look awfully good on Boras.

I do think that Boras had a hand in Ramirez’s behaviour in his exit from Boston. I chronicled my feelings in a two part feature for SMSN Sports here and here. I don’t think Boras told Ramirez to go into the tank but I do think he might have planted in his client’s ear to give the Red Sox the full “Manny being Manny experience” to get out of the Boston and get the option years dropped to get him into free agency.

At the time (before the economy tanked), it appeared that a lucrative offseason was waiting--especially with the Yankees and Mets opening new stadiums and as mentioned in the articles, the only way Boras could make any money off representing Ramirez was to get him into free agency. The only way to get the slugger into free agency was to get the option years dropped, the only way to get the option years dropped was to either make him undesirable to the Red Sox or get himself traded and have the dropping of the option years a condition of accepting a trade as a player with 10-5 rights.

I just think it would be nice if the gambit backfired.

Power corrupts and it’s good to remember that players and agents are homo sapiens no different than the owners and every bit as capable of avarice and dirty dealings. While the MLBPA’s clout has lessened in recent years it’s still considerable and superstar players are the ones the union serves. It’s also common knowledge that Boras is the most powerful agent in the game and history teaches us that given enough leeway, the most powerful start making their own rules.

I think this is what occurred with Ramirez and Boras; elite talent means big dollars to the teams employing them and they’re often given a lot more slack than those of lesser abilities. Don't forget that MLB had to wring every last dollar out of the home run chase and make sure that no team owed Barry Bonds a nickel for services rendered before they found their "conscience" on the issue of employing a particular 'steroid cheat'.

Boras is devious too in achieving his ends--for instance, when J.D. Drew was drafted, he had Drew stay at a different address than the one they provided to the Phillies. They sent the necessary paperwork to the location given but since Drew wasn’t there, Boras tried to claim that they didn’t receive it in the time frame the rules stipulated and made a claim for free agency because of it.

I’m sorry but that’s dishonourable--but that’s Boras.

I’ll be upfront, I want him out of baseball and sooner or later he’ll slip up due to his arrogance and give the owners all the leverage they’ll need to get him de-certified as an agent. Let’s face it, Boras may be brilliant, but some of that is perception because he was dealing with people not as savvy--or patient--as he; I doubt he is a more brilliant tactician than Napoleon Bonaparte but eventually hubris humbles all. Barring untimely death, Boras’ Waterloo is coming--it’s just a question as to when.

I hope it's soon.

If the union does its job and keeps the player marketplace open and honest, keep a salary cap at bay and the sport's revenues continue to grow the young men who play the game can rest assured that market forces and competitive bidding for their services will ensure that they will continue to get their fair share of the pie without the dishonest machinations of a raging, self-serving egomaniac.

Best Regards

John

The Gaston gap...

One of my favourite readers, a gent by the name of John Louden (he possesses the rare quality of being able to make me laugh while offering constructive critiques on my various rants--not many can utilize “Hamlet” when criticizing a point in a baseball column but he managed it) posited a question to me during an e-mail exchange yesterday:

“Do have a question for you though that was touched on during a game (by Rance, I think)--why was Cito not managing in the years between Jays' gigs? I certainly don't mean to tell you your biz, but maybe there's a column there?”

Now you know why I like him so much--not only is he a provider of thoughtful feedback, he provides ideas for articles when there’s not much cookin’ on the ol’ hot stove.

In Howard Bryant’s excellent book: “Juicing the Game” there was the following point made about the evolution of how major league teams are run:

…Alderson said … “If an organization is worth its salt--we’re talking about maybe the paradigm corporate existence where the corporation has a reputation, it’s been doing things for a long time, it’s innovative and has continuity--why would you turn that company over to not a middle manager, but a lower or upper manager? … the attitude was, ‘We have a philosophy and we’re going to find a manager who is going to implement that philosophy. We’re not looking for someone to tell us how to run the team, or upon which theory it should be predicated. We already have that. We want someone that is going to implement it for us…

“…we’re not hiring you for your philosophy. We’re hiring you because we think you fit ours.”

The on-field philosophy, how a team would approach the daily task of winning, no longer originated in the manager’s office, but in the front office. This created tension on two fronts. The first was that the manager became something of a lame duck. If a manager believed he was the ultimate authority once the game began, he found out swiftly and severely how wrong he was.--pg. 244

That’s it in a nutshell.

I had the privilege of speaking at length with Cito Gaston a few years ago and to this day he remains my favourite and most memorable interview. He was candid, forthright, never clichéd and spoke his mind whether or not he was saying what you wished to hear.

His honesty was refreshing and quite frankly remarkable.

The thing I came away with is what I had suspected for quite some time--he is very much his own man and holds himself accountable to his conscience. He will do what he feels to be right and take whatever consequences that result from that stand.

Gaston is not a man that will let someone else tell him how to handle the troops under his watch. He gets to know the men in his charge and treats them in a way that shows he respects what they can do while at the same time motivating them to give their best and being accountable to themselves, the team and their abilities.

After our conversation ended I understood why his players respected him so and loved playing for him. If a player was busting his butt for the team they knew that Gaston had their backs--there is no subterfuge or ulterior motives in Cito’s approach.

Doubtlessly, teams that interviewed him for managerial positions were looking for men, as stated above, that would follow orders from the higher-ups unquestioningly whereas Gaston was going to do what he felt was right regardless of the wishes of the front office.

In short--he was too much an independent cuss for most teams. Gaston has a philosophy, an approach to the game and demands it be respected. Yes, a club can give Gaston general guidelines (‘We’re rebuilding so play the kids’ … ‘We expect to be competitive so play the best you have and optimize the roster’ etc.) but when it comes to the clubhouse and what happens between the lines Cito is in charge and calls the shots.

Most teams didn’t want someone like that and went in a different direction.

Right now, with major question marks surrounding the starting rotation and concerns about the offense, it is very difficult to look at 2009 with any degree of real optimism but the fans can be assured of this much: the players will be held accountable and excuses will not be tolerated. If there was any degree of a laissez-faire attitude under John Gibbons it will be gone in the coming season. Since the Toronto Blue Jays are not in rebuilding mode we can rest assured that Gaston will take his mandate to win very seriously.

Best Regards

John

Poor little rich boy…

He has my dream job; he is everything that this world says we should aspire to: good looks, being athletic, wealthy, famous and having a really cool, fun job.

Why do I feel sorry for him?

I, for one, do not subscribe to what folks say is important because if being rich, gorgeous and important is all that is required for true happiness then why are there so many divorces in Hollywood with stories of drug and alcohol abuse, therapists, mental and emotional breakdowns and the like?

But I digress…yes, even on a brand, spanking new blog.

Anyway, my first official linked article (release balloons and confetti) is from Jeff Passan of Yahoo Sports (a personal fave and a pretty nice guy…but don’t tell him I said that) who writes A-Rod desperately seeking himself that I think captures the essence of his paradoxical nature.

A-Rod picked USA!...

He went through so much soul searching before he decided to represent the USA at the inaugural World Baseball Classic and I guess after another round of psyche-sifting has decided to represent the Dominican Republic. I remember his first stack of waffles on the subject a few years back and when he finally made up his mind (or found someone to do it for him) one poster on Baseball Think Factory quipped sarcastically “At long last our long national nightmare is over!!!”

I honestly think that at some level that is how Rodriguez feels, that in Times Square (before the first WBC) there were a million people huddled against the cold reading a marquee waiting eagerly for his decision to come across the news feed just waiting to erupt in joyous relief upon learning than Team USA would indeed have A-Rod manning third base while in downtown San Pedro De Macoris babies were crying, he was being burned in effigy soldiers were shooting looters on sight once they heard the news that they would have to rely on a lesser talent to patrol the hot corner.

...and burned in effigy in D.R.

Personally, probably it all went wrong for him when he retained Scott Boras. Sure, it’s simplistic but make no mistake, Boras sees dollar signs wherever he goes; he was once booted from Sunday School for berating Judas Iscariot for being a lousy agent for only getting 30 pieces of silver for the Son of God. Boras saw Rodriguez as a cash cow of aurochian proportions and made sure that he positioned his client to be able to turn everything he touched into gold.

Boras no doubt drummed into the head of the young Rodriguez that he was the sun moon and stars ergo worth every blessed nickel some Hick(s) would be able to throw at him. Yes, he has ignored Boras’s advice at times but for the most part, he heeded the agent of doom. The man stated repeatedly that he wanted to be a New York Met but ended up miserable in Arlington for three years. When it appeared at the end of 2007 that he might again end up where he didn’t wish to play he again took matters into his own hands.

I don’t buy the line that Boras was pulling the strings when he signed his new deal with the Yankees. In 2000, Boras was seeking a quarter billion and got it, seven years later he was aiming for $400 million and missed badly. Here is a discussion of how Boras primed everyone for Rodriguez’s 10 year/$252 million contract--he was not shy about what he was gunning for and he reached it. When Boras was making statements that $350 million would be the starting point for negotiations and that $32 million was the minimum base annual salary etc. it wasn’t because he was priming teams for a lesser amount--that isn’t his M.O. Boras shoots high and keeps his client out on the market until somebody reaches it.

Don’t forget, A-Rod signed his first mega deal in late January but his second just about 2-3 weeks after the World Series ended--bottom line, Boras was reined in by Rodriguez.

It’s a shame that such a prodigious talent has so much baggage and so many insecurities. I can’t help but wonder what he would be like today had he simply gone to the Mets in 2000 and said “Let’s get something done.” Yeah, he wouldn’t have been as wealthy but it’s a shame that despite being an all-time great that he will be defined by money and the man he retained by so many.

Ever since he signed his deal with Texas he has been in spin mode trying to convince folks that he’s not a greedy drone created by Scott Boras and raised on Madison Avenue but that he’s just a guy that is extraordinarily good at what he does for a living. However, Boras just didn’t enrich him, he painted a target on him that caused his faults to be magnified and his virtues explained away as a trifle.

I think that is why we see the Alex Rodriguez we see today. He has gone from great to somewhat buffoonish and his link to Madonna reminds us of the decline and fall of Jose Canseco (without the corresponding erosion in talent). It may give small people a warm feeling of schadenfreude should things end badly for A-Rod but I really hope he can escape whatever demons are pursuing him and we remember him as the man that bested Barry Bonds.

Best Regards

John

Here we go again…

Yup, once again I’m starting a blog. The first one (Synaptic Flatulence) was sold after I joined The Hardball Times in late 2004 (has it been that long?) and the second one was started after being given inspiration to do so from Drunk Jays Fans and it was called The Progenitor of Severe Gluteal Discomfort. It was transferred to Baseball Digest Daily at the request of a friend that wrote for them (since departed) and has been pretty much assimilated into the fabric of BDD.

However, a blast from my past came into contact with me by the name of Scott Carefoot--he is the one responsible for “Chin Music” my current gig at SMSN Sports and asked if I had any interest in starting a blog that could be added to The Score’s new federation of blogs.

Well, seeing as the first time I accepted an offer from Scott turned out O.K. and the fact that there was money to be made, I readily accepted.

The thing is, while I enjoy writing and blogging about baseball and am passionate about doing so, it is also my vocation. I have bills to pay and being given a choice between blogging for free and blogging for filthy lucre I’ll go for the money every time. I could care less what the schools are like around The Score’s offices nor am I interested in what is in their minor league systems.

After the dot.bomb I had my fill of offers to write for stock. My stock portfolio is indeed impressive and I sleep soundly knowing that it doubles in value every day. However, 2 x 0 always equals zero; one of my favourite episodes of The Simpsons is when Bart creates the cartoon (Bartoon?) “Angry Dad” and the company that carries it pays Bart in stock that comes off a toilet paper roll. He ultimately ends up with 55 million shares.

I haven’t decided what to do with my old blog at Baseball Digest Daily yet. While BDD was recently bought out by Baseball Prospectus, it’s impact on me professionally was nil and I doubt my status where I put the “free” in freelance will change in the foreseeable future. I enjoy working with Joe Harami and admire what he has accomplished; nevertheless pats on the back only go so far when you have a mortgage.

If I have to prioritize my writing, I have to do so by heeding Deep Throat and “follow the money” and right now SMSM, The Hardball Times and here are revenue generators and I have to be pragmatic. Ideally, I’d like to keep my foot in the door at BDD but it would have to be in a reduced role. Joe is tied up with other matters at the moment and I doubt the fate of one his bloggers is an overriding concern. I have friends at BDD and I do enjoy ranting for them.

That’s enough soul-baring for right now.

At any rate, not much else different will transpire here--for better or worse it will still just be me being me: whining, bellyaching, screaming at the Blue Jays, Bud Selig, owners in general or whatever has gotten me worked into a lather. I have been told to just be myself (in heaven’s name--why?) so this will be simply a blog with the usual amenities; I’ll be adding a links page, let readers tell me what a misguided nitwit I am in the comments section, bring along the trademark “Best Regards”, I’ll toss on a widget and of course pimp my own ramblings from other outlets etc.

And awaaaay we go! Welcome to “Ground Rule Trouble”!

Best Regards

John