Booty and the Beest...

Before I proceed, I’d like to give the usual tip o’ the cap to the always vigilant warriors against sobriety at Drunk Jays Fans for this (what would I do without you guys?)--they catch a lot of heat from testiculacking folks that should be rolled in the Colonel’s secret blend of herbs and spices for always levelling their “critiques” (I call it synaptic flatulence)--complete with all the panache of a middle school bathroom stall--anonymously but DJF are relentless diggers for Blue Jays information and for that I am grateful.

But I digress … right off the bat too!

Anyway, to state the obvious, I wanted to chime in on what Paul Beeston said on Prime Time Sports a few days back because I’m not sure whether I am more disappointed or mystified at the seemingly obvious double talk that is so out of character for him. I’m just gonna rip off the section used by The Drunks for this since they pretty much pegged that this was the key part of the show. I’m gonna do this “Fire Joe Morgan” style--not so much in tone as in format (I mean--this is Beeston, not Bud Selig or Scott Boras…folks that you know will lie like a teenager caught coming home well past curfew):

I think that's a good question and I think that question was addressed in a couple different ways at the State of the Franchise. In fact, Cito was there too, Steve, so, I mean, it was an opportunity for everybody to ask that question, and it went from why don't we go after Manny Ramirez to why don't we go after Bobby Abreu, and I think that if you kind of examine it, those are fair questions. At the present time, though, given the economy, given whether or not we lose AJ Burnett and the salaries and everything, we're actually trying to run this on a business basis at the present time, so we don't have just those dollars just because we didn't sign AJ Burnett.

Did you have the money to sign Burnett--yes or no? Was the whole thing a ruse to placate the fan base since Ricciardi knew all along he was going to the Yankees? If you were serious about re-signing them then the money is there and since he didn’t return then the money must still be available.

The fan doesn't really care about that-- and rightly so-- they want to see a winning program. We think that we'd like to see a winning program also, but, we really want to make sure we do it right, and for the players that you're talking about, I'm not 100% certain that they're still in the area that we want to move at this point in time. Will they be next week? Maybe. Will the be at the first of February? Maybe. There's still a number of players out there, and JP continues to talk and we'll assess it as we go by, but I don't want to lead anyone to think that we're going to be out there with those big names, but you know, who knows? Somebody might drop in our lap.

Here is where I’d like a little less vagueness--define “drop in our lap.” I mean, non tender a few guys such as Jose Bautista, Jason Frasor and Brian Tallet and there’s enough money (or close to it) to have nabbed Pat Burrell or Jason Giambi for what the Rays and A’s paid respectively and we haven’t even discussed the money that was there to sign Burnett that no longer exists. What are the parameters for this--the player comes into Ricciardi’s office on his knees and pleads for a job at the minimum? It really sounds like a non committal commitment since there are no guidelines for what qualifies as ‘dropping into their lap.’

I don't think necessarily it's in terms of profitability, it's in the basis that you wouldn't want to lose money, and you could say that there was a number of books, and there was somebody who said he could take a $6 million profit and turn it into a $2 million loss and get every accountant in the country to agree with it...

Let’s not forget third party transactions--Rogers Communication can shift a lot of money around and make it look like the Blue Jays are money losers while other sectors are major gainers--I’d like to know how much of their third quarter profit came from the team--remember, they own 100 percent of the revenue streams from the Rogers Centre and have no rent or mortgage payments to speak of but they can write off a mess of amortization (that counts as a loss on the books) on the facility. Also bear in mind that it’s standard practice in MLB for teams that own their primary broadcast outlet to massively underpay for the rights to televise the games so as to hide profitability from both the government and the players union.

I'm not sure I could do that anymore, but I think, Stephen (Brunt), the answer to your question is, we're not in a position right now where you could look at just the television, you could look at the stadium, what we're trying to do is run it on one set of books and trying to run it on a profitable basis, and put ourselves in position where we can actually grow the revenue so that we can be a big player with the big teams.

Can we see the books to confirm that this is what is happening? Didn’t think so--I call B.S. squared on this item since if they ran it on one set of books hiding revenue and profit is that much more difficult and would be against pretty much SOP (standard operation procedure) for the major league cartel.

And as I work this out, that's doable. Is it doable next year? Not in this economy, not without winning-- you have to have both of them. Why are the Yankees and the Red Sox able to go after the big players? Essentially they win. And so, you know, they not only get huge get, they get huge television dollars too. So, they add it all together and so when the big players come forward, they can go after them.

Isn’t this circular reasoning? You can't win without big players but you cannot get big players unless you win.

I don't think that if you look at the Yankees you can say that they've overspent. They've overspent maybe in terms of number of years of some of the players that they've signed-- like Sabathia, Teixeira and AJ-- but they certainly haven't overspent from the point of view of going into 2009, because I think their salaries are down. I'd like to see that our team got to that position where we'd be able to contend with those types of clubs, going after the premium free agents. We may have to take a little step back this year to balance the books and then take it forward from there.

As we discussed back on the 28th that it is far more economical to spend less on better players this offseason than wait for the next to potentially pay more for inferior talent--I mean, next year’s free agent class reeks like Alex Rodriguez’s undershorts after a big playoff at bat. Again, we see a reference to balancing the books but no hard data is provided and I doubt any will materialize. Don’t forget, Beeston said barely moments before that “we don't have just those dollars just because we didn't sign AJ Burnett.”

Let's face it, that’s serious voodoo economics right there. Toss in the suspicious timing of their little “State of the Jays” meeting with seasons tix holders and the media and it’s hard not to get the impression that the franchise is hiding something.

I’m a big believer in the “follow the money” route to understanding such things and there has to be some reason the club feels it’s in their best interests to blow off 2009, have the most depressing offseason of any non-Maple Leafs Toronto franchise--there are two ways to make money in MLB: investment and welfare. Investment involves risk--welfare is free money so I’m guessing rather than taking a financial risk by investing in the free agent market, build a winner and increase revenues that way, the club has opted to kiss Bud Selig’s posterior, play good organizational soldiers and not spend this hot stove league and hope the commissioner’s office has a nice equalization cheque to offset the low Canadian dollar.

From Mel Queen to welfare queens…here are your 2009 Toronto Blue Jays!

Finally…

The Hardball Times 2009 Season Preview will be going on sale (click the link for details) and as usual I’m covering the Toronto Blue Jays with my usual whiny, snivelling Jann Arden-esque “let’s slit our wrists together” tone. I like money so buy the darned thing so I can take writing lessons and make this experience less torturous for all of us.

Best Regards

John

Connections…

So, has Joe Torre dropped the “cl” from class act?

I mean, to hear the media tell it for the last decade plus Torre was the Yoda of baseball management; sage, thoughtful, the Force of baseball wisdom flowed through the placid wizened baseball lifer: his own counsel he would keep when it came to deciding who would be trained in the way of champions.

It was accepted a gospel truth—Torre existed on a plane above mere mortals.

Now it’s getting crowded under the bus of the book he wrote along with Tom Verducci and the lustrous legend of Torre has developed considerable tarnish—are we to now believe that the former Yanki Master isn’t everything the media portrayed him as being?

Who knew?

Have we learned anything from this—anything at all?

Anyone?

Anyone at all?

The lesson is this: the way the media explains people within baseball may not accurately represent the truth. If they love them (or if they’re indulged by them—See Pete Rose, Steve Garvey, Kirby Puckett) they’ll create a portrait that even their intimates wouldn’t recognize.

If they don’t like you—well, let’s just say their names wouldn’t look out of place alongside Osama, Adolf, Genghis, Judas or Kathie Lee.

I think you know where I am going with this—again, I am not saying Barry Lamar Bonds is a saint and chances are good that he’s downright nasty at times but he is not the worst person ever to lace up spikes in the major leagues and probably isn’t among the top 100 (minimum 5000 AB).

However, the media’s portrayal of the man cause many people’s blood pressure to rise at the very mention of the name.

Bottom line—if you believe everything the press writes about individuals … well, no offense, but you’re really not all that bright. I’m sorry, you’re just not.

Anyway, Feds raid home of former slugger Bonds' trainer's mother-in-law; now the Feds have had since 2003 to connect the dots from various sources to nail Bonds and now they’re doing this? These are not the actions of people that feel they have a rock solid case to take to court to obtain a conviction—this is simple desperation.

The thing is, even what the fourth estate has presented about the case has been inaccurate; they have said that he confessed to using the “Cream” and the “Clear” when what was said was that he used certain substances that were later explained to him as being these things—a significant difference. Also, his “whatever dude” comment was not addressed to the prosecutors or any member of the grand jury but rather was what he testified he said to Greg Anderson.

In short, the truth has not been disseminated to the public in many respects and a lot of important details have not been given nearly the column space as the things that make Bonds look as guilty as possible.

I think the government knows it has done a poor job and is grasping at straws. It’s the price of pursuing vendettas—the media painted a picture of Bonds that caused Jeff Novitzky (and possibly others) to loath him to such an extent that they began to believe they were doing God’s work to bring him down and there would be enough slime laying around that it’d be easy to accomplish precisely that.

I think they may have overlooked one plausible scenario: I’m going to don my tinfoil hat and write something that I have wondered about; many folks have marveled at how loyal his personal trainer--Greg Anderson--is to Bonds and have speculated that BLB must have promised to look after him if he kept his mouth shut.

However, there are a couple of things wrong with this scenario—both men are extraordinarily self-centered. Bonds never shared significant amounts of his enormous wealth with his friend or anyone close to him. He has crafted prenuptial agreements, offended Kimberly Bell with the size of her “payoff” and has never shown any inclination toward spending large amounts of money for people’s silence.

These ones had “the goods” on Bonds as well but he was never motivated to look after such ones for life in exchange for their silence. I cannot see Bonds making an exception for Anderson. Bonds often treated Anderson like it was his duty to do what Bonds wanted when he wanted it done—gratitude isn’t something for which BLB is noted.

Anderson knows Bonds well and I cannot see why he would think that his friend would feel it is his responsibility to do anything that would inconvenience the moody slugger—it has always been a one-way street.

I think Anderson wasn’t protecting Bonds—he was protecting himself.

One of the things Bonds wanted from BALCO was pain relief and Bonds said that he believed the “Cream” would help with the pain.

Before I proceed further let’s be clear on this point: I think Bonds took anabolic steroids at some point, Anderson knew he took steroids and Victor Conte was aware as well.

I am beginning to strongly suspect that Bonds did not know what was in the “Cream” and “Clear” and he was being used as a guinea pig by Conte and Anderson. Correct me if I’m wrong, but Bonds was cycling steroids and HGH at the same time he was using the “Cream” and “Clear.” This might be the reason for Anderson’s silence—he doesn’t want to face the consequences of it becoming known that he was using his friend as a test subject for Conte’s experiments.

So, while Bonds was using steroids during his career and even when he was associated with BALCO, he wasn’t lying when he said he didn’t know what was in the “Cream” and “Clear.” It would explain Anderson’s dogged silence as well as the government’s inability to build a perjury case based on his grand jury testimony.

Some quotes from Bonds' testimony:

"I was just baffled like, you know, should have been doing this a long time ago, you know, drawing blood, find out what you're lacking and stuff, you know, keep your energy up if you're this or that."

And everyone tries to give me everything. You got companies that provide us with more junk to try than anything. And you know that as well. I was fatigued, tired, just needed recovery, you know. And this guy says: "Try his cream, try this cream." And Greg came to the ballpark and he said, you know: "This will help you recover," and he rubbed some cream on my arm, like some lotion type stuff, and like, gave me some flax seed old, that's what he called it, called it some flax seed oil, man. It's like: "Whatever, dude."

"And I was, like--you know, to me it didn't even work. You know, me, I'm 39 years old. I'm dealing with pain. All I want is pain relief, you know?"

"And I had a bunch of massage people trying to keep me going and, you know, a lot of training and stuff like that. And I was just getting fatigued and not recovering ... I never asked Greg. When he said it was flax seed oil, I just said: "Whatever." It was in the ballpark ... You know, in front of everybody. I mean, all the reporters, my teammates. I mean, they all saw it. I didn't hide it. I didn't hide--I didn't hide anything."

In response to a question about whether Anderson inquired about any effects, Bonds replied: "It's not doing crap. I'm still in pain. I'm still feeling the pain."

"I just told Greg I was having problems recovering. I-the pain--I have bad arthritis ... "I just need to recover," you know, that's all, the pain -- "Just take the pain away."

This is a common theme in his testimony: the “Cream” was often rubbed on areas Bonds felt pain and he complained that he wasn’t getting relief. Again, I’m not saying Bonds wasn’t using steroids at this point in his career but it might be time to consider that insofar as the substances in question are concerned that he didn’t know that he was taking steroids and he was being used by Anderson and Conte as a guinea pig.

If this is indeed the case, then the government is in tough to prove perjury and there’s no way Anderson will talk because it is not Barry Lamar Bonds he is protecting—it’s himself. Right now, the government is trying this in the press and the media is all to happy to oblige but it is entirely possible that they made a key tactical error in assuming that the steroids Bonds knew he was taking were not the substances in question but that Bonds genuinely felt that the “Cream” and “Clear” were items to help him deal with pain and alleviating fatigue common to athletes his age.

Time will tell—but this much is (ahem) clear—the government is scrambling at this point despite having almost six years to prove their case.

That is telling of itself.

Best Regards

John

Torre Torre Torre...

Everybody is abuzz with the whole Joe Torre revelations regarding his tenure with the Yankees. Leaving aside the ethics of the whole “what happens in the clubhouse stays in the clubhouse” issue--it does raise some interesting questions.

The Yankee team of 1996-2001 had a lot less pure talent on it than the 2002-2008 edition that has featured a bevy of future Hall of Famers, superstars, former superstars, perceived superstars and players paid as if they were superstars in their quest to again win the World Series: Alex Rodriguez, Mike Mussina, Jason Giambi, Randy Johnson, Jeff Weaver, Johnny Damon, Kevin Brown, Jaret Wright, Carl Pavano, Cliff Floyd, Gary Sheffield, Hideki Matsui, Tom Gordon, Al Leiter, Robin Ventura, Raul Mondesi, John Olerud, Kenny Lofton, Javier Vazquez, Bobby Abreu, Pudge Rodriguez plus guys like Roger Clemens, David Wells, Andy Pettitte and Tino Martinez were brought back in hopes of recapturing aura and mystique.

Despite that galaxy of stars they couldn’t duplicate what guys like Scott Brosius, Paul O Neill, Bernie Williams, David Cone, Tim Raines, Chuck Knoblauch, Jeff Nelson, Orlando Hernandez, Jim Leyritz and earlier incarnations of Wells, Martinez and Pettitte accomplished.

Obviously, talent is a prerequisite for a team to contend--there is no substitute for that. I remember someone stating the biggest difference between the clubs pre and post Opening Day 2002 was that the more recent incarnations of the Bronx Bombers had all the best players whereas the four time World Champions had all the right players.

Put another way, you can put together two high performance engines--one can be cobbled together with all the biggest, baddest state-of-the-art engine parts simply pieced together so that the engine runs; the other assembled with lesser (but still quality) parts but put together with the thought of the pieces interacting smoothly and working with a minimum of friction and maximum output and chances are good that the better assembled engine can beat the one that has all the bells and whistles but simply tossed together.

As Torre allegedly states: "The team wasn't tough enough ... A lot of those players are more concerned about what it looks like as opposed to getting dirty and just getting it done. Those other teams, they were ferocious."

In short, one team was greater than the sum of its parts--the other was whole was lesser than the sum of its parts.

Is this the “chemistry,” the “intangibles” that are often spoken of? The thought that talent--raw talent, while irreplaceable isn’t enough when putting a team together but having the talent mesh harmoniously and work as a unit with common purpose is important as well?

My biggest memory of the Yankee team of 1996-2001 is that if you opened the door a crack, they’d kick it down; any mistake by the opposition would be capitalized upon with extreme prejudice--there was a unity of purpose…beat the other team by any means necessary. However, there has been no shortage of drama on the 2002-08 clubs; each year, whether in the trade or free agent market the brightest, shiniest bauble available would be brought into the mix with little thought about how they would play with the other kids. The sheer overwhelming amount of talent on the roster was sufficient to win out over 162 games but when facing talented teams in the more randomized post season tournament, they didn’t have the common focus of the previous assemblage and were repeatedly beaten by very capable teams that functioned as a unit.

Instead of having a club that was fairly anonymous (compared to more recent rosters) and the assumption was that somebody would step up with the big hit, the big play when needed, the team now had specific players that were expected to do so; the 1996-2001 Yankees expected the team to succeed whereas the 2002-08 Bombers expected Jason Giambi, Alex Rodriguez, Randy Johnson etc. to succeed in their behalf.

One group was a team, the other an assembly of extremely talented players.

As Torre said: "Never forget there is a heartbeat in this game"--obviously the “heartbeat” wouldn’t be enough to turn the Kansas City Royals or Pittsburgh Pirates into world beaters but maybe it’s the difference when the talent level is within range of several teams.

Something to keep in mind at any rate.

To change gears…

Scott Boras is reporting that Manny Ramirez will sign by spring training and that several teams have expressed interest in his client.

This isn’t news, what Boras is saying is (1) Ramirez will sign by spring training, (2) a team or two has called wondering if their contract demands have come down (3) Boras is compelled to let this (that clubs have been in contact) be known publicly in hopes of getting the Dodgers to sweeten their offer by getting them thinking that other clubs are suddenly willing to break the bank for Ramirez so that (4) Manny will have a slightly better deal than the one in front of them when he signs with the Dodgers before spring training.

Put a jacket and tie on a hamster, place hamster on a wheel and watch him run in place and get absolutely nowhere but looking quite determined nevertheless and you’ll get a pretty good idea of what is behind Boras’ latest bit of “news.”

Finally…

In a bit of fun news, Jack Marshall--who wrote The baseball ethicist: Why nobody signed Barry Bonds that inspired my reply The baseball ethicist…a reply has agreed to do a post mortem after the decision in the MLBPA’s collusion case against MLB regarding Bonds with me.

Despite our differing opinions on the subject, we do agree that Bud Selig is far worse than Bonds and neither of us is a real fan of BLB. I’ve promised to recant if it wasn’t collusion and it will be my forum to do that--if they are guilty (of collusion)…well, any sarcasm and invective will be directed at Bud and the ownership cartel. I’m not a told-you-so kind of guy and Jack’s opinion is a good faith one and let’s face it--the media has portrayed Bonds as everything that is evil in this world so it’s not unreasonable to think that the media circus and perception of his melon-ness would keep a number of teams at a distance.

Best Regards

John

Penny wise and found foolish...

O.K. the Toronto Blue Jays are punting on 2009 to see what the kids can do and hope 2010 is the year the club goes for the gold.

Now, I’m thinking (or whatever the processes that go on inside my cranium are classified as) that if the team needs to add a piece or two that it will be done in the next offseason.

Fine (a woman’s four letter F-word it should be noted and can inspire male incontinence if uttered correctly).

Here’s where I get confused--now the organization is worried about costs this year but not so much in 2010. Yet, when you compare/contrast this year’s class with next year’s--well the free agent class of aught-one-oh is as decidedly underwhelming as the Blue Jays' offense last spring. What Rogers Communication/J.P. Ricciardi/Paul Beeston/voices in somebody’s head is saying is that it’s far better, far smarter, far more economical to spend more on lesser talent during the next offseason than grab a bargain priced superior talent or two that can be used in 2010 right now.

Put another way, if the Jays need a DH heading in 2010, it is far better to possibly drop $14 million per year on a Jim Thome, Aubrey Huff or a Hank Blalock next year than spending $16 million per annum on a Manny Ramirez. If it’s pitching you need, it’s better to pay $15 million/year on Rich Harden 12 months from now than say…$9-12 million on a Ben Sheets right away.

Yes, they save money this year by not spending but next year pay more for lesser talent and this is considered a sound financial strategy? It’s like passing on Boxing Day Sales for the fridge you desperately need opting to wait until prices are higher to make your big purchase.

Again, it’s not that the money isn’t there--Rogers Communication has enjoyed tremendous profits despite the economic downturn--it’s that there has been a conscious decision not to spend it at this time. Even though it would be prudent to take advantage of the bargains to “stock the shelves” as it were (especially with higher quality merchandise), they’re choosing to wait until next year when lower quality inventory will be available at higher prices.

Now, I’m no financial whiz (look at what I do for a living) but this strikes me as not smart--especially when the money is there.

I’m pretty sure these folks didn’t get to where they are today by being dumb so something else must be at play here.

It’s what we discussed at the Hardball Times last week--the hazards of being Selig loyalists.

There is a financial motive to be sure--the choice made by teams on a regular basis; do you make money by investment and increasing revenue or welfare? As was discussed in the THT article--Selig loyalists view players simply as an expense no different from paper clips, photocopiers, computers and pens…something that comes off the bottom line.

This is the approach made by franchises like the Royals, Pirates, Reds, and the Brewers under Selig’s screwardship.

Their track records speak for themselves.

There are other teams that look at players as investments--individual stars put “asses in the seats” as George Steinbrenner once famously opined and of course quality player that help teams win ball games … well, let’s just say winning, pennant races and October baseball have been known to enhance a franchise’s revenues.

However, the advantage of welfare is that you don’t have to work for it.

The thing is, Rogers Communication has done a lot of good things for the Blue Jays--they’ve refurbished the Rogers Centre, they brought in some decent talent, held on to some home grown stars and put a better product on the field.

Of course, part of this was simple self preservation--the team had lost the public’s imagination and trust (such as it was) and that’s not the ideal outlet to advertise your wares. If you want to plug your product, eyes are kind of necessary and if there’s no interest in the team…

Well, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist (or a particularly brilliant baseball writer) to connect the dots.

Yet, while the team has shown promise, it has needed some additional investment to take it from potential contender to the genuine article and this is where the organization seems to have lost its stomach.

The question is why?

I’m guessing that part of the Selig loyalty is based on the commissioner’s office giving the Blue Jays equalization payments the last time the dollar was so low and hopes for more now that the depressed Loonie (not me, but the resemblance is undeniable) has fallen so far.

Selig has preached restraint to both the GM’s and brought Paul Volcker in to do likewise for the general partners and other baseball execs and the Blue Jays are determined to be good organizational soldiers in hopes of more free money (another hallmark of Selig-loyalist … I really need to come up with a name for such ones: Seligists? Buddists? Bud and the Selugs?) even though it might cost them a competitive team.

The Toronto Blue Jays have enough issues in trying to reach the post season: playing in the AL East, drawing free agents into what is to most players a foreign country, the Canadian dollar etc. without looking for additional hurdles to overcome.

Just sayin’.

Buddy-ball … screw it.

Best Regards

John

Rotation odds and ends...

Well, that wraps up the Bonds’ rants for the time being. I must admit, I’m tempted to do a regular feature on the “worst of the web” as regards Bonds’ sentiments. I mean, I’m not real fond of the guy myself but I try to at least be rational about it as opposed to saying that man’s personality and head size deserves jail time.

But I digress.

I’ve been falling behind in my Blue Jays’ optimism posts--especially as respects the starting rotation. I haven’t covered all the potential candidates and thought I’d pick up two or three more in this post. So, without further ado…

 ERA   IP     H   HR  BB  K
4.00  162.0  192  12  12 120

How would that look at the end of the rotation?

Well, that’s Scott Richmond’s totals from 2008 extrapolated over 30 starts; now I’m inclined to think that it’s a bit optimistic but it does demonstrate how well he pitched in his short stay with the big club. He’ll get some extra work in the WBC and should be ready to go come Opening Day. He’s a long shot for the starting staff but he has shown in limited duty that he knows how to get major league hitters out--keep your eye on him.

Casey Janssen missed all of 2008 after surgery on his right shoulder after an outstanding season of setup work the season before; he’ll be 28 which is helpful in that he’s young enough to recover arm strength more quickly than he would be were he in his 30’s. He also doesn’t have that many professional innings. He was a starter in the minors, logging about a full season’s worth of innings pitched over three seasons (241.2). His peripherals are promising … well, let’s just look at them as if it were a complete campaign:

 W L   ERA   IP    H   BB  K
16 5  2.94  241.2 215  38 211

That’s a nice year--fewer hits than innings pitched, a solid K/9 of 7.86 and an absolutely stingy BB/9 of 1.42. The big question is arm strength; his career high in IP is 148.2 and that was in 2005 plus he’s coming off a major injury. I think we’ll be seeing a lot of different guys shuffled through the 4-5 spots to spread around the workload. I can’t see Janssen as a candidate to throw 160 innings next season. If he can throw strikes and keep the ball down he should be able to give league average pitching to the rotation.

In a statement that’s almost hilarious--we’re going to look at J.P. Ricciardi’s big offseason acquisition: Matt Clement. Like Brad Wilkerson before him, Ricciardi wanted to have Clement’ baby 3-4 years ago but left empty wombed and frustrated with proboscis interruptus. Well, he now has Clement in his ardent embrace having broken up with Wilkerson.

After missing all of 2007, he spent last season rehabbing in the Cardinals’ system and probably the thing that jumps out is the 13 BB/10 K in his 16.2 IP with the Memphis Redbirds in the PCL. Generally, the last thing to return to a pitcher following surgery is his command so it could be that it was just part of the recovery phase but his control has never been his strong point with a career BB/9 of 4.14. For Clement to be useful, he’ll need to throw a lot of innings but that lack of control will result in high pitch counts and difficulty in getting out of the fifth inning.

It’s doubtful he’ll be the strikeout pitcher of old but if he still has his ability to throw ground balls he could pitch to contact and let the Blue Jays infield defense work for him. I can’t see him or Maroth being with the big club come Opening Day. Clement was better than league average from 2002-04 and below it otherwise (although his 99 ERA+ in 191 IP in 2005 would thrill the Jays if he could duplicate it in aught-9). It’ll be an interesting project at any rate. For other posts dealing with Toronto’s potential starting pitching…

Pitched twaddle
Anchor…away!
Today’s happy thoughts…
Welcome to 2000-whine

This week in me…

The wrong kind of loyalty in baseball (The Hardball Times)

What are the Blue Jays hiding? (SMSN Sports)

The Hall of Fame game (SMSN Sports…poorly formatted charts--I need a shot at the content management system one day)

Best Regards

John

Where angels fear to tread...

Rant time!

I don’t get it--I just don’t.

Where’s utopia? Where is paradise?

I mean, there is a glut of righteous, upright, heck--downright holy people nowadays--you can’t swing a Bible without hitting a candidate for sainthood anymore judging by comments on various message boards and column feedback. Speaking of the good book, Jesus is reported to have said to a group of men that wanted to stone a woman caught at adultery: "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her."

Let me tell you something, that woman would be underneath a mountain of rubble when one considers comments made on articles about steroid use in baseball. I can just hear the *thud* *thump* *thud* *thud* *thump* *thud* *thump* *thump* sounds after the words “...at her” were finished. Some examples:

No, he is not like the rest of us. Most people would not break the law to achieve a higher salary or to achieve higher praise at their job. Stop writing articles like we should feel sorry for these players. We are talking about grown men that consciously made a decision to break the law and cheat for their own selfish reasons.

Welcome to earth--things are a little different than what you're used to so take some time to become acclimatized.

Poor McGwire. He's human. Boohoohoo. So am I. I never did drugs much less performance enhancing drugs. If I couldn't do with what I was given, I did without. So could he. He chose the low road. I have no sympathy for him.

Am I the only one that thinks that he has a selective memory? Ever buy a car? A house? Any large ticket item? Ever tell the salesperson that you can get the same item at a lower cost somewhere else when it wasn’t the case? Guess what chum--you sold out and took the low road for money--now tell me how you’re different than any juicing ballplayer?

Hypocrite.

If you don't want your reputation damaged, don't do stupid crap that could ruin your reputation. It's really not rocket science here.

Well, I've found my messiah--hopefully he will show us the way to truth, justice and purity.

He was a steroid freak and a cheat! For you to defend him is appalling!

Excuse me, I'd like to see your income tax returns for the last 20 years, your driving record and your school records--I'm sure that they will positively have an almost angelic glow.

No, these were regarding an article about Mark McGwire--not Barry Bonds. Here are some selected tidbits from a BLB column:

Look, this guys head swelled 3 hat sizes.....he was on the juice and he is a worthless human as well. Go to jail and out of our lives you fraud.

It's nice to know where we can go to determine the worth of a human being.

As good as Bonds could be, he raped the Giants clubhouse and his presence alone crippled in the Giants in terms of team chemistry.

San Francisco Giants: four playoff appearances in 15 years with Bonds, four appearances in the previous 38 season before BLB. The Pittsburgh Pirates went to the post season three straight times in their final three seasons with Barry Lamar and haven't returned since he left--but the chemistry is doubtlessly better.

bonds is a perfect example of a loser. he tried to cheat his way to success. but the problem all along was his steroid sized ego. he was never teammate material. he cheated on his wife and expected treatment no one else on the team got. a perfect recipe for divorce and never winning a world championship. get the hell out of the bay area, you have left a dark legacy!

Uh, yeah--four post season appearances and a new ballpark...that's quite a dark legacy. Just curious, what would you define as a good legacy?

Baroid Bonds is GUILTY of many things: 1) being an MLB tool like his doper father Bobby Bonds, 2) being a steroid addict 3) being a liar, 3) not ratting out Dusty Baker, Bud Selig and ESPN-Disney George J. Mitchell 4) telling Lance Williams to stuff it!

(sigh)

Sounds right on target. Pumpkin head Bonds reaps what he has sewn over the last 25 years. IMO the jury of public opinion is done with Mr. Bond's. He's guilty of being a FOOL.!!!

The jury of public opinion also resulted in a few thousand lynchings--what’s your point?

So, here’s the question: why is the world so badly messed up?

Holiness abounds, paragons of virtue are a dime a dozen--is it that it’s just a few bad apples wrecking the world for all the godly, upright folks that never bend, yet alone break the various rules society has set up? The IRS, Revenue Canada, and various police units must wonder where all the speeders and tax cheats are coming from. Why did Nancy Reagan need to begin her “Just Say No” campaign when most folks were saying no early, often and repeatedly?

“Nothing is easier than to denounce the evildoer; nothing is more difficult than to understand him.”--Fyodor Dostoevsky

No duh eh? Mr. Dostoevsky died 128 years ago--nice to see we have made so much progress as a species.

The thing is, I’m not defending the users--it’s just that I find it so bloody frustrating that what was an institutional scandal that involved everybody in the sport: players, management, union, owners, commissioners and yes--media is being taken out on a few high profile players.

It’s being done by small, petty, jealous, vindictive people for the most part who--since they cannot elevate themselves through achievement--try to drag people down to their level so they can feel better about the miserable world they’ve created for themselves.

Similar comments and remarks were heard when players first started to unionize in the 1960’s, during the mass holdout of ’69, the strike of ’72, ’81, ’85 and ’94-95 as well as during the lockouts of 1976, 1990. They were heard during the cocaine scandal of the 1980’s, during collusion and they’re being heard again today. It’s always the “privileged, pampered, spoiled, overpaid players” and the latest issue becomes the latest reason for the chorus to begin anew.

Owners, team executives, media and others can be part of the same scandal but it will always be the players that will bear the brunt of the vitriol.

Look, I’m no saint and it wouldn’t be difficult for someone that is out to get me to dig up something I’d rather not have become public knowledge. Having said that, most folks that know a lot about me think I’m a decent person despite the mistakes of my past. Maybe it speaks poorly about the company I keep but the majority of people I come across on a daily basis I would not invite into my home and sadly, I have learned from hard experience that those you can truly trust are few in number and are only as honest as you are vigilant.

If people (myself included) worried more about honour, integrity and playing by the rules in our own lives than in MLB the world would be a much better place; however the world we non-major leaguers live in believes in “look out for number one,” “winning isn’t everything it’s the only thing,” “nobody remembers who finished second,” “the end justifies the means” etc. Folks cheat on their income tax, speed, lie on their résumés, cheat on exams, are less than forthright when buying or selling a car or a home as easy as they breathe, probably ingested something illegal at some point in their existence yet these same paragons of virtue feel that they’re fit to stand in judgment of those that did what they felt they needed to do to get ahead in their lives.

I’m not saying what the players did isn’t wrong--it is; I’m just stating that if we held ourselves to the standards we expect in others everyone would be better off and I doubt they’d want the same standard of enforcement of their misdeeds that they’re demanding for McGwire, Bonds et al--in fact they’d be quick to justify their actions and plead humanity and imperfection…

…and that imperfection often deceives us into believing that the jealousy we feel is in fact righteous indignation.

Rant finished.

Best Regards

John

I'll be in Scotland before ye...

“Not only is there a divine--he has a twisted sense of humour!”--Rev Bem (Andromeda)

Plentiful is the advice about not dealing with certain types of people. For example: “Never fight with a pig; you’ll both get dirty and the pig likes it” and “Never argue with an idiot--he’ll drag you down to his level and then beat you with experience.”

So it goes.

The logic is simple--no matter what somebody does to you, to retaliate is to stoop to their level and such ones have the upper hand since they have gotten you onto their turf. A much older, quicker variation of this is simply to “turn the other cheek.” When you get right down to it, to respond in kind rarely makes you look like the better person and it is preferable to simply take the high road.

There is another saying about never betting your bladder against a brewery or argue with those who buy ink by the barrel. While the media loves to portray Barry Bonds as the Antichrist’s psychotic kid brother it’s good to bear in mind that the disrespect has most likely been mutual but only one side gets his story out. There is an old Hebrew proverb that states: “The first to present his case seems right, till another comes forward and questions him.” Well, the media is first to present their case and it is the same media that controls the response of the one ‘coming forward and questioning him’ so it’s safe to say that Bonds would be in a no-win situation in getting his side of any confrontation out.

It’s the poor, persecuted beat writer that will always look like the victim of the evil arrogant ballplayer--it was the same shtick used against Ted Williams, Roger Maris, Reggie Jackson, Rickey Henderson and others.

Now, let’s assume that everything was 100% Barry Bonds fault. Well, instead of taking the high road, certain folks decided they wanted payback--they would return every bit of nastiness they felt was inflicted on them by BLB.

Bud Selig was mad at him for breaking Hank Aaron’s record and serving as a permanent reminder of his choice to eschew integrity over profits and pretend steroids didn’t exist, Jeff Novitzky (or somebody in office) was offended by him due to how he is portrayed in the press, a large segment of the fan base wanted him taken down for the same reason (as well as the long standing jealous hatred of the “spoiled, pampered, overpaid ballplayer” we’ve been reading about since the 1869 Cincinnati Redlegs). The fourth estate convinced these ones that his disrespect for the media was by extension a disrespect toward them and they took up the torch of offense deciding that every slight Bonds gave the press was by extension a dissing of each and every fan as well.

Some examples:

“…the only thing that seems to bring him joy is his contempt for the vast majority of humans. He greets the world with a sneer ... Yet no great player has been more consistently unpleasant than Barry Bonds, and not only with professional snoops, but teammates, too.” -- (Don't put too much stock in Bonds' tactful concern)

“He smiled and laughed, exuding all the charm of a mobster posing for pictures with kids. This was Barry Bonds' good side, the one we supposedly never see. But the man who would be (home run) king has stopped snarling at the world ... He's laughing all right—at Bud Selig, Hank Aaron, the feds, the fans, you and me.”--(Nobody can stop Barry Bonds)

“It's why most people who know Bonds wouldn't spit on him even if he was on fire ... Nobody questions his talent. It's his failure as a human being that is at issue.”--(Bonds in the showcase game? It just doesn't add up)

So, now everybody was on board for the war against Bonds: the commissioner, the government, the media and the fans--all determined to repay every slight ever inflicted on them.

First Selig (I’m assuming) illegally blacklists Bonds--the media faithfully provide cover fire by cranking out editorials that he is too noxious to employ at any price even though this will be a major league first for a talent of this magnitude.

Call it “the common sense revolution.” The fans fill message boards on such articles largely with cries of support matching invective for invective with the writer.

Then the government apparently sets up a perjury trap by unilaterally changing the rules of those offering testimony for Bonds and even though the drug in question is not yet classified as a steroid or. outlawed, proceed as if it were even though they know better. The questions asked by a grand jury seem ambiguous at times all pointing to an attempt to trap him in his speech.

The media cries “felon” convicting him even before his trial (assuming the government still goes through with it), the fans cheer on their support praying for the day they’ll see him led off in handcuffs and demanding that any mention of him be expunged the sport. One commenter on an article on the San Francisco Chronicle site said:

Bonds should get prison time, at least for that nasty personality. Society needs protected from big headed liars.

That’s certainly fair and reasonable isn’t it?

Now, as things start to fall apart and the case against Bonds is reduced to the validity of the chain of custody of urine samples taken at BALCO the media is curiously silent--it may be that it never sees the light of day as Judge Susan Ilston has been very critical of the prosecution’s methods and approach to the case as well as the work of Novitzky:

Red flags have already been raised on Novitzky in the recent appellate decision. Three district judges and one appellate judge concluded that his conduct violated the Fourth Amendment. Two appellate judges disagreed.

In December 2004, Ilston quashed the subpoenas served on the labs doing the testing for Major League Baseball, ruling that the government’s conduct was unreasonable and constituted harassment.

“I think the government has displayed … a callous disregard for constitutional rights,” she said in open court. “I think it’s a seizure beyond what was authorized by the search warrant, therefore it violates the Fourth Amendment.”

The dissenting Circuit Judge Sidney Thomas noted that Novitzky appeared to have intentionally deceived the court, charging that the agent’s affidavit for a search warrant “did not disclose that a grand jury subpoena had been issued for the same material and that a motion to quash the subpoena was pending in the same district.”

The controversy surrounding the searches of the labs and offices that collected the specimens and performed MLB’s drug testing at the time – Comprehensive Drug Testing (CDT) and Quest Diagnostics – has the potential to become a precedent-setting case on the privacy of medical records and the limits of unreasonable search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment. The recent appellate decision may receive a full hearing of 11 judges in the Ninth Circuit Court, and possibly find its way to the Supreme Court. With or without further appellate proceedings, Novitzky’s conduct is likely to hang over the Bonds perjury trial. (bolding and italics mine)

It’s entirely possible that Bonds skates.

Right now, the MLBPA claim to have evidence that MLB colluded against Bonds and let’s not forget two items: (1) Don Fehr is a cautious man and never makes a move unless he is absolutely sure of his ground. He hates to be embarrassed and is known for being very exacting when performing his due diligence and (2) Bonds withdrew from the MLBPA’s licensing plan which would not sit well with Fehr--Fehr is only human and likely is less than pleased with Bonds so the evidence must be pretty compelling for him to stick his neck out in this matter.

If collusion is established then they will owe damages to Bonds and they will be tripled.

Think about this: how embarrassing will it be if Bonds is found “not guilty,” MLB is found guilty of collusion and owes Bonds a big award, Novitzky is found guilty of violating the constitution and Bonds' rights after the media and fans have been crying “felon” and worse and when all is said and done the only penalties paid will be to Barry Lamar Bonds and those trying to get him were the law and rule breakers?

It all could have been avoided had they taken the high road and showed Bonds how to behave with class.

It also shows that Bonds is not the only villain in all this: MLB, Novitzky and the media will all be exposed as the fraud they claimed Bonds to be (although the press will likely fall back on the old rhetoric claiming Bonds “got away with it” while ignoring their own poor performance and lack of objectivity in all this and despite the arbitrator’s ruling, it wasn’t really collusion--nobody really wanted him--honest!).

Like Shylock in “Merchant of Venice” they wanted their pound of Bonds’ flesh and instead ended up on the receiving end of outrageous fortune.

I just hope some folks will come away from this realizing that Bonds may not be the nicest person in the world, but the people out to get him were no better. The bitterest pill for many to swallow is this: Barry Lamar Bonds wanted little to do with us feeling we were petty, spiteful, jealous and vindictive and guess what?

We proved him right.

As I said in an earlier post--there are no heroes here, just differing degrees of villainy. Maybe next time we’ll see the value of taking the high road.

Best Regards

John

No idiots need apply...

See? It’s not such a bad system after all is it?

Ever since Messersmith/McNally paved the way for free agency in baseball, ownership has bemoaned the unfairness of the system that require they pay--as Jerry Reinsdorf once famously opined--‘What [the] dumbest competitor pays for talent.’ The solution to their woes was right in front of them from the get go however, the answer didn’t suit them for two reasons (1) they only understood monopolistic control and (2) they despised the man giving the resolution to the dilemma--one Charles Oscar “Charlie O” Finley. What was his advice?

“Make ’em all free agents.”

When Marvin Miller heard Finley suggest this back in 1976, he nearly soiled himself and prayed that one of the more respected owners (such as Walter O Malley) wouldn’t catch on. After all, flooding the market with free agents would cause players to compete for jobs rather than teams competing for players. If they had to vie for available jobs, players would have to be willing to play for less than comparable talent.

Well, we’re seeing a demonstration of that this season. Although a poor economy is partly to blame Tom Verducci points out that there are more free agents than available jobs:

This is how one general manager described the remnants of the market: about 70 major league free agents competing for about 50 remaining roster spots, who are seeking about $100 million in contracts, but with only $60 million available.

While any remaining starting pitchers should be O.K., position players and middle relievers will not be getting the dollars and years that they hoped and as Verducci points out, a lot may have to retire simply because their demands are too high and if they were offered arbitration (and are Type A or B free agents) will cost a draft pick.

The ones that declined arbitration may discover that it is the last mistake they’ll ever make in MLB.

Of course, Verducci also points out one guy in desperate need of a smack upside the head reporting:

One journeyman reliever, for instance, turned down a $2 million offer, saying he would retire before taking that kind of money.

I mean, turning down $2 million freakin’ dollars plus all the perks of a playing in the bigs for maybe 100 innings work at most and he feels insulted?

I’m sorry, but shouldn’t natural selection have weeded such stupidity out of the gene pool by now? Talk about a complete and utter lack of perspective--turning down that kind of jack to play in the big leagues; a truly fun job, a luxurious lifestyle and because he’s not getting what he feels he “deserves” he’s gonna take his glove and go home.

Enjoy retirement--I guarantee that this cretin will be asking someone to give him a good swift kick in the butt in a year or two--just ask Kenny Lofton what being insulted at a million dollar payday does for one’s career.

I’m still amazed that the strike of 1981 was over free agent compensation--clubs wanting more than the draft pick for losing free agents to act as a disincentive for signing free agent players. Now it has become a deterrent--whether it’s a function of the economic downturn or teams are starting to realize that developing boatloads of cheap talent is a far better way of putting together a winning ball club than throwing $50-100 million for someone past his prime whose skill set is being reduced to simply hitting.

Hey, defense and base running count too and teams are starting to realize that it takes more than walks and home runs to win--you still have to be able to get the other team out. Further, sharp defense makes your pitching that much better and gives you more mileage from your pitching staff since efficiently turning balls in play into outs means your starter will need fewer pitches to get out of innings. In turn, this allows your starter to throw more innings taking the stress off the bullpen and so it goes.

Between teams becoming smarter and the MLBPA losing its centre it now appears that the pendulum has again swung back to management’s favour. Player agents that realize this will serve their clients better by not automatically assuming that there will be a better offer forthcoming and sometimes get while the getting is good.

Best Regards

John

One kook's petard...

… or star wrecked, the next degeneration.

Getting back to yesterday’s subject matter, one cannot help but marvel at how things that go around come around.

Here’s the thing, Barry Lamar Bonds has lived most of his baseball playing life as if rules were for everyone else. He set his own guidelines, did as he pleased regardless if he were breaking either the laws of the land or club rules on the teams for which he played.

His great skill and the money it generated provided a protective wall around him--nobody wants to barbecue the cash cow. He was pretty much untouchable and knew it and more importantly--acted like he knew it. He did as he pleased, treated others as he pleased, thumbed his nose at management, teammates, media, fans, the MLBPA, various agents he retained because gosh darn it--he is Barry Bonds and they’re not. It was Barry’s world and they were just living in it.

How ironic is it that the same approach is now being used to bring him down?

The normal rules for grand jury testimony was changed for Bonds, somebody has unilaterally decided that he needs to be taken down and the normal protocols for search and seizure and various other laws have been casually brushed aside because somebody dislikes Bonds as much as Bonds disliked many around him.

Just as Bonds would stop at nothing to get his way, now somebody is stopping at nothing to get him. The world revolved around Barry and now that world is again revolving around him but this time it isn’t for Barry’s aggrandizement--it’s for somebody else’s altogether. Barry being Barry is now Barry being buried. Nothing deterred him in making a name for himself--often at the expense of others--and now somebody is undeterred in making a name for themselves at Bonds’ expense.

In short--he’s getting a taste of his own medicine. Now he knows what its like to have the rules changed to his own detriment, to realize that those same rules are no longer a protection and the man that thought he was above the law has by now had the epiphany that the law offers little or no protection from those wishing to destroy him.

Granted, this (his legal status) could change due to the ineptitude of those trying to build a case against him but it doesn’t change the fact that he’s lost his career, his legacy, probably a great deal of money and those he wished to keep at a distance--lest his universe be disturbed--are more than happy to accommodate his wishes and he is no longer bothered by fans, clubhouse reporters or team management (of any club). He made it clear on repeated occasions that he doesn’t need anybody and now has few allies and many make it clear that they do not need him either.

Make no mistake--these people are stopping at nothing to isolate him even further making sure that instead of wearing orange and black his wardrobe will change to just plain orange. He will remain behind an iron gate but isn’t sure whether it’s one to which he has a key.

This is why--while I think collusion is wrong and feel what is happening with Bonds is likewise--I have little sympathy for the man. He has made his bed and now must lie in it. It’s not like the end result was unforeseen; history teaches us repeatedly that you should be nice to people on the way up because you will see them on the way down. It instructs us that the cocoon of protection people like Bonds enjoys lasts only as long as he has tangible value to those protecting him; it’s why it’s important to make allies while you still can. This lesson is ages old:

"There was a rich man whose manager was accused of wasting his possessions. So he called him in and asked him, 'What is this I hear about you? Give an account of your management, because you cannot be manager any longer.' "The manager said to himself, 'What shall I do now? My master is taking away my job. I'm not strong enough to dig, and I'm ashamed to beg— I know what I'll do so that, when I lose my job here, people will welcome me into their houses.' "So he called in each one of his master's debtors. He asked the first, 'How much do you owe my master?' "'Eight hundred gallons of olive oil,' he replied. "The manager told him, 'Take your bill, sit down quickly, and make it four hundred.' "Then he asked the second, 'And how much do you owe?' "'A thousand bushels of wheat,' he replied. "He told him, 'Take your bill and make it eight hundred.' "The master commended the dishonest manager because he had acted shrewdly."--Luke 16:1-8

Like the man in the parable, Bonds knew that one day he would be out of a job except wouldn’t know precisely when (although his early-to-mid 40’s would be a good guess)--unlike the man in the parable, he didn’t use the opportunity to build bridges and cultivate those that one day could come to his aid. If collusion did indeed occur it was made easier because he had few (if any) allies in management and the silence from the players was deafening; while some made veiled statements that something might be fishy nobody came right out and said that what was happening was wrong and no one made noises about wanting his bat behind them in the lineup.

It went from “I’m Barry Bonds and you’re not” to “We’re major league ballplayers and you’re not.”

An old Hebrew proverb states “He that troubleth his own house shall inherit the wind” and it appears that is all he has right now.

Getting back to the original point--whether it is Jeff Novitsky or someone higher up that’s after him, I cannot help but wonder if he/she/they realize that the actions they despise Barry Lamar Bonds for committing are the very things they are doing to bring him down.

If they succeed, they will be a hero to many and the irony will never dawn on them that two people acted the same way--they loved the one and despised the other and never took the time to find out why. The reason is because despite protestations to the contrary--they do believe everything they read and they let others think in their behalf.

However it ultimately ends up--nobody has covered themselves in glory in all this: fans, media, player, leagues, the government…nobody. There are no heroes here--only degrees of villainy.

Best Regards

John

The Mon Calamari philosopher...

Another blow against the forces of goodness and virtue…

It would be interesting to fast forward a century into the future and see what kind of perspective there would be on the whole Barry Bonds saga.

The thing is, we go back to the whole BALCO situation, the grand jury, athletes being called to testify and the goal seems fairly clear--the purging of those manufacturing and distributing performance-enhancing substances to athletes.

Pretty straightforward.

Now, to nail these guys, you need folks to spill the beans on them and the only ones capable of doing that are the very athletes that have used what was provided--they being the best source of information. To state the obvious, these ones would be reluctant to divulge what they know for fear of legal entanglements and hits to their reputations and legacies.

Viewing the larger picture, it is prudent to offer the athletes two things in exchange for their cooperation: immunity from prosecution and the confidentiality the grand jury supposedly provides.

To maximize the amount of information that can be extracted from these witnesses data is provided beforehand about what the government has in the way of evidence in order to (1) let them know that lying is pretty pointless and perjury would be an exercise in futility so it’s best to be up front as possible and (2) it helps refresh the memory of those testifying since specific information is needed (who, what, where, when and why) and generalities are what is often remembered while exact details might be a bit hazy and when you’re looking for testimony that will hold up in court it’s important for that evidence to be verifiable.

Again, pretty straightforward.

With the BALCO investigation, witnesses were given time before meeting with the grand jury to go over the aforementioned evidence for the purposes outlined above: this was given to Marion Jones, Benito Santiago, Jason Giambi etc.

When it came Barry Bonds turn to testify these rules were inexplicably changed--no information would be provided beforehand and he’d have to face the grand jury without being able to refresh his memory as to specifics.

This would seem counterproductive since BALCO was the intended target and Bonds’ testimony would certainly be valuable but they decided to undermine their own goals and getting accurate answers to the questions that were to be posed.

Why?

The funny thing is, BALCO is out of business and those running it were successfully prosecuted so it would seem that all-in-all one would not out of line in saying that it was a rousing success. Still, something odd happened--some athletes gave less than truthful testimony; certainly wrong and nobody is stating otherwise yet these athletes were treated more harshly that the ones guilty of something that is viewed as a great scourge in society.

Even odder, is that it’s beginning to become clear that while BALCO may have been the target, it was not the only one. Right now, the perceived success of the whole BALCO investigation seemingly hinges on putting one man behind bars and it is not Victor Conte or any of the chemists but rather the one time left fielder of the San Francisco Giants.

Barry Bonds.

The government (or whoever was the driving force behind this operation) changed the normal rules and protocols of a grand jury in such a manner that it would potentially undermine the success of nabbing the “ace of spades” in this particular deck.

Why such a counterproductive strategy?

It’s only counterproductive if BALCO was the only target. We all know what Admiral Ackbar would opine about this situation.

As time goes on it is appearing that someone in authority has a personal vendetta against Bonds.

I’m not saying that Bonds didn’t commit perjury or didn’t ingest anabolic steroids but it does seem that an awful lot of time and energy (not to mention taxpayer dollars) is being expended to get one man that isn’t a threat to national security.

It’s not like we’re dealing with a high ranking member of Al Qaeda--just an arrogant prima donna athlete that happens to be pretty obnoxious to people he considers beneath him (which includes pretty much everyone). Other than being the holder of several records, there is nothing exceptional about him and those that match his personality are about as common as skanky music videos by bubblegum pop stars whose music is no longer selling.

Of course, the media--a prime victim of Mr. Congeniality in Bizarro World--has faithfully painted him as something worse than history’s greatest monster to make it seem that the government is doing the work of God even though they have been shown to be clumsy, inept and making up for a lack of skill with an overabundance of zeal.

One needs look no further than the reaction Bonds’ engenders in many. Here is a sample of feedback from just one article:

Bonds is a junkie. Him, and his group of junkies, that actually run the spectrum of color, ruined baseball.

Ruined baseball? I checked Google news and it appears the game’s demise has been greatly exaggerated.

Barry Bonds is an embarassment to the game. Talented or not, he has always been an egocentric, me-first, classless, self-attention-seeking pansy. Not to mention, his inflated head and neck looks like the rear end of a rhinoceros. Ugly stuff.

He has no business being in any big league stadium ever again. He doesn't deserve it.

Unlike the humble, genteel, self effacing, accomodating and deferential Rickey Henderson, Reggie Jackson, Jim Rice, Curt Schilling types right? He’s nothing like the sainted Mickey Mantle, Ty Cobb, Babe Ruth, Cap Anson Rogers Hornsby et al. Yup, major leaguers have been boy scouts--the whole lot of ’em; faithful to their spouses, kind to fans and media, drink milk and nothing but and open every sentence with “Aw shucks, t‘weren’t nuthin’…” until Bonds came along and embarrassed the sport.

Bonds is an embarrassing bafoon.His God given talent has been wasted on personal greed.Baseball will be much better off without him.

Personal greed? Better off? The fact that people think like this speaks volumes about the objectivity and integrity of the media. Of course we needn't bother with inconvenient facts about the game's current popularity--right?

He almost always comes across as arrogant and self-serving, and I just don't see him as a team player. What baseball team wants a player like that...no matter how good he thinks he is? I see players every day carry themselves with confidence and pride, but also with humility and dedication to the success and image of their team. I wish Barry Bonds would have exemplified these characteristics more throughout his career...maybe he would still be playing the game we all love so much.

Um … wow. Believe it or not there used to be a body of opinion similar to this regarding Ted Williams, Roger Maris, Rickey Henderson and Reggie Jackson. I’m guessing this person views “Field of Dreams” as a documentary. It’s a shame this individual couldn’t spend a little time in a major league clubhouse--listening to the popping sounds of their balloons would be interesting to witness.

a player brings more than his bat to a team. Even if some team picked him up, you can't say right off that he would help them win. He will get some hits, he will get some home runs, but he will also bring his attitude and baggage to the clubhouse and that will influence the balance and cohesion of the team...and unfortunately, I believe that influence will have a negative affect on the team's success.

I wonder if this person realizes that Bonds played on seven post season teams. One would think that the Giants would have won four World Series (1997, 2000, 2002-03) had they replaced Bonds with Juan Pierre…a great guy in the clubhouse and a true team player.

Im just happy hes not coming back...Thats why America is in the sad shape it is...we go by numbers and results instead of honor and integrity. How many world series rings does he have? How many kids do you want looking/acting like him? How many parents want him as thier role model? The answer is NONE.

It appears that we’ve been kicked out of paradise twice: once from the Garden of Eden, the second time in 1985 when Bonds made his major league debut. By the way, Bonds has as many rings as Ty Cobb, Ted Williams, Alex Rodriguez, Ken Griffey Jr. Edgar Martinez, Jeff Bagwell, Vladimir Guerrero, Mike Piazza, Roy Halladay, Mike Mussina…

I suppose they had/have whatever championship destroying affliction that Bonds possesses.

bonds is the biggest disgrace to baseball ever hes been lying for yrs have we all forgotten the year he took off to supposedly heal his knees don't u think its was to clean out his system cuz he know they were going to start testing the next year and all this stuff about him being the greatest what a laff if what mantle did on one leg and no drugs doesnt put him way ahead of this cheating bag of dung its not about color or race which happens to be screamed every time a black man is accused of something its about honesty and integrity and bonds has shown little or none of each keep him out of baseball and the hall of fame

Well, I guess the Black Sox, Pete Rose, Hal Chase, Cap Anson and many others will be relieved to know that--I guess those that enforced the colour line for 60 years are off the hook as well. Of course he has proof that Bonds’ knees were healthy and that he was just avoiding testing since clearly he is an orthopedic surgeon with access to all BLB’s health records.

I mean, this is a small sampling of the hysteria the press has caused the average person to feel regarding Bonds. You can find similar sentiments all over the web of this and worse so we shouldn’t be surprised if some in power might share similar views and abuse that power to bring down one they have been taught is opposed to mom, apple pie, milk and helping little old ladies across the street. After all, they get their information about Bonds from the same sources as the above do so it shouldn’t surprise us that some might have similar sentiments.

Somehow, I think in the year 2109 people will look back at the government, the media and common sentiment regarding a single professional baseball player as evidence of how far society has come since the dark days of the beginning of the millennium.

Best Regards

John

Pitched twaddle...

It is funny--the deeper we go into the offseason, the less despair I feel about the Jays’ chances in 2009. I’m blaming The Southpaw, The Drunks and my own attempts at auto-suggestion delusion in trying to be optimistic about this season for this phenomenon.

To begin with: last year’s offensive woes were due to underperformance by key players and staggeringly awful hitting with runners in scoring position under the previous regime. It’s unlikely that such a thing will repeat itself since they’re random events; both Vernon Wells and Alex Rios should be solid, Lyle Overbay and Scott Rolen should be fully healed, left field and DH will be vastly improved by league average hitting (and it appears the pieces are in place for at least that much) and second base will be well covered offensively by Aaron Hill and Joe Inglett.

On top of this, there are potential platoons that can be used at 1B/2B/LF/DH with Jose Bautista, Michael Barrett and Inglett on the roster. Barrett and Bautista have solid track records in hitting lefties and Rios should be much improved in that regard from last season since he mashed southpaws to the tune of .345/.422/.600 in 2007 and .295/.341/.533 in aught-six (he was a puzzling .289/.321/.414 last season).

I think the offense will be at least league average and might be a good bit better.

The team has the perfect infrastructure in place to work young pitchers into the rotation--a terrific defense behind them, a deep bullpen ready to take over, enough young arms upon whom to spread the workload around and a bona fide ace and rotation anchor to show them the way.

Now, we’ve already discussed David Purcey, Brett Cecil and Mike Maroth in earlier posts this year so I thought it might be fun to check out some other rotation hopefuls that could be part of the mix come Opening Day.

Since I’m enjoying the delusional experience far more than doom 'n' gloomin' about the team’s chances I’ll be as optimistic as possible without going overboard. Probably after Purcey and Cecil, my next pick to win a shot at a starting job is Brad Mills.

Mills, a lefty, pitched at three levels last year: low A, A and AA and before you bemoan his lack of AAA experience bear in mind that Jesse Litsch was initially called up from AA and we all know how that turned out. Mills will be 24 by Opening Day and was 13-5, 1.95 ERA in a bit under 150 IP. His command is promising with a BB/9 of 3.18 and hopefully that will improve and his K/9 is a snappy 9.71; a 3:1 K:BB ratio from a young, hard throwing southpaw bodes well for the future. The best part of his 2008 was that he improved at every level; he posted a 2.55 ERA in low A ball and lowered it to 1.35 in high A and dropped it still further to 1.10 at New Hampshire in AA.

The kid got game.

One guy I liked that I saw 3-4 years ago was a little lefty named Davis Romero. He underwent the Tommy John procedure and missed all of 2007 but he had a live arm and terrific command. I referred to him at the time (remember, this was early in 2005-6) as “Cole Hamels-lite” since he was smaller and a bit less gifted than the Phillies’ young ace. In his first season after his surgery he tossed 106.2 IP and while he was no longer striking out over a batter an inning he did whiff 88 while walking just 29 (a 2.45 BB/9) which I consider promising since command is the last thing to return after ligament transplant surgery and he still managed a K/9 of almost 7.5.

My biggest concern is whether his small frame (5'10'' 160 lb.) can hold up to the rigours of starting--he’s smaller than Pedro Martinez. I absolutely love his stuff and if he could throw 5-6 innings each time out he’d be an asset in the No. 5 spot. While we’re on the subject of Romeros, we have 2005 first round pick Ricky Romero that has often been discussed as a starter for the upcoming season. Not surprisingly, Romero is a lefty and I’m reminded of Dustin McGowan in that he has awesome stuff and obvious physical gifts but does he believe in them and can he harness it?

I remember I took some grief for not being analytical enough when assessing McGowan when I stated that all he needed was the epiphany that his pitches could get major league hitters out and he needed to challenge batters with it. I saw a lack of confidence and not command holding him back. McGowan was giving the man at the plate far too much credit instead of feeling bad for the batsman for what he was about to do to him.

Hey, it’s not always about the numbers--they didn’t coin the expression “million dollar arm--ten cent head” because they liked the sound of it; sometimes a pitcher’s biggest problem is above the neck and not something mechanical or a phenomenon that shows up in the numbers. Sometimes folks are their own toughest critic and a little arrogance in their field never hurts. I know what it’s like to hold a baseball in my hand and thinking the hitter can’t wait for me to let go of it. You end up trying to paint the black rather than ramming it down their throat and daring them to hit it.

Brian Jeroloman--who will hopefully be catching in Toronto before much longer--said of Romero:

"Ricky is so talented and Ricky is a guy we love to have on the bump every day. He wants to win more than anyone else on the field, he will do whatever he can to win the game. Catching him is very easy, it is easy to get on the same page as him, he doesn't realize how good he is, I wish he could face himself and that could make him understand how tough it is to hit against him. He has such dynamite pitches that sometimes he tries to do too much, sometimes he gets in his own way. I love catching him, he is a bulldog, catchers love that....Once he realizes how good he is, that's when things are going to start falling for him." (Hat tip to Batters Box)

While Romero’s career BB/9 (3.8) is unexciting I think that’s more a confidence than a command issue; this much is certain, Cito Gaston’s trademark is getting players to believe in themselves so it’ll be interesting to see how he handles Romero in Spring Training.

So far, we know the Jays have 2-3 spots up for grabs and we’ve touched on the following candidates: Purcey, Cecil, Mills, two Romeros and Mike Maroth; we haven’t yet discussed Scott Richmond, Robert Ray, Matt Clement as well as potential relievers that will be tried as starters--Brian Wolfe, Brian Tallet and possibly Scott Downs but it’s hard not to think that the organization should be able to put together a solid rotation when you again consider the support they’ll have both defensively and the bullpen.

We’ll likely return to this subject and finish going over the candidates but right now Toronto has three jobs (well, I think it’s two since Purcey has likely sown one up barring injury) and 12 talented or experienced guys vying for them. Assuming Purcey is already in, that leaves 11 for two spots and I think when you look at what’s available, Jays’ fans shouldn’t lose too much sleep over who will make quality starts and don’t forget, we haven’t even discussed Dustin McGowan’s return yet.

Best Regards

John

Jays' P-Brain...

One blog that I haven’t passed a lot of love on to is The Southpaw--mostly because it sucks chunky bilge water and WillRain has the brains of a developmentally-delayed lobotomized Irish Setter on crack that couldn’t scrawl graffiti on a bathroom stall without boring the daylights out of anyone under the age of seven

But I digress.

Had ya going didn’t I Will? (Congrats on the MVN gig BTW.) Seriously though, I often check out his thoughts both on his blog and on Batters Box and while I do not always agree with him, I do find he provides valuable counterpoints and food for thought.

Now back on January 8, Will posted a terrific piece entitled A Short Course in History and if you haven’t checked it out yet--I highly recommend that you do so…I mean it, right now; just right click your mouse on the link I provided and select “Open in New Tab” and you’re all set.

Not that difficult.

It has taken me almost a week of digesting the article (coupled with some good ol’ fashioned procrastination) before it really coalesced in my consciousness. Let’s assume the assertions are true: does this really excuse J.P. Ricciardi? The thing is, while the whole “five-year plan” may have been completely bogus it does beg the question of why--if the Jays weren’t in a position, or rather didn’t wish, to compete--Ricciardi didn’t use that time to position the franchise to be able to make the leap from also-ran to contender when the time was right?

Yes, some moves had to be made to dupe the fan base into thinking that the club was trying to win but at the same time, it would have been a perfect time to stockpile young talent. Why didn’t he go crazy in the Rule 5 draft? Why invest big dollars in mediocre quantities? Why not feign interest in guys like Corey Koskie and bid just high enough to lose and plow that money into player development? Why sign any developed players to long term deals when it wasn’t necessary?

Instead of releasing guys like Chris Carpenter and Woody Williams for nothing--why not take ten cents on the dollar and see if there’s somebody that has a B-prospect that he thinks might develop into something useful?

When Pat Gillick started building the Jays from scratch he adopted the old Sam Pollock method of talent acquisition that Pollock used in developing the Montreal Canadiens into a dynasty: talent is evaluated on a scale from 0-8 with eight being the best. If Pollock (and Gillick) could trade a “2” for a “3” talent--they did so regardless of the position played. If they ended up with a surplus, they packaged it for help in other areas. It required a team do its homework and a lot of teams might not be able to discern the difference between a “2” and a “3” or a “5” and a “6” or for that matter a “0” and a “2.”

This was done at all levels of the organization. It’s hard to pull an outright heist of talent, but a lot of small upgrades throughout (the organization) add up in a hurry. The Toronto Blue Jays had a good chunk of the 1985 division champs in the fold by 1979-80.

I weep when I think about what could have been accomplished in the years when the Blue Jays were faking their competitive orgasms. I mean, if the allegations are true, I don’t view it as an absolution of Ricciardi but rather an indictment--a four year window of opportunity to turn the Toronto Blue Jays into a player-development machine that would have had the Jays ready to take on the world (or at least the AL East) when it was time to get serious. When Rogers was willing to put some money into the roster, can you imagine the trade chits that might have existed in the minor leagues? Those two factors along with the best of the developed talent on the 25-man roster might have made the team formidable indeed.

It wouldn’t be hard (or expensive) to look like they were trying and by eschewing multi-year contracts they would have been in a position to go from the outhouse to the penthouse very quickly.

While I’m sure a degree of building went on, I think had Ricciardi decided to play good organizational soldier while simultaneously really ramping up the talent infrastructure those four years would have produced more fruitage than we have on hand at present.

To shift gears for a moment, probably the one thing that hamstrings the Toronto Blue Jays even more than J.P. Ricciardi’s inability to discern that it is time to lay it on the line is the fact that the franchise are (Bud) Selig loyalists. To be a Selig loyalist one must view players as an expense (something to keep to a minimum) rather than an investment (a vehicle that can be used to increase profits).

For example: right now, Manny Ramirez could be an investment that pays huge dividends to the organization yet Rogers, like Selig, thinks only in terms of what he might cost and not the revenue he could potentially generate. It’s a risk-averse strategy that rarely does well in MLB. Other examples of this is the slotting system of the amateur draft--yes, the draft needs work [fixing] but for right now for top talent a team generally has to choose to pay over slot or focus on players with lesser gifts and abilities.

Now, if you have a top-notch scouting department that is adept at consistently identifying diamonds-in-the-rough it’s not that big a problem yet nobody considers the Blue Jays to be such an animal--sometimes you have to bite the bullet and invest in the obvious stud.

If Barry Bonds was indeed the victim of collusion then again the team being Selig-loyalists hurt them in that Bonds would have solved an obvious problem at minimal cost. Part of the reason for this is that when the Canadian dollar was low a few years back, Selig provided equalization payments to the team to help out. On the one hand there would be a degree of gratitude but on the other hand there is the spectre of hoping for more of the same.

Nothing can harm a team in the Jays’ position (competing in the AL East) then hoping for welfare to generate profits rather than wise investment. Instead of trying to build up revenues by putting an exciting competitive club on the field, the risk-averse Selig loyalists put in just enough money to increase interest in the club without the heavy investment required to take on the big boys in the division.

So, from the lowest part of player development (the draft) to decisions regarding the major league roster, the Toronto Blue Jays are looking to stay on the good side of the commissioner’s office lest they upset the welfare cart. While Rogers Communication has money to burn, they aren’t spending it on the Blue Jays this year--partly due to the economy but chances are good that Selig’s non-stop proselytizing about being especially fiscally conservative this offseason has the club falling into step. There are bargains to be had in the free agent market where the team need it most (offense) but the Jays refuse to partake--oddly enough at a time when a plea for equalization payments may be in the offing.

Unless you have a terrific front office and player development and scouting system in place, there’s nothing that is more damaging to a team’s chances at post season baseball than fealty to Selig.

Best Regards

John

Anchor...away!

I wonder if Manny Ramirez will come to realize that Scott Boras has become a liability?

Let’s face it, management would love to take the boots to Boras and the current state of the economy is giving them an opening. Oh sure, Mark Teixeira got his money but it was from the Yankees. There are two economies right now in MLB: the New York Yankees and everyone else and what goes on in one has no relation to the other.

Teixeira was the shiniest bauble in the marketplace insofar as position players went and the Bronx Bombers had an opening and the money to spend. Chances are good a different agent probably could have gotten close to that from the Yanks so it was hardly a coup for the Earl of Avarice.

As to the rest of his clients--Boras’s favourite tactic of waiting out the market could really backfire this season since as the economy worsens and roster spots are filled by the Pat Burrell’s, the Raul Ibanez’s, the Milton Bradley’s the number of wealthy bidders goes down.

Right now only one club has made an offer and that offer wasn’t viewed as a “serious” one by Dearth Insidious.

Of course, there is always Derek Lowe and Oliver Perez and I’m willing to bet that the one that signs first gets the better of the two deals while the Ollie-Come-Lately probably gets a one year deal with an option and hoping that the economy improves.

Getting back to Ramirez--nobody trusts his agent. He makes his claims, floats rumours, plants stories all in hope of getting somebody anybody to bite so he can get a bidding war going between they and the Dodgers. After last year’s Andruw Jones debacle Ned Colletti and Frank McCourt are unlikely to bid against themselves so Boras knows he needs to find a second bidder to get a better deal than what was offered earlier.

I’m willing to bet that a handful of teams would love Ramirez’s bat in the middle of their lineup and would be willing to guarantee three years (especially an AL club) but are loath to deal with Boras since they have no idea whether or not he is being truthful in negotiations.

If I was Manny Ramirez “Ooooo look! A dog with a puffy tail! Tee hee hee hee!!”

O.K. let’s try that again; were I in Manny Ramirez’s situation I would publicly fire Boras (yes, I would enjoy that and I won’t pretend that I wouldn’t) and take matters into my own hands, drop it, roll around on it before getting back into my hands and decide precisely what I want. While I’m certain he would like a pile of money guaranteed over several years (who wouldn’t?) I’m willing to guess that there are other things that matter to him as well. That being the case, he should reflect on what is attainable among those desires and see if a team is willing to give it to him.

I feel pretty confident he could get three years and $50+ million if money is his primary consideration if he spoke to a team without you-know-who in tow. If he’s looking for payback at the Red Sox obviously what I would love to see him do is pick up J.P. Ricciardi and go visit the suits at Rogers Communication and tell them flat out he wants to be a Blue Jay and is willing to accept a creative contract (with things like a ton of deferred money and bonuses based on attendance although I am not certain that is allowed by the collective bargaining agreement--I do know Bill Veeck used to do it for Bobby Feller) in order to make it happen.

I will now pause while all of you enjoy a good laugh at my expense for being so incredibly and pathetically delusional--as well you should.

O.K. you can stop now.

That's enough!

I mean it!

Now you're just being nasty.

Hyperventilated did we? Serves you right for carrying on like that. You probably wet yourself too didn't you? Well, don't look to me for sympathy.

If winning another ring is something he wants to go for then if he’s willing to take a little less then the possibilities are endless--especially if he’s willing to sign a one-year deal and hope the market is better in 2010.

Regardless, while Scott Boras is more than capable of making me eat crow-a-la-king I think it is pretty obvious that they badly misread the market. Nobody expected the economy to tank as badly as it has and even fewer folks could have predicted clubs suddenly becoming more aware of things like defense, base running and other factors; having said that, it should have been seen as inevitable since contracts started to regularly top $20 million per annum. Sooner or later teams would begin to wonder if a well-rounded youngster in their own system making the major league minimum couldn’t provide almost as much overall value (run production/run prevention/base running/health, read: games played) as a one-dimensional slugger well into his 30’s with creaky joints that will put runs on the board but offsets that with poor fielding and mediocre base running that is hoping for $15-$20 million a year until long after he becomes unable to justify those salary levels.

It’s the same thing with pitchers; getting back to the Jays--the best indicators of pitching performance are H/9, BB/9 and K/9. We’ll again compare A.J. Burnett (slated to make $16.5 million per year for the next five years) with David Purcey (probably close to the major league minimum and not eligible for arbitration until 2011) from the time Purcey was given a full time job in the rotation:

Pitcher       H/9  BB/9  K/9
A.J. Burnett  8.6  3.5   9.4
David Purcey  9.4  2.8   8.6

Both average about the same amount of baserunners per nine innings and Purcey can be expected to improve and is likely to be a good bet to throw more innings in 2009 than Burnett. Is what A.J. brings to the table worth $16 million more than the big lefty will next season?

This is the environment Boramirez is attempting to land a four year/$100 million contract in; if he signs with an NL team will his declining bat (ages 37-40) coupled with the runs given up with his poor defense and mediocre base running give more value than a lesser (though improving) hitter than can flash some leather and be a heads up base runner making the major league minimum? Or for that matter--what will arbitration-eligibles Matt Kemp or Andre Ethier give the Dodgers in total package (not to mention games played) over the next three years before free agency compared with what a declining Manny Ramirez is looking for? Chances are good that both men will make far less combined in 2009 than Ramirez but what will give more bang for the buck?

Silly question.

Yes, Manny sells tickets but only as long as he hits and nobody knows how much longer that will be. However, clubs are looking for on field value over box office value right now. Right now, Manny’s biggest liabilities in team’s minds and the marketplace in general are his age, his defense and his agent.

He can only eliminate one of those--he might be better off doing just that.

Best Regards

John