Ground Rule Trouble

No man is a (Coney) island...

2009-03-21T12:59:00.000-07:00

One of the bigger surprises of this year’s Hall of Fame vote to me was the fact David Cone went one-and-out on the ballot. In my January 14 Hardball Times article Daze of whine and posers all I had to say on the subject was “David Cone (3.9%) … I thought he might hang around and wouldn’t be surprised to see him get some attention from the VC.”

He strikes me as a guy that was probably a bit underappreciated by both the media and the sabermetric community hence he didn’t get a lot of attention during the vote. I do think however that his peers (or whatever form the VC will take) will one day show him a lot more love.

Probably the most striking aspect to his career from my point of view is that a David Cone likely would not happen today with the emphasis on protecting hurlers’ arms and pitch counts. Cone enjoyed a remarkable 12 year run from 1988-1999 and was known as a guy with a rubber arm. Indeed he made 348 regular season starts in those years and topped 120 pitches in 130 of them; of those 130 turns, 58 times he threw over 130 pitches, he tossed 140 or more on a dozen occasions and in one iron man outing--he tossed a 166 pitch shutout against the San Francisco Giants in July 1992 whiffing 13.

Amazingly, that was part of an eight start stretch where he went 6-0, 3.15 ERA, struck out 80 in 60 IP averaging 137 pitches per game; his pitch counts were 134, 136, 142, 134, 166, 132, 115 and 138.

Ouch.

Cone made his résumé in those seasons and it was indeed a very impressive 12 years: 175-96, 3.15 ERA (lg. ERA: 4.17), topping 200 innings eight times in ten full campaigns (1994-95 were shortened by the strike) and was over 190 frames in the other two non-strike seasons. He pitched 2468 innings overall and struck out 2331; over those 12 seasons he was third in ERA behind Greg Maddux and Roger Clemens, fifth in innings pitched, fourth in RSAA (Runs Saved Against Average) behind Maddux, Clemens and Randy Johnson, third in strikeouts (Johnson and Clemens), second in winning percentage (Maddux) and fourth in wins (Maddux, Clemens and Tom Glavine).

He won a Cy Young Award, enjoyed a pair of 20-win seasons picked up four World Series rings as a starter (he picked up a fifth as a reliever for the Yankees in 2000), and although he didn’t fare well in LDS play, he was 6-2, 3.01 ERA in over 80 LCS/Fall Classic innings and had a stellar 2.12 ERA in the five World Series in which he appeared.

During those 12 seasons he certainly held his own against the greats of that era. He was considered the team leader of the great Yankee team of 1996-2000 and has a perfect game on his ledger to boot--in all, I think a case can be made for the Hall of Fame for one David Brian Cone.

Chapeaus and such…

While the offseason the Yankees enjoyed has some clubs calling for a salary cap, I do think that Selig is serious about not being interested in one at the moment. To begin with, he is in a poor position to decry player costs when he’s pulling down $18 million a year--a level that only a small handful of players are currently at; also there is the small matter that MLB is actually doing a lot better than the other three sports (all with caps) insofar as percentages of revenue being devoted to player salaries.

A salary cap usually assigns a fixed percentage of revenues to be used for compensation and to match the other three sports baseball would actually have to agree to devote more money to salaries. Of course, if ownership does push for a cap and agrees to this (higher percentage) you can bet your bottom dollar/salary floor that management feels confident that it can hide a lot of revenues in third/related party transactions and funnelling funds to interests under the same corporate umbrella.

Still, it would be funny to watch Selig squirm in front of the microphones about how the sport needs to curtail player costs while being questioned about how much he makes. Of course, the big question that I would ask baseball’s commander-and-thief would be “How can a sport that loses so much money afford to pay their commissioner $18 million a year?” Heck, each club kicks in on average as much as all the clubs put in combined to pay his predecessor Fay Vincent’s salary; Vincent made about $600,000 when given the boot.

See ya on the other side…

This will be my last post for a little while--I go under the knife for the ol’ ticker at 7:15 AM Monday. Again, thanks for all the notes and well-wishes; once I’m fixed…er, repaired, I’ll be back with a vengeance. I’ve submitted a column for SMSN Sports that will run next week--beyond that it’s wait-and-see. Regardless, I’ve been a busy boy this week and here’s the latest:

Somebody needs A-Clue (SMSN Sports) A lighter look at Alex Rodriguez’s recent pratfall--my editor rejected my suggestion for a title: “Like A-Burgeon(ing problem).”

A-Reck (Hardball Times) I don my tinfoil hat and deal with something that I’ve always wondered about regarding the enigmatic-Rod.

Five questions: Toronto Blue Jays (Hardball Times) I do this every year with my usual mix of optimism and snark.

Best Regards

John

Yank-ing chains...

2009-03-17T13:56:00.000-07:00

I love classic cars--besides the styling, my favourite thing are those old big block engines where size matters and you’re judged on your cubic inches; there’s just something about seeing eight old oil can sized pistons to set the ol’ heart a-flutter.

After I retire I want to modify a smaller, economy style car by somehow managing to squeeze as big an engine block as I can, tricking it out to get maximum low end torque out of the beast and somehow succeeding to hide the “little car that could” (kick your butt)'s secret behind a dead-smooth idle with no hint of a lope.

But I digress--kinda.

Anyway, imagine for a moment you wanted to build the ultimate engine and money is no object. You do all kinds of research because you want all the biggest, baddest parts--top of the line for your creation: engine block, camshafts, pistons, alternator, manifolds, exhaust system etc. You find that different manufacturers (Ford, Toyota, BMW etc.) have developed the best of the best of these parts and when your shopping is done you have nothing but state-of-the-art, high end performance/output parts.

Now put the engine together.

If you’ve ever worked on an engine you know of what I speak. You’ll be doing a lot of work getting it assembled.

There used to be an old gag where a guy bought a new fangled carburetor guaranteed to reduce gas consumption 50%, spark plugs that would cut it down 10%, a high-tech air filter good for another 20%, synthetic oil that would kick in 15%, and a gas filter that would cut consumption 10% then proceeded to install them one afternoon--after he was done it was time to take it for a spin and he drove his car 15 miles and the gas tank overflowed.

We learn two lessons from these: one optimum performance does not rely on simply having a collection of the biggest, baddest parts simply thrown together regardless of whether or not they fit and just because you throw a bunch of stats together doesn’t mean that you add them up and come up with the correct total unless you understand what the numbers truly mean.

To me, this is my ongoing navel-gazing regarding the whole old school/new school battles over understanding baseball.

Every year, a given team will add a superstar player or two and it’s easy to assume that they can factor those totals (whether traditional/sabermetric/adjusted) onto the current roster and assume the team has added X number of wins.

A baseball team is not a collection of individuals acting in isolation--it’s a unit, a single entity, an engine if you will and for maximum performance a degree of thought has to be put into the individual parts and whether they can act as a single entity. A given part may not be a high end state-of-the-art piece of machinery but if it’s the correct part for the engine--one that improves its performance then that’s the piece the engine needs.

Just because you assemble a lineup of guys that average 100 runs scored per season doesn’t mean that a team is guaranteed to score 900 runs.

I’m not writing this to bash sabermetrics since I feel quite strongly that the sabermetric movement has been a major plus for baseball. To continue the analogy from a different perspective--if an engine needs a part, it would asinine to suggest (as an example) that a piece from a 1987 Crown Victoria is the correct piece just because 15 years ago the person making the suggestion bought a used Crown Vic and it was the best car they ever owned.

In short--the old school philosophy based on hunches, a previous good experience with no context is as disastrous as simply looking at players as numbers, throwing them together and adding the numbers together to see if it’s a winning combination and going from there.

An engine just doesn’t need parts--it needs fluids: oil, transmission fluid, antifreeze, power steering fluid etc.

If the players constitute the “parts” then perhaps the fluids represent the intangibles: chemistry, teamwork, leadership, hustle, grit--the never say die attitude--a team cannot function absent these things and the quality of them can be the determining factor between comparable engines/teams.

My point?

I’ve taken a lot of heat for my prediction that the Yankees are an 85 win team this year--many have pointed out the talent on hand and the additions made and all but guaranteed me a 95+ win club based on the numbers.

I know these things already.

However, I wasn’t dissing the Yankees--to me they’re a team in transition; they’re an old club--yes, they’ve added a couple of talented pitchers but then again in recent seasons they brought aboard other talented pitchers: Randy Johnson, Kevin Brown, Javier Vazquez, Carl Pavano (the man was talented--it just ended at the Adam‘s apple), Jose Contreras, Jeff Weaver (don’t laugh--Weaver was 25 when he joined the team and had a 3.97 ERA over his previous 551 IP), Jon Lieber (4.10 ERA in 686.2 IP from 1999-2001) etc. but for whatever reason the Yankees didn’t get what they expected from them. The numbers were certainly there but when added to the engine, their (the pitchers) performance suffered--it was a poor fit for these men.

Hence, I am not automatically assuming that C.C. Sabathia and A.J. Burnett will translate into Sabathia’s NL numbers or A.J.’s 2008 performance in 2009 with the Yankees. Yes, Mark Teixeira is a significant upgrade to Jason Giambi but Alex Rodriguez was an off-the-charts step up from Aaron Boone and what happened there?

The Bronx Bombers are still finding their way in the new information age; according to Joe Torre, Brian Cashman once suggested to him to bat Doug Mientkiewicz and Jason Giambi 1-2 in the batting order because of their high OBP.

Seriously.

They’re climbing a steep learning curve and are a bit behind--they’ll get there but there’s work still to be done.

Since Andy Pettitte was drafted, how many starting pitchers did the Yankees develop and retain that have tossed two seasons of 200 IP? How many have they drafted?

Almost 400.

Let’s face it--that is a staggering level of ineptitude…only Chien-Ming Wang (I’ll count 199.2 IP as good enough to qualify) since 1991.

This means that the organization has had to import their starting pitching--players developed by other clubs with differing philosophies; it worked when teams had trouble retaining their own talent but in Selig’s Brave New World fewer and fewer ace-quality pitchers hit the marketplace (or become available in trade) and have had to settle on guys that could perform in some environments but not necessarily in the Bronx.

The big change in the Yankees’ fortunes really came about between 2003-2004 when they lost Roger Clemens, Andy Pettitte and David Wells (the latter two being southpaws--duh) and went to an all right handed rotation (a bad fit in Yankee Stadium) and nobody in 2004 tossed 200 innings while the departed trio had all topped that mark the previous year.

Again, the importance of the right parts as opposed to the shiniest ones was demonstrated.

The Yankees added two right handed pitchers for 2009 but how many of the candidates for the rotation are consistent 200 inning starters and can be reasonably counted on to assume that kind of workload?

Sabathia is a good candidate, Pettitte might have one more 200 inning season in him, Wang might--but that’s far from a sure thing, Burnett has never had back-to-back 200+ inning seasons and the organization will not try to get that many out of Joba Chamberlain, Ian Kennedy or Phil Hughes.

Will Sabathia and Burnett be Mike Mussina and Roger Clemens 2.0 or the second coming of Javier Vazquez and Carl Pavano? We won’t know and can’t assume the former (or the latter to be fair).

As to the offense, aside from age issues, they’re hoping Nick Swisher will replace Bobby Abreu’s production and barring a miracle that’ll be a step back plus A-Rod will be out for awhile.

Sure, there’s talent there but the 1965 Yanks looked good on a paper as well and were coming off four straight pennants.

The Yankees will be fine but I think they are in transition--a lot of players came off the books and next year Johnny Damon, Hideki Matsui and Andy Pettitte will likely be gone as well.

Hence, I see an 85 win team and fair minds can disagree.

I’m not sure what all the fuss is about--the last time they won it all they were an 87-win team in the regular season.

Oh well, such are the hazards of prognostication.

P.S. For those who accuse me of being biased against the Yankees there’s a wonderful tool called “Google”--I think you’ll find about a 10:1 ratio of positive to negative articles when the club is a column topic for yours truly and there’s no way I could find work in the New York media with those kinds of numbers.

Best Regards

John

Tinfoil hat time!

2009-03-14T14:37:00.000-07:00

Now what?

I was looking forward to doing a post-mortem with Jack Marshall when the decision in the Bonds collusion arbitration case came down however a wrench has been thrown into the works. MLB/MLBPA agreed to postpone the grievance until after the trial so what happens now that the trial has been delayed?

Let’s face it, absent Greg Anderson’s testimony or the unlikely overturning of Judge Susan Ilston’s decision to exclude evidence that was illegally obtained; if it does go to trial Bonds’ has an excellent chance of skating plus the government runs the risk of having its dirty laundry brought out into the public purview plus Jeff Novitzky--a hero in the minds of many--would end up looking as bad as Bonds once the defense got through with him.

If the other agents working initially on the BALCO case are called to testify by the defense, Novitzky will end up being mentioned in the same breath--not with Elliot Ness--but Mark Fuhrman, another lawman whose comments aided a different African American superstar of professional sports in a courtroom…O.J. Simpson.

According to these ones “Jeff has never held back what he felt about Bonds” stating that “Novitzky hated Bonds”; “[Novitzky] envisioned congressional hearings, book deals and TV” and that BALCO “…was turned into a publicity stunt” to forward Novitzky’s career and his vendetta against the slugger. According to another agent, Novitzky stated regarding Bonds "He's such an [anus] to the press, I'd sure like to prove [that he used steroids]."

Toss in the fact that the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) opened an investigation of Novitzky (that was nothing short of a godsend to BALCO founder Victor Conte) and the Bonds’ defense team has nothing short of a cornucopia of dirt on the agent.

Even if the government wins the battle and gets a conviction on any one of the counts (believe me, they’re willing to settle for that and declare victory) they could lose the war since their actions in pursuing the case will demonstrate that they are the ones that endanger the public well being and not the defendant.

After all, if you cherish your constitutional rights, Jeff Novitzky is the guy you need to keep an eye on--not Barry Lamar Bonds. Bonds might call you a nasty name or ignore you completely were you to approach him but he isn’t likely to break down your door without a warrant, seize your goods and later lie about what they did while inside or harass folks you care about.

The odds of seeing Bonds led away in shackles is a longshot at best.

One has to wonder why the government is pursuing this when it appears their objectives have been met regarding Bonds; I don’t think there is anyone that believes that he didn’t use anabolic steroids at some point in his career, his legacy has been irreversibly tarnished, his chances for the Hall of Fame is in jeopardy, he is out of baseball and will not return--in short: Barry Lamar Bonds has been disgraced.

To continue to pursue this would be to expose the low dealings of the government and Novitzky to the general public--many of whom still believe they’re doing the work of God in all this; they may get a conviction on one of counts but ultimately may end up looking like the real villains when all is said and done.

As of right now--they are at their best point in time: Bonds is wearing the black hat and the government can simply drop the case spinning it by saying they have bigger fish to fry and John Q. Public will feel that Bonds “got off” on a technicality but the Oedipus complexing offspring of unmarried parents was guilty of everything up to and including betraying Jesus Christ for 30 pieces of silver.

So why the delays?

Surely a man as intelligent as Novitzky has to realize that a trial will not serve his career or reputation well and the feds have to be suspecting that they might actually do the impossible and turn Bonds into a sympathetic character--especially if all the facts become public knowledge.

Even if they get Anderson to testify, the defense will most certainly detail chapter and verse the goon tactics used by the federal government to get his cooperation. When all is said and done (assuming their best case scenario and BLB is fitted with an orange jumpsuit) even the most ardent Bonds-basher may wonder if the right person was put behind bars.

Any fair minded person weighing the sins of Barry Lamar Bonds against those of the people pursuing him would be able to discern who are the truly dangerous folks and menace to their personal well being.

Therefore (pauses to don the tinfoil hat) are the two events somehow related? An indefinite postponement of the trial would seem to create an almost indefinite postponement of the collusion hearing. If the feds drop the case, the arbitration could proceed almost immediately and if MLB knows their guilty as sin they would have no illusion about how it would play out.

However, if they string it out a year or two, which would in turn delay the grievance which in turn would put Bonds at an age where there would be zero chance he could be given a major league job. It would certainly serve Novitzky’s vendetta well--he could crow to his friends that it was he that got Public Enemy No. 1 out of baseball thereby protecting impressionable children. Certainly the feds want to make sure Bonds is no longer part of the national pastime and if they cannot put him behind bars, they can take steps to ensure that he is barred from ever “contaminating” the game ever again.

While hard time would definitely cause Bonds’ anguish--could it be that the feds would consider inflicting the end of his career a nice consolation prize? After all, the bottom line in all this is making sure that the surly ballplayer learns some manners and if you’re going to be spoken of as one of the game’s greats then you have to make nice with the white power structure in society and the media.

I guess time will tell.

Best Regards

John

A match made in...?

2009-03-13T13:41:00.000-07:00

Believe it or not, there is somebody on the players’ side of the baseball coin that has become almost indispensable to the New York Yankees.

Scott Boras.

To the casual observer it would seem it is the other way around--after all, with teams doing a lot of Selig-inspired belt tightening there appears to be only one club willing to break the bank with any kind of regularity and we all know who that is; that being the case how can it be said that the Yanks need Boras?

Glad you asked.

Revenue sharing has truly been a double edged sword to the fortunes of the Bronx Bombers: on the one hand, the amount of luxury taxes paid as well as baseball’s welfare program cost the Yankees a lot of coin (although they will pay less with the new yard since stadium costs can be deducted from their obligations), yet the other hand of the equation is what has harmed the Yanks.

This offseason has featured what has been the Yankees stereotypical modus operandi: look at free agent market, find highest profile player(s) on said market all culminating with massive amounts of money being thrown in the direction of said players. I forget who said/wrote it, but this offseason wasn’t so much a free agent spending binge as much as it was a simple restocking of the shelves since the club had so many expensive players with expired contracts. Their payroll will likely be lower this season than it was in 2008.

Regardless, it’s pretty clear that this is the Yankees primary approach to talent acquisition. The farm system isn’t where they look for raw materials and between high finishes and player purchases; they haven’t had optimal drafting positions for several years. All they can hope for is top amateurs falling in the draft due to signability issues and guess what kind of kids tend to be viewed as hard to sign in the draft?

Scott Boras clients.

However, this isn’t the main way Boras benefits the “Evil Empire.” After all, how many spots on the 25 man roster have been filled internally in recent seasons? There have been Melky Cabrera, Robbie Cano, Joba Chamberlain, Ian Kennedy and Phil Hughes and none of the latter trio has established themselves as rotation stalwarts. The Yankees look either to trades of other clubs’ superstar “buyers’ remorse” contracts (often negotiated by Boras) or the free agent market.

The thing is, a lot of teams have used revenue sharing funds--not as money spent in the free agent market, but--as a way of locking up their best young developed talent through the arbitration years and 1-3 free agent seasons. This trend, designed to give teams a degree of cost certainty, has (1) kept teams from trading away their best arbitration eligibles for fear of losing big time and (2) kept the best young potential free agents from even hitting the marketplace where the Bronx bankroll awaits.

There is one notable exception to this pattern: players represented by Boras.

Boras is a big believer in getting his players into free agency where competitive bidding takes place and it’s generally understood that a player that wishes to sign an extension absent testing the market is done so against Boras’s advice.

With the free agent market becoming an increasingly inefficient way to build a competitive roster (for example: I predicted that David Purcey will probably enjoy a better 2009 than A.J. Burnett) and teams realizing (at least this year) that a multi-tooled, albeit inexperienced, player from their own system has as good a chance at delivering comparable value than a 1-2 dimensional slugger that cannot run, field or throw well that wants eight figures and is hovering around his mid-30’s.

If a team has developed a stud, clubs are more frequently locking them up and in a lot of cases revenue sharing and equitable distribution of new revenue streams are giving clubs the capital to do just that.

Further, players seem more inclined to take the extension offered rather than wait a season or two for free agency figuring that the money is available now and there’s no guarantee they will not get injured before they reach the threshold.

A good example is Johan Santana--he’ll been in professional baseball almost two decades without ever becoming a free agent consistently taking the money when offered rather than trying to get out into the marketplace.

This offseason might exacerbate the trend as experienced veterans for the most part didn’t see the offers they envisioned when they declined arbitration. With clubs hoarding draft picks as never before and teams increasingly realizing what is replaceable talent and what is not (such as middle relievers) more and more players might be inclined to avoid the perils of the free agent market (now that clubs are using it to their advantages) and simply grab the extension when it becomes available.

This means fewer and fewer quality free agents available to the Yankees.

It looks as if Boras clients may be their best shot at top flight free agents in the coming years.

It’ll be interesting to see what occurs when the Bronx Bombers decide to building clubs more economically.

The latest…

I’ve done a “Five Questions” preview of the Toronto Blue Jays for the Hardball Times that should go up soon. I hope to do another article (or two) for THT before “the big day” and once I take a few days off to recover, get back into my regular slot there before they forget about me (they’ve been trying for years but I’m like the stench from a particularly noxious blast of flatus--I just don’t go away).

Who’s afraid of the big bad Yanks? (SMSN Sports): Hey, they signed some talent but there are more holes on that roster than in my memory after I turned 40.

Bringing the game back to baseball (SMSN Sports): Why I think the WBC rocks.

Best Regards

John

WBCito

2009-03-11T12:23:00.000-07:00

I haven’t written much about the WBC (except for last week’s SMSN column that I’ll provide a link for as soon as this week’s is up) but it isn’t from a lack of interest in the event.

For me, I haven’t gotten too worked up about Canada’s fortunes in all this--I’m too busy enjoying watching real live baseball and checking out the talent that is being developed around the world. There has been some tremendous play from faces both familiar and otherwise and some great storylines and upsets.

Speaking of which--I may be risking my hoser citizenship but I was appalled when Rogers Sportsnet switched away from the first Dominican/Netherlands game with the underdogs protecting a one-run lead in the bottom of the ninth with none out and the speedy Willie Taveras on first to the Canada/US contest. I mean, here we’re watching an upset unfolding along the lines of the Miracle on Ice or Tyson/Douglas and instead of seeing the denouement of this remarkable game we get to see Jake Peavy pitch to the top of Team Canada’s batting order.

Look, I want the locals to win as much as the next guy but I prefer watching history being made. Nobody talks about what other program they were watching when Paul Henderson scored in the 1972 Summit Series and if in a few decades from now that game (as well as the rematch) becomes the stuff of legend nobody is going to give a rip about my telling folks how Peavy handled the top of the first inning against a team that was eliminated by the Italian jugger-not.

Jeff Passan of Yahoo Sports was nice enough to let me cry on his shoulder about this and he assured me that I wasn’t crazy (shaddap) for feeling that way.

But I digress.

While enjoying watching Pedro Martinez (hopefully for not the last time), Joey Votto and thinking that the first team that really goes bonkers (bonkers?) in international scouting will have a huge advantage until other teams catch up, my mind (such as it is) began mulling about how all this might impact the Toronto Blue Jays in 2009.

Granted, there might seem to be much correlation at the moment but I did witness something of which I think Cito Gaston could make good use this season. Obviously, the biggest blow to the Blue Jays in the offseason was the fact that 60% of their rotation is gone and with Dustin McGowan’s setback it could be a long time before we see any resemblance to the 2007-08 starting staff at the Rogers Centre.

As of right now--three rotation spots are set with Roy Halladay, Jesse Litsch and David Purcey with Matt Clement coming on strong; now what to do with the fifth spot or if one of the other quartet goes down with an injury?

Yes, perish the thought that a Jays’ pitcher might get hurt but it helps to deal with every possible scenario regardless of how far-fetched it may seem at the time.

Currently, there are a ton of available pitchers: Casey Janssen, Rickey and Davis Romero, Brett Cecil, Brad Mills, Scott Richmond and possibly Wade Miller but there are concerns about overworking the likes of Cecil, the Romeros, Janssen and the rehabbing Miller--how does Gaston make it all work?

How about doing it WBC style?

In the tournament, starting pitchers are limited to 70 pitches in round one although they can finish the plate appearance of the hitter to whom they’ve thrown pitch No. 70. Why not take a variation of that and have co-starters--one day you start the game and let Cecil toss 70 pitches (unless he’s ineffective) and follow that with Casey Janssen for 70? The next time open with Janssen and follow with Cecil (and mix and match accordingly)--that way, the kiddie corps gets experience without the risk of overuse while the creaky corps (the rehabbing vets that make the 25-man roster) gradually get to rebuild their arm strength without worrying about carrying a load they haven’t borne since the U.S. government was in the business of catching big criminals and not large cranials.

The best part of this is that the rooks (hopefully) get reinforcement about the importance of throwing strikes and getting ahead of hitters--if they want to last long enough for a “W” they’d best not nibble and give the batters too much credit and attack the strike zone with their “A” material the same way they did in the minors.

A common stumbling lock for promising youngsters at the big league level for the first time is they stop doing what got them to that point in the first place; they sometimes give hitters too much credit and try to be too fine. One thing we’ve learned in watching the WBC is that a well thrown pitch in the strike zone is tough to hit--we’ve witnessed pitchers on Team Netherland that will likely never sniff a major league job get big league hitters--in some cases, elite bashers--out. Anything that drills into the heads of the youth movement that strike one and pitching ahead on the count is always a recipe for success--even at the major league level--is a good thing.

It probably won’t happen but I’m married with two teenaged daughters and I’m used to giving out advice that is completely ignored and made fun of--c’est la merde!

Thanks everyone…

I was genuinely touched with the show of support regarding my recent medical issues--thanks for the notes and mentions offering their best wishes. I met with the surgeon on Friday and says I should be in the O.R. in the next 2-4 weeks (although they haven’t given me a day and time yet). He seemed fairly confident that all I will need is an angioplasty but he can’t know that for a certainty until they get inside and have a look around.

Bottom line--I don’t expect to be down long; on the small chance that things to terribly awry I have made my wishes known that I want the surgeon to approach things “Mythbusters” style and do whatever it takes to blow me up. I’ve taken in a lot of nitro and don’t want it to go to waste.

If I gotta go…I wanna go out with a bang!

Best Regards

John

Not this again...

2009-03-11T10:02:00.000-07:00

About a month ago we discussed about the potential role player agents might have played in the whole steroid debacle. A quick refresher:

“There’s one guy we need to hear from in all this…

Scott Boras.

His agency does far more than represent professional athletes--he is also involved in the minutiae of his clients’ careers. He provides every service imaginable for his stable including psychological counselling. There are doctors, trainers everything required for building up a player to max out whatever talents exist in a given player’s body.

For all his faults, the man provides an incredibly high level of service for the men he represents. He often boasts about how involved his agency is in the professional lives of the players under the umbrella of Borascorp.

Some of the high profile names that have been part of all this in recent years include A-Rod, Ivan Rodriguez, Eric Gagne, Kevin Brown, Rick Ankiel, Gary Sheffield and Barry Bonds.

All have been linked to the sport’s steroid era either through BALCO, positive tests, the Mitchell Report and Jose Canseco’s literary masterpiece “Green Eggs and Deca” (AKA “Juiced”).

For a man so involved in the physical and psychological upkeep of his stable could he possibly have been so ignorant or so blinded to what the players were taking?”

Suffice it to say, I wasn’t overly surprised to find this nugget in “The Yankee Years”: player agents were often involved in procuring PED for their clients. Granted, it was Brian McNamee making the assertion but it is notable that he also pointed out that general managers had come up to him and said “We don’t care what they’re taking, I just don’t want to know about it.”

This information made it to George Mitchell’s ears according to McNamee but wasn’t considered pertinent enough to include in the Mitchell Report.

As time goes on it is becoming increasingly obvious that the Mitchell Report was little more than an expensive bit of propaganda for public and government consumption to hopefully put the steroid era into the last tense while pretty much giving management absolution while offering up enough names to make it clear that (1) it was all the greedy players’ fault (2) the problem is now licked and (3) Bud Selig has now officially done everything in his power to rid the sport of the anabolic menace.

I think in the not too distant future we’ll find out more and more about what Mitchell wilfully ignored and that a handpicked member from the side of management produced a tome that reflected the investigator’s vested interests. It was little more than one of Selig’s beloved “Blue Ribbon Reports” he points to that allegedly provide answers to the problems vexing the sport and are always completed with minimal to zero (closer to zero) input from the players’ side.

I just find it odd that nobody seems interested in investigating the agents’ role in all this--then again, that would only happen if they were truly interested in getting to the bottom of things instead of simply creating an illusion that the problem was thoroughly dealt with and eradicated.

Plus ca change.

Jeter…

What’s funny about Torre and Verducci’s recollection is how Derek Jeter is portrayed: the ultimate team player that is ultra focused on winning--the one that leads the way to victory. Throughout the book we see time and again examples of Jeter doing whatever it took on and off the field to ensure that the New York Yankees would ascend to the summit of October baseball. If a teammate needed support--Jeter was there; if a player needed to be set straight it was Jeter that would do so; if Torre needed a message sent to the troops Jeter would be the messenger and if Torre required a change in program he could count on Jeter’s unconditional support to make it work for the betterment of the New York Yankees.

It was always about winning; about the glory of the pinstripes--no matter how difficult the problem or personality of someone on the roster it was Derek Jeter flying to the rescue a la Superman to straighten out the erring teammate and keep the machinery running smoothly.

Jeter was the consummate professional--nothing shook him from the annual goal of winning the World Series and he would lead the way and unclutter the path to October; he would literally do whatever it took, no matter how distasteful to get it done.

However, what became clear is that he had a massive blind spot--Alex Rodriguez. If anyone could’ve eased A-Rod’s transition to the pinstriped empire it was Jeter and I don’t think there’s a person alive that feels that a focused, hitting-on-all-cylinders Alex Rodriguez wouldn’t be a major asset in winning games, series, post season berths and championships.

Yet, something funny happened--it turned out there was something Jeter found more important than winning and that was making sure that Alex Rodriguez knew that he was still ticked over his comments in Esquire. No matter how much A-Rod struggled to fit in, to contribute to the team’s success Jeter seemed quite content to watch Rodriguez struggle in the New York spotlight.

His actions (or inaction) made it clear early, often and repeatedly that the third baseman was on his own and that the fans and the media were free to “have at 'im” with Jeter’s tacit approval. So what if A-Rod’s struggles with himself and his game might cost a few games and even a post season series or two--it seemed for all the world that Jeter now viewed winning as demonstrating on a daily basis that he was the crown prince of the Bronx and Rodriguez wasn’t.

What was worse, is that Torre was reluctant to tell Jeter to man up and do whatever was needed to make Rodriguez feel emotionally settled enough to play at his best. The Yankee roster would try every other solution to help A-Rod get it together, to get his head straight except have Jeter do what he did for so many other struggling teammates.

While Torre/Verducci used up an entire chapter to discuss the problems with Alex Rodriguez it is pretty clear that there was fault from both sides in getting the new arrival to fit in with the team dynamic. After seeing Jeter portrayed as the modern day “Pride of the Yankees” in the early part of the book--especially during the glory years of 1996-2000 we witness what appears to be a stark change in the shortstop once he realizes that he’s king of the mountain.

He reminds us of the alpha female in a high school sophomore class dealing with a new female student that is every bit as pretty as she and feels threatened. While the Yankees might have “lost their way” after the departure of the class of 96-00 it appears that St. Derek might have forgotten what got him to the top in his preoccupation to making sure everyone realized that he now determined who was worthy to wear the fabled pinstripes and would be anointed “a true Yankee.”

Best Regards

John

The Bud the...

2009-03-10T12:08:00.000-07:00

Well, let’s get back to the fascinating stuff in “The Yankee Years.”

To begin with--how much do you think the commissioner of baseball is aware of the official goings-on at the annual baseball winter meetings? One would think the commander-and-chief of the sport should have a pretty good handle on the agenda and whatnot.

Rewind to 1998: the baseball winter meetings in Nashville…there, MLB medical director Dr. Robert Millman and Dr. Joel Solomon (he served the MLBPA in the same capacity) made a presentation to various baseball executives and team physicians about the benefits of testosterone usage. Simply put, they were asserting that there was little medical evidence that steroids were harmful.

We’re reminded of MLBPA No. 2 Gene Orza’s claim that steroids were no more hazardous than cigarettes. How true that is (to what degree) I have no idea--all I know is that one player’s smoking will not coerce another to do likewise to keep up.

But I digress.

If Bud Selig can claim that he was ignorant of steroids in the game in 1998 he is either (1) a liar or (2) too stupid to live yet alone be the CEO of a billion dollar industry.

Probably the most disturbing aspect of all this is the union’s role in all this--the thing is, Marvin Miller is a principled man; we can argue until we’re blue in the face about the value of some of his principles but I feel comfortable that his are of good faith if occasionally misguided.

I’ve often felt that Don Fehr was cut from the same cloth--I’ve differed with Fehr on a number of issues over the years yet not once did I ever feel he was being dishonest, dishonourable, capricious or underhanded. I have believed that while he occasionally could be imprudent he would always be acting in a manner that demonstrated good motives.

I think he is basically a good man but I can’t help but wonder if he lost his way somehow.

The big problem for a man like Fehr is that to affect significant change in MLB require that he work with completely amoral individuals that are ultra focused on improving profits regardless of the ethics involved (or ignored) and since the fiscal succubi of MLB realize that the quickest way to more money is damaging the MLBPA it’s easy to empathize why he would be leery of any joint ventures requiring becoming bedfellows with such ones.

We’ve seen that with drug testing--players are falling right, left and center while the commissioner is feigning either ignorance or diligence on the issue. No owner or commissioner has been called before a grand jury, nobody’s prosecuting any member of management for misleading statements made before the various government committees regarding drugs or their economic status over the years and nobody on that side is facing jail time or government scrutiny.

Marvin Miller said these things would happen if drug testing were brought into the sport and we’ve seen it occur--the media focuses on the Barry Bonds, the Alex Rodriguez’s, the Mark McGwire’s and the Roger Clemens decrying their lack of honour while the vast majority of anyone on the management side has all but been given a free pass by the government, media and general public despite their obvious complicity.

Small wonder that Fehr was/is reticent about dealing with such ones where trust is of paramount importance.

What makes me wonder if Fehr jumped the tracks due to Gene Orza; Orza is allegedly the one that tried to find enough false positives to drop the ratio of positive results in the 2003 survey testing below 5% that provided the window of opportunity for the samples to be seized by the government, he has been accused of tipping players about upcoming tests, he’s the one that trivializes the effects of steroid use.

It’s hard not to get the impression that he has no problem with players using steroids even if it means coercing other players to use to keep up and obtaining the drugs from dubious and unhygienic sources further risking their health. It’s a completely irresponsible position when you consider that giving workers a safe and healthy work environment is a sacred tenet of any union.

However, the salary bar is the sacred cow the modern MLBPA--not worker well being.

If I had to hazard a guess, I’d suppose that Fehr is trying to merge or balance two philosophies--the ones espoused by Miller and the ones adhered to by Orza and the mix is toxic. Miller lacks pragmatism on the issue while Orza lacks compassion. Fehr should’ve been more proactive and creative--possibly setting up something in house. While Fehr believes that mandatory testing is a violation of privacy why couldn’t he have set up a “probable cause” regulation (along the lines the sport had in the 1980’s) for the union where a player would be tested if the MLBPA thought a player was juicing?

It wouldn’t be that hard--just set up an tips hotline where players could anonymously inform the union if they had strong reason to believe a teammate was using anabolic steroids. A positive test (from a union administered test) would result in sanction (such as loss of licensing money for a first offense and revocation of membership for a second offense) and he could’ve tried to create an environment where usage would be frowned upon. In short--create peer pressure to play clean and hit them in the pocketbook when they don’t; after all, if an economic incentive causes players to use then certainly incentives not to use could be put in place.

All this could happen out of the public eye without management’s knowledge.

Sadly, as has often happened in MLB things only go to extremes where both sides think in win-lose scenarios; both sides feel that for them to win, the others must lose. This has been the mindset within the game since Marvin Miller became executive director of the MLBPA.

Unfortunately, Miller was one who sought “unconditional surrender” on a lot of issues--including drug use by players. If owners wanted to get rid of the perception of drug use by players (be it recreational or performance-enhancing) he was adamantly against it--not so much because he wanted players to use drugs but rather the issues of privacy were more important. If that meant players should be allowed to break the law--so be it; that was a concern for the judicial system and not MLB.

There was no middle ground.

Fehr cut his teeth on Miller’s ideologies and while the vast majority were bang on--Miller is imperfect like the rest of us and prone to blind spots.

Regardless, what is done is done but one thing we all need to do is get as accurate a picture of this era as possible. We should never forget that despite his recent male bovine fecal matter on the subject, Bud Selig is a big reason steroid use within the sport grew to the extent it did. He doesn’t care if players use steroids as long as the public and government think it is and he is painted as the man that rid the sport of the scourge.

Best Regards

John

Winning...

2009-03-03T14:28:00.000-08:00

Getting back to “The Yankee Years” I was struck with an odd epiphany: winning means different things to different players; in a perfect world, we would hope that all 25 players on our rooting interest’s roster all desperately want to win the World Series and that winning means winning games, winning series, winning playoff berths, winning playoffs and of course the big enchilada--winning the World Series.

After all, how could it be any less? These guys are hyper-competitive, they had to beat our other players from little league through AAA to reach the majors, they’re used to success so surely once they finally nab one of the 750 available big league jobs they are fully and unconditionally committed to the next logical goal--the final dog pile of a given season.

I mean--what else is their possibly to win once you reach the major leagues?

Believe it or not--quite a bit.

Players are as pragmatic as the next guy and realize that generally the odds of being one of the chosen few to enjoy the ultimate moment of October glory is a longshot year in and year out. However, there are other things a player might try to win: a regular job, an All Star berth, post season awards, their first seven (or possibly eight) figure salary, free agency and a massive contract; for a pitcher it could be 20 wins, 200 strikeouts, an ERA title, 50 saves or possibly a promotion from setup man to closer, from reliever to starter etc. A position player might view a win in terms of 30 HR, 40 doubles, 50 steals, 200 hits, a .300 average or topping the century mark in runs scored or RBI.

These things are freely available to a player each and every year (for the most part) whereas they realize that unless things break right in the early going it’s very difficult to realistically envision a shot at winning it all. Even if they are fully committed to it after a 30-35 start to the season, how many guys in the locker room truly share the same optimism and drive? If in their heart of hearts they feel maybe a handful of teammates want to keep digging game in and game out for the brass ring how good would they feel their chances are of getting out of that particular hole with only lukewarm support?

On the other hand, personal goals remain attainable for a much longer part of the season often requiring little more than a decent hot streak to keep them within range of those achievements.

Toss in a few other factors: what if a few of your compatriots are in the final year of their contract or up for arbitration for the first time? Will they be willing to sacrifice their personal stats to try to win a game when the team is 30-35 and they’re down in the eighth inning of a two-run game with man on first and second and nobody out?

Do they move the runners along, try to get the ball to the right side, attempt to make contact and go for a base hit or even be willing to take a walk when the count is 3-1 and the fastball isn’t necessarily in their dead-red power zone or do they go for the glorious three-run jack and try to be a hero and add three ribbies to their tally even though they bat second?

Or would they shorten their stroke and choke up on the bat, simply try for a single and at the very least make sure the runners move up even if it means taking a walk and letting the guy behind them have the RBI?

These decisions are made in every game by every team in every spot in the standings and the deciding factor is what a given player views winning and success to be and it isn’t necessarily synonymous with winning the Fall Classic. The odds of winning the World Series may be slim to none in some players’ minds but the odds of getting an extra million in the next contract are excellent if they finish with 100 as opposed to 97 RBI.

It would seem that a lot of players embrace a philosophy that what is good for them is good for the team and (as an example) what team couldn’t use a 100 RBI man? If everybody felt as that player did and everybody in the everyday lineup got to 100 RBI then chances are good that they’d win the division--right?

On the surface it seems logical but in reality it doesn’t work because sometimes the goals of one player (100 RBI) comes at the expense of another player’s goal (100 RBI) and frictions develop, finger pointing begins, accusations of selfish play begin and hopes of winning it all begin to dwindle.

Remember--these guys are human; not accumulations of statistical data.

Getting back to the thoughts in the Torre/Verducci book that is what distinguished the 1996-2001 Yankees from the 2002-present Yankees; for the most part the team put together a group of very talented players and achieved a unity of purpose--winning it all regardless of the effects on individual numbers. After they lost the 2001 World Series to the Diamondbacks a lot of those core players moved on and a bunch of extremely talented players were added every year but often these players didn’t define winning the same way.

I’m not saying they didn’t want to win it all--they did; but to hear Torre tell it, they didn’t want to win it all at the expense of all other considerations. It seemed that men like Randy Johnson, Kevin Brown, Alex Rodriguez, Gary Sheffield, Carl Pavano, Raul Mondesi, Jeff Weaver, Kenny Lofton etc. had other goals, motivations and distractions which affected the team’s ability to perform at its optimal level.

As I said the other day--it’s an interesting look behind the scenes; I don’t necessarily accept it all as gospel but it does give some food for thought and an additional data point when analyzing success or failure and getting a better grasp on the so-called "intangibles."

Best Regards

John

Taking a step back....

2009-03-02T13:42:00.000-08:00

Ugh.

Let’s give the chorus their happily ever after and imagine for a moment watching the evening news and watching Barry Bonds shackled at the wrists, clad in an orange jumpsuit heading for a vacation at the public’s expense.

The media orgasms and many have a warm glow. We hear plaudits about how the children have learned a valuable lesson from Bonds’ conviction.

Final price tag: somewhere between $60-100 million.

According to USDA 2007, just fewer than 11 percent of American households experience food insecurity. Put another way, 35.5 million Americans including 12.6 million children were not always sure when or where they would eat their next meal in 2006. With job losses mounting due to the global economic meltdown coupled with the increasing population we can be sure that the total is much higher today.

It is probably north of 15 million right now but we’ll just use 15 million for this; don’t you feel better now with Bonds incarcerated? Just think, there are 15 million children in the U.S. of A that will go to bed in the aftermath of this with three thoughts: “steroids are bad” "perjury is wrong" and “I’m so hungry.”

Of course, with government funding cuts coming to many school nutritional programs many may not eat anything of substance since there’s little at home and nothing at school.

But at least the children are safer with Barry Lamar Bonds behind bars. I’m sure they’re suitably grateful that the government, media and many overweight sports fans are so concerned with their well being that they cheered from the sidelines as perjury laws were broken, constitutional rights violated and money that could have been used to feed them were used by people determined to put Barry Lamar Bonds in the clink for perjury over his anabolic steroid usage.

Of course, this hasn’t happened yet much to the chagrin of many in the media and those that believe everything they read; the potential delay of Bonds’ trial as the government prosecution is looking to postpone it as they seek to appeal Judge Susan Ilston’s refusal to allow certain evidence to be used in court because of how it was obtained in some cases (such as violations of the fourth amendment and perjury as Jeff Novitzky apparently 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”—deceiving the court is perjury for those of you scoring at home).

However, if you want to protect the children you need to fight evil with evil; if Bonds commits perjury and breaks the law then the law must be broken and perjury committed and tens of millions of tax dollars be committed (even if children go to bed hungry) so justice can be done!

Barry Lamar Bonds is a bad man but if “society needs protected from big headed liars” as one enlightened person opined on the San Francisco Chronicle’s feedback section then might I suggest people equip their children with polygraph machines and a measuring tape as a means of defence against any “big headed liars” like Bonds that may menace them on their way to school? If a man from a van asks them to come aboard with the promise of candy be sure to train them to hook them up to the polygraph machine, ask them if they’ve ever used steroids and ask for a cranial measurement; if it checks out it’s all good!

Hop on board, eat the candy and enjoy the ride—what’s the worst thing that can happen since society is working hard to get big headed liars off the street?

Yes, Bonds is not somebody to look up to but from my point of view those that are hoping to see him do time regardless of the costs required (monetary and otherwise) pose a much bigger danger to children. Let them starve for their own good—malnutrition is bad but possibly growing up and playing major league baseball while denying using steroids is far, far worse so let’s do what’s right and make sure Barry Lamar Bonds suffers for what he did.

Hopefully one day folks will have their dreams come true and wake up to that glorious morning where they can begin their day with the heady knowledge that their quality of life is much better now that Bonds is behind bars.

I wonder how many will spend that first day going into the poorer sections of where they live and telling the hungry children that despite the rumblings in their stomachs they’re far better off than they were the day before?

Seeing as this has all been for their benefit we can only assume that the municipalities will have adequate crowd control personnel on hand to deal with the overflow.

Or not.

Yes, Bonds broke the law and may well skate but guess what? There are a lot of child molesters, brokers in kiddie porn and the child-sex trade out there that have broken the law and have yet to face justice.

Where do we want law enforcement and government money being spent on: eradicating these evils or making sure a surly ballplayer does hard time? Do we want to see eight figures spent of feeding children or seeing a PED using ballplayer that lied to the government but isn't named Miguel Tejada behind bars?

It’s about perspective—we’ve lost all semblance of it.

Best Regards

John

The Yankee Years...

2009-03-01T14:16:00.000-08:00

Well, I just finished the controversial Joe Torre/Tom Verducci screed and will be doing a formal review in the very near future. Regardless, it will provide fodder for a lot of columns and thoughts throughout the season.

To begin with, I think the initial rhetoric over the book was way over the top. I really didn’t get the feeling that anyone was being thrown “under the bus” even though selected excerpts taken out of context might make it appear that way.

For the most part, it seemed like a good faith effort by Torre in detailing his time with the Yankees and the various people he came into contact with--it seemed fair even though I wouldn’t take as gospel everything in it having only heard his side of the story. It actually served as a very insightful behind-the-scenes look at how winning teams are put together and that while talent is indispensable--a lot more is needed to create a championship ball club.

Quite frankly, within the pages you get a fairly good idea of “tangiblizing” (not a real word obviously) what is often referred to as the "intangibles." I’ll probably get into this in more detail at The Hardball Times this year but I came up with an analogy that I think best describes how an inferior collection of players can form a better team than a bunch of superstars.

When I use the word “inferior” I don’t mean vastly so, think in terms of the difference between a team with the talent levels of the Boston Red Sox and the Toronto Blue Jays--the Jays are an inferior team but can generally hold their own against the denizens of Fenway even though the Red Sox would generally be expected to win.

Anyway, imagine a tug-of-war between 25 bodybuilders and perhaps 25 high school football players; generally, you would give the edge to the big, beefy barbell boys in such a match up as well you should. However, suppose the bodybuilders each decided to pull the rope in whatever direction suited them; to the left, right, upward, toward the ground, backward etc. while the all the high school football players pulled the rope in the same direction…

Well, that’s the picture I got when comparing the Yankees of 1996-2001 to the 2002-present; the earlier edition didn’t have the sheer talent on hand of the latter clubs but they did all pull in one direction and were enormously successful. The overspending Yankee teams of later vintage pulled in all directions--they were too talented not to win at least 90 games most years but there were too many directions--too many agendas on the team and not a consistent focus.

It does show up.

The baseball season is a marathon and as such there is sentiment of “We’ll get 'em tomorrow” if things go bad at some point in a game and while everybody on the field is certainly putting forth effort, it’s with an expectation of failure on that given day which can become a self fulfilling prophecy. However, at what point does a team reach that mindset in a game: after getting down six runs in the early going; three unearned runs breaking up a tie game in the sixth; when there’s a match up of No. 1 starters and one of them gives up a three-spot before getting an out?

Or, is there such a “desperation to win” as the book says that they’re busting their butt trying to win until the final out is recorded and expect to defy the odds and pull out a victory?

Teams (and players) do vary quite a bit in that respect.

It’s all part of the somewhat quantified intangibles that I learned from the book.

Probably the biggest tangible difference between the pre-post 2001 Yankees was the depth and quality of the starting pitching and the numbers do bear this out but you don’t fully appreciate how huge it was until you delve into Torre’s thoughts on the matter.

Again, this is just a basic overview as I will expound more thoroughly on these and other aspects of it in the near future.

At any rate, I do think that Torre had good reason to be unapologetic about what he contributed--for instance, for the first time I actually feel an affinity for Alex Rodriguez. He comes across in the book as unmistakably human with all too human quirks, foibles, insecurities etc. It’s easy to see that not having a strong male role model growing up stunted his personal growth and I feel more strongly than ever that he was exploited by Scott Boras who knew precisely what buttons to push.

Further, he had trouble fitting into the Yankees’ clubhouse largely because how he was treated (read: spoiled) by Seattle and Texas. He seems to have had drummed into his head that the best way he could help his club win was by being incredibly self-centered about his statistics. Somebody made the world revolve A-Rod and he came into a team where the world revolved (or once did) winning it all with little regard to personal numbers and he was lost in such an environment.

Remember Steve Phillips remarks about Boras’s outrageous demands when Rodriguez was a free agent after 2000 while Phillips was GM of the Mets? It’s hard not to believe Phillips in light of the preferential treatment A-Rod received in Texas and it was a major culture shock to both Rodriguez and his new teammates when the Bronx Bombers traded for him.

If anything, Torre and Verducci make the future Hall of Famer finally seem human and quite frankly, I find myself liking him a lot more than I did before I read the book and hope he finally conquers his inner demons.

Speaking of which…

I’m going to have to do a lot of thinking about my view of statistics. Regular readers of my work know that while I generally accept a not insignificant number of sabermetric principles I am by no means a sworn advocate of “(most) everything is explained by the numbers.” As Torre says, the game has a heartbeat and the player's blood flows the same as anyone else. My latest mental quandary surrounds whether the same numbers (even sabermetrically adjusted) are of equal value. It’s sort of a “chicken-or-egg” question in that I wonder if a collection of terrific statistical accumulators automatically makes a winning team or whether winning teams simply end up with players with terrific accumulated stats.

It’s along the lines of my thoughts on run distribution over raw accumulation.

I’m probably not explaining myself really well right now but let me put it another way: take two lineups of slightly unequal talent; the (batting) team with the better talent each unequivocally set the goal of hitting 30 HR and driving in 100 runs come hell or high water. The lesser team simply worries about winning each game unconcerned with personal stats--which team would win over the course of the season? Who would end up with the better statistics?

Let’s look at two seasons of Yankee third basemen: Alex Rodriguez in 2004 and Scott Brosius in 1998:

Player AVG   OBP   SLG  HR  RBI  OPS+
A-Rod .286  .375  .512  36  106  131
S-Bro .300  .371  .472  19   98  121

Now, put 2004 Rodriguez on the 1998 Yankees and Brosius on the 2004 club and how much of a difference does it make on those two teams despite Rodriguez’s better stats? The answer seems simple based on the numbers but does the “when” those hits/walks/outs occurred and their impact on their teammates factor in and if so--how much?

I don’t know--it’s something I will be exploring.

My latest mischief…

Follow the…Buddy? (Hardball Times)

Bud Selig: Buddy or bully? (SMSN Sports)

The golden age of drug use in baseball (SMSN Sports)

A personal note…

As you’ve no doubt noticed, my contributions here and at THT are down. I’m sorry about that--I have been dinged with a health issue regarding my heart and it’s--barring a miracle--going to require surgery and likely quite soon. Between my energy level being almost nil coupled with my body adjusting to shots of nitro and a steady diet of beta blockers even getting out of bed is a chore some days (daze?).

Nitro is what I like to call “instant hangover”--one spray, wait one minute and feel like Andrew Stoeten and Dustin Parkes after a night of merry-making.

Nasty, nasty stuff.

Hopefully, all I’ll require is an angioplasty but there does loom the chance of bypass surgery--if it’s the latter I have no idea how long I’ll need to get back in earnest. If it’s the former it should be pretty straightforward. I’ve kept myself in good shape with good personal habits and I have supernatural recuperative powers and will not need much down time.

No, I'm not getting old--now shut up and either pull my finger or get off my lawn!

Regardless, I don’t think my life is in danger and cannot

(had you going--didn't I?)

...wait for the energy bounce back after my body has recovered from the shock of surgery. I expect to cover the baseball season as cantankerously and petulantly as always. In the meantime, I’m going to keep writing as much as my energy level and personal feelings of grievance and indignation will allow so consider yourselves forewarned.

Best Regards

John

Sud bucks...

2009-02-18T12:26:00.000-08:00

Where to start?

While I have a few questions regarding Alex Rodriguez’s mea culpa I cannot help but be struck at the almost simultaneous event of Bud Selig doing the exact opposite--hey, not my fault the out of commission(er) is saying about all this; in fact ol’ Budley DooWrong stated: "Starting in 1995, I traied to institute a steroid policy. Needless to say, it was met with strong resistance. We were fought by the union every step of the way.”

Yet, this is the same guy that stated regarding ‘95: "If baseball has a problem, I must say candidly that we were not aware of it. It certainly hasn't been talked about much."

Despite not talking about it much they were trying to implement a steroid policy?

Ho'kay.

Rewind to aught-five and we get: "I never even heard about it. I ran a team, and nobody was closer to their players. And I never heard any comment from them. It wasn't until 1998 or '99 that I heard the discussion ... I don’t know if there were allegations in the early 90s. I never heard them.” Fast forward one year and ol’ Buddy testified under oath: "In 1994, before anybody was really talking about steroids in baseball, we proposed a program of testing for such substances to the MLBPA. As early as 1998, I began formulating a strategic plan to eliminate the use of performance enhancing substances from the game."

Uh, yeah. Despite their being no allegations he was aware of in the early 1990’s and nobody discussing the subject they were going ahead on dealing with steroids in 1994 (didn't he say 1995?) even though he had never heard about the drugs?

Clearly, Selig hasn’t heard about the internet--it’s a place where anyone can access what one has said in that past but I guess he isn’t aware of it and like A-Rod (ironically enough) says whatever he feels forwards his agenda at that point in time.

I find it striking that everyone is going along with the revisionist history of the so called “steroid era” that Selig is trying to implement--the players are apologizing and management is posturing as the unwitting victims of the players’ avarice and the media is doing their part (mostly because they wish folks would forget their sorry role in all this) to help it along.

Pathetic.

Anyway, for those lamenting the taint on A-Rod’s and Barry Bonds numbers I have one question: what does an untainted stat look like anyway? I mean, when is the mythical time and place when we can look at the numbers and state unequivocally that they’re completely honest?

For instance, we cannot accept the stats accumulated before 1947 since some of the best players weren’t allowed to play in the big leagues. The end of WWII brought amphetamines into the game plus for 1969 the mound was lowered and the strike zone shrunk which altered pitching and hitting totals and amphetamines and anabolic steroids have been in the game since the 1970’s. As we stated earlier, Tom House stated that 6-7 pitchers per staff (when pitching staff personnel were numbered in single digits) were monkeying around with forms of steroids and HGH when disco was king and check this out:

"drug use exists...in all sports and levels of competition...In some instances, the danger of improper drug use--primarily amphetamines and anabolic steroids--can only be described as alarming"--The 1973 House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce

Again I ask--what years can we look at the numbers and claim unadulterated purity?

I hate to be the one to break it to you, but untainted baseball stats simply do not exist--all of them have to be put into the context of the times in which they were garnered. The next “pure” era of the sport will be the first. The thing is, nobody takes seriously the single season strikeout totals of Matt Kilroy (513), Toad Ramsey (499) and Hugh Daily (483) because the pitching distance was just 45' and just for gits and shiggles, consider the following:

Kilroy set the record in his rookie season at age 20; he threw 583 innings, and had a 29-34, 3.37 ERA campaign--that ERA was about league average. Ramsey was a sophomore at 21 and tossed 588.2 IP and went 38-27, 3.43 ERA and Daily was positively ancient (36) but in only his third professional season. Despite a solid ERA (2.43; 124 ERA+) Daily was merely a .500 pitcher at 28-28 and logged a whisker over 500 innings.

Those numbers seem unreal today but then again Mark McGwire and Barry Bonds’ 70+ HR seasons would look pretty bizarre to our trio of moundsmen that toiled in leagues where eight and 13 four-baggers led the circuit. Then again, when Curtis Granderson legged out 23 triples in 2007--the last player to top that total was Kiki Cuyler who managed to bang out 26 three baggers in 1925. Sam Crawford topped 20 triples five times, Ty Cobb did it on four occasions--do you know who the last player was that had more than one season of 20 or more triples?

Stan Musial.

Have baseball players gotten slower? Have they gotten worse? Why the drastic decline in triples--has the level of play regressed or simply changed?

The answer is obvious.

What has to be borne in mind is that the record book is what it is--a log of what occurred and who accomplished what; no asterisks are needed. Barry Bonds hit 73 HR over the wall and 762 career, Hank Aaron hit 755 with a season high of 45 and smacked 44 'taters four times, Babe Ruth walloped 714 with a personal best of 60--these events happened.

What is important is the history--the history tells us the circumstances and environment those numbers were accumulated in; it informs us of the level of competition faced and what type of equipment was used etc. These things tell us what we need to know to establish legacies and legends. It’s why folks care about Nolan Ryan and Sandy Koufax and not Matt Kilroy or Toad Ramsey; it’s why Lefty O Doul and Riggs Stephenson aren’t in the Hall of Fame despite career batting averages of .349 and .336. It’s why Bobby Mathews' 297 career wins and four seasons of 30 or more wins (with a career best 42) and two others at 29 victories plus a BB/9 of .97 and a 2.98 ERA in almost 5000 IP isn’t enshrined in Cooperstown.

It’s why Alex Rodriguez may eventually wear the home run crown.

More to come on this in the days ahead.

Ode to Bud…

In honour of Selig’s mindlessness in all this, I’ve reworked a “Wizard of Oz” classic song (guess which one?) to pay a fitting tribute--enjoy:

I could chase away steroids
Even test for hemmorhoids
And hide my urine stains
And my head I'd be scratchin'
'bout which teams need contractin'
If I only had a brain

I'd unravel any riddle
'bout Barry's tainted piddle
Or A-Rod's career stain

With the thoughts I'd be thinkin'
'bout why the nads are shrinkin'
If I only had a brain

Oh, I would tell you why
I'm such a fiscal whore
I could wring some bling from the Yanks' rev'nue source
And get a raise, be paid still more

I would not be just a nuffin'
My shirt all full of stuffin'
My pockets of ill gotten gain
I would dance and be merry
Since I'm such a dingleberry
If I only had a brain

Best Regards

John

The indelible scarlet letter...

2009-02-14T05:57:00.000-08:00

I think we’re safely at the point where we can state that once a player is accused of steroid usage he is guilty in the eyes of public opinion. It is why the identities of the 103 remaining names of the 2003 survey testing should be guarded with extreme prejudice.

When the accusation has dropped, we’ve seen players respond in a number of ways yet one theme holds undeniably true--nobody believes them.

Not only that, if they do deign to confess, that confession is viewed with suspicion unless they declare that they’ve juiced their entire professional career and continue to do so until this very day. It is generally assumed that whatever the perpetrator has admitted isn’t the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth and he’s holding back some details so it won’t look so bad.

We’ve had a chance to witness a number of confessions over the years and among the star players they are--without a doubt--viewed with suspicion. Nobody believes that the accused have been completely forthright. Those who claim they’re innocent are generally viewed to be lying and it doesn’t matter what the player does or how he makes his assertion he simply will not be believed. Let’s look at the example of Roger Clemens and John Q. Public’s reaction to how he has handled things (a shout out to fellow primate Ray DiPerna for drawing the map):

First Clemens outright denies the charge through his attorney. The public says “If he were really innocent he would speak to the people directly.”

He does so and releases a video statement to that effect, however the public remains skeptical and says “If he were really innocent he would deign to be interviewed”--a form of public cross-examination--so he faces the tough Mike Wallace to plead his case.

However, the public still refuses to believe him and states: “If he were really innocent he would make himself available to the media to clear his name” he does this, but no dice since now the people say that “If he were really innocent he would sue the person making the allegations and accusations against him.”

Clemens now sues Brian McNamee--the source of the claim against him but nothing changes as the masses state “If he were really innocent he would deny steroid use under oath in front of the government" and guess what?

He is still guilty in the court of public opinion. Clemens jumped through every hoop folks demanded that a player go through to defend his innocence and it wasn’t good enough--they still wanted more; bottom line: to be accused is to be guilty and to be guilty (as previously noted) is to be a juicer from cradle to grave and being interred with a syringe sticking out the casket.

For those who defend themselves by pointing out that every accusation has produced a juicer then think: there have been a lot of accusations tossed out and players implicated--up to 80 percent of players by some. That being the case, then we can safely assume the number is that high can we not? After all, Tom House stated back in the 1970’s that (1) 6-7 pitchers per pitching staff were using either steroids or human growth hormone and (2) that number has decreased in recent years.

Decreased to 80 percent of players? Hey, that’s the logical conclusion of believing every claim and pointed finger at a player regarding steroid usage.

What does that say about how level the playing field was (and is)--if that many players are on steroids then doesn’t it stand to reason that what has been achieved in the game has occurred with nobody with a competitive advantage over others? This in turn would make Barry Bonds' records fairly legitimate would it not? He faced juiced pitchers and the fielders chasing down his shots did so with juiced legs and juiced reflexes. If that many were on steroids then it was pretty much a zero-sum game for Bonds, Mark McGwire, Alex Rodriguez et al.

Now you know why it’s so important that the 103 remaining names that came up positive in the survey testing in 2003--there will be a small number of false positives and players that took a tainted supplement. What hasn’t received near enough press is what happened in 1994--DSHEA (Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act) was signed into law. What this did was allowing the manufacturers of supplements to put products on the market without having to prove that they were completely safe and untainted with anabolic substances; DSHEA meant that the FDA would have to establish there was no problem with these things after they hit the marketplace.

Make no mistake--a lot of supplements had steroidal elements to help them deliver the promised gains and these could be purchased at any pharmacy and GNC and also bear in mind that “euphemisms” for various hormones in them would be used so as not to trigger suspicion and some wouldn’t be listed at all. Athletes of all stripes bought these by the bucketful and ingested large quantities of these things never knowing that they could potentially result in a positive test for steroids.

Chances are excellent that some of the 104 positives from the survey testing were just that--remember: the players knew that testing was coming and would’ve prepared for it accordingly but 104 still flunked which would indicate that some were ingesting steroids through supplements not realizing what was in them.

That, ladies and gentlemen why those 103 names need to remain anonymous--to protect that small handful that were false positives and the result of tainted supplements because were those names to be revealed they would be tried and convicted of being lifetime hardcore steroid abusers deserving of all the scorn the public can muster and there is absolutely, positively no way they would be able to prove that they weren’t cheaters.

Heck, Sammy Sosa is guilty in the eyes of many for his "no speaka da English" routine in front of the government committee, a corked bat and a trio of 60 HR seasons even though nobody has linked him to any dealers, never flunked a test and didn't show up in the Mitchell Report but is guilty as charged regardless.

As Colonel Nick Jessup said: ‘We can’t handle the truth’; or more pointedly, we cannot be trusted with it because we have been conditioned by the media to be completely irrational on the subject and our own inherent pettiness and jealousy toward those “spoiled, pampered, overpaid ballplayers” require that we take these self-entitled brats down a notch whenever possible since we’re too lazy to engage in the hard task of self-improvement and so are content to merely tear down others so we can feel better about ourselves.

It’s sad--but it is true.

Best Regards

John

Collective stupidity...

2009-02-13T14:02:00.000-08:00

I heard she’s also angry at Alex Rodriguez’s admitting to using steroids.

Can’t worry too much about the children now can we?

That, my friends, in a nutshell is why I get so ticked off at the media and people in general for dumping on A-Rod and Barry Bonds as this evil scourge that needs to be eradicated with extreme prejudice. Yeah, I’m not keen on players using steroids; my biggest beef is with the hypocrisy and revisionist history that is going on. Bud Selig along with his harem of whores in the media are trying to portray themselves as the heroes of this saga--Selig, the courageous warrior-commissioner bent on eliminating evil from the sport and the press as the ever vigilant watchdogs looking out for the public wellbeing quick to put the malefactors in the stocks of public opinion where they can receive their deserved scorn.

Nails on a chalkboard.

You’d think after so much time, John Q. Public would clue in and resume thinking for themselves rather than taking the attitude of ‘if it’s in the paper it must be true.’ While almost all would deny they hold such a mindset, their actions reveal that they still take what they read pretty much as the gospel truth--especially if it makes them feel better about themselves; trouble is, what makes them feel better is dragging people above them down to their level.

However, it’s only the ones the media anoint as the reapers of scorn that get nailed. Miguel Tejada--despite an MVP and being an All Star will not receive the flak of Rodriguez, Bonds, and Clemens because he hasn’t been the subject of press scrutiny and never signed an obscene contract but he’s no different than Barry Lamar, Roger or Alex.

Nobody is suggesting that Tejada is a menace that society needs protection from as my favourite SF Chronicle commenter opined with his “Bonds should get prison time, at least for that nasty personality. Society needs protected from big headed liars.” They have never been conditioned to hate Tejada.

As I discussed with a reader of my SMSN column this week: steroids were (and are--if you think the game still isn’t awash with them then you’re an idiot) an institutional failure in which blame rests upon commissioner, management, union, players and media.

I'm doing my level best to keep the focus on the larger issue.

The public has long railed (at the media's behest) about the "pampered, greedy overpaid players" and the Helen Lovejoy's come out in droves to "protect the children" when in reality they could do a lot more in that regard by looking in a mirror once in awhile.

Go into a classroom and chances are good nowadays that one in every two/three girls will experience sexual abuse during their childhood--that ain't A-Rod or Barry responsible for that; adults and parents expose their children to second hand smoke (see Ms. Williamson above), drug, alcohol and sexual abuse on a level that is truly staggering. As mentioned in the (SMSN) article, the world is being wrecked by people who get a tiny fraction of the vitriol being given steroid using ballplayers but the media has us convinced that "cheating ballplayers" are what is truly harming “the children.”

Why do people focus on A-Rod/juiced ballplayers over more important issues? Its either they’re jealous or superficial idiots obsessed with the celebrity culture.

I, for one, am sick and tired of reading about how ballplayers are this great evil that everyone rails against deluding themselves into thinking they’re being noble and “protecting the children.” They do that because it’s a lot easier than focusing on the larger problems (oftentimes the ones staring back at them in the bathroom mirror) and effecting change--something they do not wish to do--it’s easier to blame A-Rod for corrupting the children than their crappy parenting.

If you smoke in front of your children--shut up about A-Rod.
If you’ve driven your car after taking a drink with your children in the car--shut up about A-Rod.
If you’ve cheated on your taxes to save a few bucks and you have children--shut up about A-Rod.
If you’ve produced children and do not look after them physically, mentally, emotionally--shut up about A-Rod.

See my point? These will do far more damage to the children than players using steroids. The trillions being spent cleaning up the mess made by the truly greedy (that will be pocketed by many of these very ones) rather than schools, healthcare, social services, adequate nutrition and the like will do more damage to the children in the next year than every ballplayer that has ever stuck a syringe full of steroids into his butt (or popped a greenie) combined for the next 100 years.

As I’ll be dealing with next week on SMSN, since 1990, over $6 billion in tax dollars (unadjusted for inflation--for example: the $150 million for the building of U.S. Cellular Field is in 1991 dollars--not 2009) has been used in construction costs alone for ballparks and this excludes the value of the land given away, infrastructure, low interest loans (where the government makes up the difference), tax free bonds (the government forgoes the revenue on the bonds) and a myriad of other tax breaks that go along with such scams. It excludes any renovations made, maintenance required and a myriad of other costs associated with such boondoggles.

Adjust those dollars for inflation and you’re literally looking at tens of billions of dollars.

How many services that directly affect the children--such as education, teaching jobs and support staff, public safety, school programs (including nutrition, counselling and extra-curricular activities), healthcare, public parks and recreation programs, libraries--could’ve been funded with that amount of jack? Heck, Czar Bud’s almost $18 million salary is literally being subsidized indirectly by “the children” he’s allegedly concerned about protecting by wagging his finger at A-Rod! He does that because it’s easier to do than take a pay cut--he wants to protect the children from steroids and little else. Well, c’mon--how many kids are going to be harmed by steroid using ballplayers as opposed to a lack of funds to look after their needs?

Yeah, to me steroids are bad but the blame is being distributed unevenly and unfairly insofar as baseball is concerned and it’s negative effect on “the children” and the world at large is waaaaaaaaaaaaay waaaaaaaaaaaaay down on the list of things that can harm them yet folks act like it’s John Wayne Gacy being cloned on the scale of Star Wars Episode II.

Yet folks still think I “support” steroid users because I point these things out.

(sigh)

Best Regards

John

The eve of destruction...

2009-02-11T12:54:00.000-08:00

My head hurts:

Robbie Alomar allegedly has AIDS.
Miguel Tejada pleads guilty to lying to Congress.
Adam Dunn signs a two year/$20 million deal with the Nats.
Bobby Abreu signs a one year/$5 million deal with the Halos.
Manny claims he was provoked into shoving Red Sox travelling secretary Jack McCormick to the ground.
Jose Canseco wants to help MLB to cope with the steroid problem.
Darryl Strawberry discusses the lurid conduct of his time with the Mets.
Keith Hernandez says that the era and Alex Rodriguez’s totals are tainted by his steroid use.
Wayne Huizenga repents of his dismantling of the 1997 Florida Marlins.
Brian Giles counter sues his girlfriend claiming he was the victim of abuse.

All of this has crossed my desk today--10 items. I may go into more detail on some of these topics in the near future but for right now we’ll go with the whole knee jerk reaction to these revelations (a good choice of words since it feels like the Apocalypse is nigh):

Robbie Alomar allegedly has AIDS

I feel bad for the former Blue Jays All Star second sacker (and hopefully first ballot Hall of Famer) and wish him nothing but the very best. I don’t know what this is all about save that it’s seriously messed up.

Miguel Tejada pleads guilty to lying to Congress

Nobody is going to give a rip about this--he doesn’t make enough money and isn’t a good enough player to become a pariah. Public crucifixions are for those that the media have told us we should despise.

Bobby Abreu signs a one year/$5 million deal with the Halos

A major bargain--the Toronto Blue Jays should be ashamed they wouldn’t beat this--as of right now, they’re the only team in MLB to not have signed a major league free agent. Had the simply non tendered Jose Bautista, Jason Frasor, Brian Tallet, Shawn Camp and ignored the reclamation projects they could’ve topped this easily. This is the sort of thing that destroys a fan’s confidence in the team for which he roots. Why should the customer care when it’s clear that the team is disinterested in improving the product?

Adam Dunn signs a two year/$20 million deal with the Nats

Another bargain--nobody likes baseball there including the front office.

Manny claims he was provoked into shoving Red Sox travelling secretary Jack McCormick to the ground

I’m really sure an employee that disrespects the meal tickets of a major league team would hold onto his job very long. If McCormick was everything Ramirez claims he was, he would’ve been fired long ago. A truly pathetic episode and it gives teams another excuse to just say no to signing him.

Jose Canseco wants to help MLB to cope with the steroid problem

You can’t make this stuff up! It’s a real shame Jeffrey Dahmer is dead--he would’ve been a heck of a counsellor for folks with eating disorders.

Darryl Strawberry discusses the lurid conduct of his time with the Mets

Professional ballplayers partying and skirt chasing? Who knew? I thought they were into Bible study and working with the homeless.

Keith Hernandez says that the era and Alex Rodriguez’s totals are tainted by his steroid use

Hernandez stated: “I was 191 pounds my rookie year, if I had ingested steroids, I would have been close to 230 pounds. Now how much better would that have made me, 230 pounds without any body fat? And how many more home runs would I have hit? I hit 164 home runs . I probably would have hit over 250. I drove in 1,100 runs. I probably would have drove in 1,400. And I think that, along with 11 Gold Gloves, I’d be in the Hall of Fame.”

Had you not snorted so much cocaine you might have made the Hall of Fame as well. At least A-Rod was trying to improve and not destroy his talent and chances of winning ballgames. Bloody hypocrite--somebody should rip him a secondary sphincter for such idiocy.

Wayne Huizenga repents of his dismantling of the 1997 Florida Marlins

Amazingly, he still clings to the lie that he lost $34 million when he simply diverted team revenue to his other businesses--I’ll leave the rest to Doug Pappas (RIP) “...economist Andrew Zimbalist reviewed the Florida Marlins’ claim to have lost $34 million in their World Championship season of 1997. Zimbalist found that Marlins owner Wayne Huizenga, who also owned Pro Player Stadium through a different entity, attributed about $38 million of luxury suite, club seat, parking, concessions, advertising, and naming-rights revenues to the stadium rather than the team. This finagling made a profitable venture appear to be hemorrhaging money, and was used to justify Huizenga’s gutting of the team and subsequent demands for a new taxpayer-funded park.” --Baseball Prospectus

We miss you Doug--Wayne, not so much; don’t worry though, your Marlins are still safe in the hands of like-minded slime balls.

Brian Giles counter sues his girlfriend claiming he was the victim of abuse

But everybody is mad at Barry and Alex with people wanting to see them in jail. One of my favourite comments (for its sheer mindless rabidity) was from a SF Chronicle reader that opined “Bonds should get prison time, at least for that nasty personality. Society needs protected from big headed liars.” Yup, I remember telling my daughters when they were small to never take candy from strangers, never accept rides from somebody that wasn’t a family member, to avoid people selling drugs and big headed liars since they were the most dangerous menaces out there.

Ever see an episode of COPS when they were tracking big headed liars? Ever see a big headed liar on America’s Most Wanted but society needs protection from this scourge like this nitwit needs protection from natural selection.

Finally, I received an e-mail that made my day; either this guy was doing bong hits or doing the best bit of Stengelese that I have ever read. I don’t want to embarrass the guy in case it’s the former but here is it in all its unedited glory…

Reporters love to hate!!!

Baseball has been after Barry Bonds for breaking Babe Ruths record. That's all! If Mark Maguire had broken the record you and the rest of baseball would be ok with it. But when Bonds broke it both home run records and everyone has something to say about it. If Bagwell of the astros broke it you would have nothing to say. Although he quickly retired quietly and noone has anything to say. Now you are all willing to turn in and distroy all your players that you would of accepted, if they broke the record!! But Bonds broke the record and to stop him you are willing to turn in ig. Roger Clements, Mark "juice" Maguire and the rest of white baseball. The south does not seem like it is the same but from baseballs' point of view " Nothing has changed "

Just remember nobody said Maguire was on juice when he set the record!!! But the minute Bonds went after it!!! Their was a problem right!!

He should know his place from the view of white baseball!!!

Get over it

You’re not supposed to understand it--you’re supposed to enjoy it.

I have decided I don‘t get enough hate mail…

He did it for you (SMSN Canada) More on the A-Rod saga--my boss decided to add some fuel to the fire with the title and intro to it (I can’t take credit) and promised I’d pass along the best of the flames to him. He’s a sick man--it’s why he’s so much gosh darned fun to work for.

A slap at liberty (Hardball Times) The real story behind the A-Rod saga--at least the one about which we should really be upset if we have half a brain and a decent sense of self preservation.

Best Regards

John

My 'roid rage...

2009-02-08T10:13:00.000-08:00

For all the Betty Bowers in the media and general public clamouring for Alex Rodriguez to come clean I have one question: If he does tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth--will you believe him?

Here is what I mean--the only thing we know at this point is that in the 2003 survey testing, A-Rod’s sample came up dirty. He has been tested since then including the Olympic style regimen used for the World Baseball Classic and has come up clean each time.

What does this mean insofar as Rodriguez’s usage goes? Well, there are a number of scenarios that are possible:

1) He experimented during his time with the Rangers and was caught and wizened up realizing that it wasn’t worth the potential cost.
2) It was a false positive and he never used.
3) He started using in high school and discontinued doing so once testing with penalties came about.
4) After seeing the results other players were getting in the late 1990’s thought it might be a good idea to see what they could do for him seeing as he was coming into free agency after the 2000 season.
5) He started using after he hit .204/.241/.204 and .232/.264/.408 in his cups of coffee in 1994-95 and was scared that he couldn’t cut it and started juicing until testing with penalties came out.
6) He used only briefly, he felt awful and discontinued--this occurred about the time the survey testing was done.
7) He’s used his entire professional career and switched to undetectable designer steroids after he tested dirty in 2003 and remains a user to this very day.

Now--while there are other possible scenarios--let’s assume one of the above is the complete, unvarnished truth and A-Rod comes forward with it.

Will we believe him if it’s anything other than No. 7 on the above list?

Of course not.

The prevailing public opinion (regarding the elite player) generally is once you’ve been busted--and you’re not a beloved player (read: good to the press and well liked by the fourth estate)--it means you’ve been a hard core user from the get-go and continue to be one. To confess to anything less means you’re lying--in the public’s mind there is only one kind of steroid user: the out and out, ongoing, filthy greedy cheat that is only out for number one. You eat Winstrol and eggs for breakfast, grilled Deca Durabolin sandwiches for lunch and testosterone-bone steak for supper washed down with a Clear cocktail and peaches and Cream for dessert.

Guns 'n' boozers?

Barry Bonds has probably passed as many MLB-mandated steroid tests as Rodriguez but were you to ask the average fan, they would tell you that he’s probably still on it. Jason Giambi was a noted good guy before BALCO, has never flunked a test and has never been under serious suspicion since--however, when I saw this recent picture of Giambi, well...

However, the media loves him, he issued a mea culpa commensurate to his popularity level with the press to satisfy them and has generally been forgiven by the public simply because the fourth estate says that it's O.K. to cheer for the penitent slugger.

Rafael Palmeiro was busted in his final season, Roger Clemens hasn’t pitched since he was mentioned in the Mitchell Report, Mark McGwire was never tested but there isn’t a soul alive that believes any of them had a brief flirtation with steroids. Heck, Sammy Sosa has never been formally linked by anyone to using anabolic substances but his blocky physique and trio of 60 HR seasons have him convicted as a hard core user in the minds of many.

Sadly, even if Alex Rodriguez were to fully disclose his usage chances are he wouldn’t be believed because it doesn’t line up with what many want to believe. He is in the same boat with Barry Bonds--people want to think the very worst about them since it makes them feel better about themselves. As we discussed below, 252 turned Rodriguez from a saint to a sinner almost overnight and he went from everything that is right and good about the sport to symbolizing everything that is wrong with it.

There will be no redemption for Alex Emmanuel Rodriguez. He fell from grace on January 26, 2001 when he did what everyone else would do if somebody offered them a quarter billion dollars. Since we will never have an opportunity to lack that kind of jack, we don’t anyone else to have it either, we want them to say “Heck no, that’s too much money--let the billionaire keep his money so the fans who will boo my ass off once my skills decline can feel better about their miserable little lives.”

It‘s O.K. for the little guy to want as much money as his skills are worth in his world but it’s not O.K. for baseball players to do so because the media tells us that the truly great players would play for free so some of the richest men in the world can keep their money.

Give me a break.

The glee in the media over this is stomach churning and believe me, there are a lot of petty folks having absolute orgasms over this; they want their pound of flesh and will only believe the truth if it agrees with what they’ve already made up their minds that it is--even though there is only one failed test from six years ago to go on. Sadly, all too many people in the press and the general public will accept nothing less than a confession of a professional lifetime of usage as the “truth.”

I’m sorry, but we, as a species, suck.

Best Regards

John

The number of the beast…

2009-02-08T08:19:00.000-08:00

If MLB did indeed collude against Barry Lamar Bonds then it’s hard not to think that it has received karmic payback.

Bud Selig has been desperately trying to rewrite history; attempting to paint himself--not as the commissioner than allowed steroids to become entrenched in the sport--but as the man that saved the game from it. In the minds of the public, ridding baseball of Barry Bonds was to purge MLB of its anabolic menace.

Indeed, as Craig Calcaterra pointed out so eloquently in his chapter in the Hardball Times Annual, the Mitchell Report was designed to serve as the demarcation point of the “steroid era” and the happy fiction that the game was drug free could now proceed. All that was needed was a few more Alex Rodriguez quality seasons and 762 would fall to a clean player and all would be well with the world.

They all lived happily ever after as the saying goes.

Well, Bonds is gone and even had he played in 2008--unless he enjoyed a season for the ages--chances are good he’d be gainfully unemployed by now however A-Rod has a lot of years left in him; Selig’s sentence has just been extended and his true legacy will live on.

As the Yankee third baseman continues his march toward history, every ball that clears the fence will be another painful reminder of all he failed to do in his lust for profits.

Probably the most disturbing question I have regarding this particular aspect of this saga is this: was Selig aware that Rodriguez flunked that particular test?

If he was cognizant of it, then it has to be asked why he allowed Rodriguez to be touted as the heir to the home run crown? Granted, he could hardly blab the news that A-Rod’s test came up dirty but it does imply that he hoped that the result would never become public knowledge in which case he was knowingly promoting one “fraud” as king over another.

Of course, there would be money to be made off Rodriguez’s chase and that’s all that matters--it’s the same reason that Rafael Palmeiro was allowed to notch his 3000 hit before the stanozolol hit the fan…first cash the checks then let the truth come out.

How typically Selig.

Anyway, the feces based unstable weather system has already begun in the media regarding A-Rod with the usual hysterical, ill informed bleating that characterizes these things. A tip of the cap certainly needs to be made in the direction of Jay Mariotti who mangled the truth in his haste to unleash the venom:

he led the American League with 47 home runs and a .600 slugging percentage and was named Most Valuable Player, setting him up for a blockbuster $252-million contract with the New York Yankees.

Uh no, he received that contract from the Rangers--they later traded him to the Yankees; A-Rod later opted out of that contract and inked a new deal with the Bronx Bombers for 10 years/$275 million.

That, my friends, is the main reason for the vitriol that will be spilling out in the coming months from both the media and the fans.

It’s not about steroids, or cheating, or the home run crown--this is part of Rodriguez’s ongoing penance for the number of the beast circa the 21 century: 252.

He still has not been forgiven for failing to turn down Tom Hicks now infamous quarter billion dollar offer of January 2001. Granted, he does have to shoulder a bit of the blame himself in that he double-talked himself into a corner with such statements as:

“I've always said to everybody that Seattle is my first choice” and “But if you tell me, am I willing to take `X' amount less and win a championship, absolutely. I would defer money, I would take a lot less money. Trust me, there's no one that wants a ring in a worse way than I do.”

Of course we know he went to Texas coming off a last place finish. In his defense, the Rangers brain trust showed A-Rod the talent coming up through the pipeline, which Rodriguez said played a large factor in his decision. However when he requested a trade from the Rangers he stated: “I would have never gone to Texas if they had told me, ‘Alex, it's going to be you and 24 kids.’ Never. For no amount of money.”

However while he was with Texas, Rodriguez commented about his free agency tour “I wanted to be a Met. I've always wanted to be a Met, I've been a Met fan since I was a kid. And I would've played there for less money and less years and they know that.” The Mets were obviously interested in A-Rod as well, so why didn’t this deal come off?

He capped it all off by saying “it wasn’t about the money” only to turn around and say that it was for Esquire Magazine:

"He [Mike Lupica] kills me on national TV ... On The Sports Reporters. I would like to ask that guy, What would you do if you had this guarantee? He's barkin', 'You wanna win? Seattle gave you a winner.' So what? I made a business decision. An economic decision. It was simple." (bolding and italics mine)

Toss in the fact that all of this was engineered by one that is considered as big a baseball villain as Bonds--Scott Boras--and Rodriguez became a marked man and 252 was his scarlet letter--everything that has happened since that has caused the media to dump on him can be traced back to “the contract.”

252 gave way to 275 but make no mistake, Alex Rodriguez is still paying for accepting the money and the revelations about his positive steroid test is just another manifestation if it. Had he stayed in Seattle, or even gone to an organization that didn’t finish dead last the year before and left a little money on the table (let’s face it; the prevailing wisdom--thanks to Scott Boras‘ priming the pump of popular opinion--was that he’d get at least ten years $200 million when he became a free agent) in order to do so and while there’d be some weeping and gnashing of teeth regarding it, it would be nothing like what we’re in for in the coming months.

It may well have been the costliest contract (for a player) ever signed.

Best Regards

John

Before you begin to froth...

2009-02-07T13:53:00.000-08:00

There’s one guy we need to hear from in all this…

Scott Boras.

His agency does far more than represent professional athletes--he is also involved in the minutiae of his clients’ careers. He provides every service imaginable for his stable including psychological counselling. There are doctors, trainers everything required for building up a player to max out whatever talents exist in a given player’s body.

For all his faults, the man provides an incredibly high level of service for the men he represents. He often boasts about how involved his agency is in the professional lives of the players under the umbrella of Borascorp.

Some of the high profile names that have been part of all this in recent years include A-Rod, Ivan Rodriguez, Eric Gagne, Kevin Brown, Rick Ankiel, Gary Sheffield and Barry Bonds.

All have been linked to the sport’s steroid era either through BALCO, positive tests, the Mitchell Report and Jose Canseco’s literary masterpiece “Green Eggs and Deca” (AKA “Juiced”).

For a man so involved in the physical and psychological upkeep of his stable could he possibly have been so ignorant or so blinded to what the players were taking?

It’s not only Boras--this isn’t the first time the action of agents have affected players in this regard. The Hendricks Bros that represented both Roger Clemens and Andy Pettitte apparently didn’t pass along key correspondence from George Mitchell regarding the evidence that was uncovered that linked them to either steroids or HGH; both Any Pettitte and Roger Clemens testified regarding the multiple letters sent by Mitchell that (1) Pettitte was informed of one over the phone and (2) Clemens was completely unaware that Mitchell had tried to get in touch with him.

Of note…

One agent, who told me that he has instructed his staff to refer to Boras as “he who shall not be named,” then requested that his own name not be identified, for fear of recrimination from the union. “Gene Orza is a figurehead,” he said, referring to the chief operating officer of the Players Association. “Scott Boras is the union.”

While the comment can easily be taken as an over the top bit of snark it does illustrate that the working relationship between agents and the union is a lot cozier under Don Fehr than it was under Marvin Miller.

It does beg the question about how much various agencies knew about their clients’ steroid use. Do not forget that Kirk Radomski said he dealt with about 300 major league players not including those that networked from the original (300)--these players have agents as well.

Since Rodriguez is currently the hot topic one has to wonder when you consider that he and Boras were once BFF on the scale of Paris Hilton and Nicole Richie before “The Simple ~~Minds~~ Life” and the battle of Opt-ober created a chasm on the scale of Hilton and Boras’s respective I.Q. between the parties in question.

During their bromance is there any way that the Shrivelled-Rod (well, this one is inevitable, I’d best get it started before the NY Post) wouldn’t let Boras know that particular “FYI”?

Sadly, while I know Bob Costas is blaming the naughty, naughty MLBPA for all this it’s good to bear in mind who their partners were if they decided to tackle steroid use in the game--that’s right, the owners that kept their of anonymous testing about as well as the other pledges they make--so it’s not difficult to understand that their reticence wasn’t strictly motivated by avarice but it does beg the question how much influence the agents do have considering that both parties have an interest in pushing up the salary bar by any means possible.

As I wrote back on THT after the Mitchell Report came out:

Here is where Fehr and Orza blew it—what they failed to understand (or simply ignored) is that by trying to keep an environment where players could use performance-enhancing drugs without concern of sanction, they were doing ownership a huge favor. Steroid-fueled performance was incredibly profitable and ownership didn’t want the gravy train to end. Players were risking their health by taking substances that possibly came from dubious sources and manufactured in unsanitary and unhygienic conditions.

Management didn’t care; player turnover is a fact of life in baseball. Somebody is always available to take the spot of somebody not performing should someone become injured due to steroid usage. They found an indirect ally in the MLBPA; higher profits translated into higher salaries and the interests of the salary bar were being served. Citing privacy issues, Fehr and Orza long resisted drug testing. This suited ownership just fine and it finally took government action to get both to deal with the issue in a substantive way.

Who was protecting the players now? Both sides were allowing them to take risks with their health to play in the major leagues.

Fehr and Orza’s ideologies created a multi-tiered playing field between players who used and those who did not, but also between players who could afford substances that were more sophisticated and manufactured in sanitary conditions and those who had to look to the black market to get what they needed to get or retain a job in the big leagues. Beyond this, players on the 40-man but not on the 25-man roster weren’t subject to testing while players not on the 40-man roster were subjected to regular testing.

What it boiled down to was that an aspiring major leaguer had to choose to use cheap anabolic substances created under dubious conditions or allowing players who were doing precisely that to get an available job. A lot of players gained MLBPA membership because they were willing to use these drugs to reach the major leagues. Further, two players on the same Double-A/Triple-A team competing for a 25-man roster slot may have been in a rigged contest if one was on the 40-man roster (and not subjected to testing) and the other was not.

A union that potentially creates/allows a situation where ingesting potentially toxic substances is a prerequisite to employment has lost its way. The MLBPA should be the one insuring that its membership have a healthy, safe, fair environment to work in. Pathetically, it appears that management is the one trying to create that safe workplace but is meeting resistance by the organization that should be protecting the workers it represents.

…it may be time to include agents in the group of those that exploit players. Let’s face it, they too profited handsomely from the steroid era and it seems that they were hand-in-hand with the owners and the union in seeing the money ball roll on even if it endangered player safety.

My point?

In the immediate future you’re going to be reading a lot of small, petty, jealous and vindictive editorials regarding the cheating and greedy A-Rod just as you have been about Barry Bonds; never, ever lose sight of the fact that this was an institutional failure--everyone was complicit in the steroid era. It’s just there has always been a lot of resentment toward the “spoiled, pampered, greedy, overpaid player” and we’re about to face a new round of it in the media and the comments section of the articles written.

Everybody profited big time from this: Bud Selig makes almost $18 million a year, Don Fehr is among the wealthiest union leaders in the country, player agents like Scott Boras looked the other way and reaped obscene commissions off the players that injected themselves with these substances and there is no escaping it--the “steroid boom” caused revenues to spike and this in turn showered money on all parties.

The dollar will never fall as low as the means people will stoop to acquire it. Greed won the day and it wasn’t just the players that were responsible--they had a lot of accomplices.

Never forget that.

It’s all about me!!

Field of Schemes (SMSN Sports)

THT EXCLUSIVE : Feds raid dog house on spinster’s property (For you snarkologists this was inspired by something funny my boss at SMSN did--you might wish to read this to understand that this isn’t about BLB for me--it’s about Selig; it’s just a pity that you cannot see through your own media inspired hatred of Bonds to discern that.)

Best Regards

John

Pop goes the world…

2009-02-07T09:10:00.000-08:00

Well, if Sports Illustrated is to be believed, Alex Rodriguez has been busted for anabolic steroid usage.

I’m not surprised myself if it’s true and if the contents of the article (to be dealt with shortly) are to be believed, it certainly sounds like the home run record will remain shrouded in controversy.

My lack of shock has nothing to do with any perceived moral failings on the part of the Yankee third sacker--it’s just that steroids were a major, major part of the sport for a lot longer than folks care to admit. We already know that people will do a lot of god-awful purulent things for even a small pittance yet alone when there are hundreds of millions potentially at stake.

Our global economic crisis was largely caused by people’s lust for wealth without any consideration or conscience toward others or the greater good. Major league baseball is an entity that devours its young without pity and the competition for roster spots is often a no hold barred event where the darker side of natural selection takes place.

I tend to be more surprised when somebody is completely above reproach or suspicion rather than otherwise--the culture of getting any kind of edge in the sport is as old as the game itself and it’s largely a myth that MLB reflects the best in America; to the contrary, it reflects America as it truly is: winning isn’t everything it’s the only thing, nobody remembers who finished second, if you ain’t cheatin’ you ain’t tryin’ and as Albert Einstein once said “Too many of us look upon Americans as dollar chasers. This is a cruel libel, even if it is reiterated thoughtlessly by the Americans themselves.”

“Sports do not build character. They reveal it.”--Heywood Broun

For what it’s worth, the alleged reactions of A-Rod and MLBPA No. 2 Gene Orza are what I find especially damning:

"You'll have to talk to the union ... I'm not saying anything."--Rodriguez

When asked about A-Rod being tipped off about an upcoming drug test, Orza stated: "I'm not interested in discussing this information with you" and Don Fehr isn’t returning calls. We recall that John Rocker stated that the Rangers and the MLBPA made Rodriguez part of a meeting discussing the safest way to use steroids and that Jose Canseco also made noises about him being a juicer.

Again, the sport’s dirty secret is gradually becoming known as we’re seeing that it was (and is) as likely as prevalent as some players initially stated before being pressured to recant.

For a little perspective, how many recall the Yankee third sacker’s interview with Katie Couric a couple of years ago:

Couric: "For the record, have you ever used steroids, human growth hormone or any other performance-enhancing substance?"

Rodriguez: "No."

Couric: "You never felt like, 'This guy's doing it, maybe I should look into this, too? He's getting better numbers, playing better ball?'"

Rodriguez: "I've never felt overmatched on the baseball field. I've always been a very strong, dominant position. And I felt that if I did my work as I've done since I was, you know, a rookie back in Seattle, I didn't have a problem competing at any level. So, no."

Rodriguez said the following about the Mitchell investigation: "Katie, you're putting me in a tough spot. I mean, these are guys that I play with. They're my teammates. If anything comes of this, I will be extremely disappointed. And it will be a huge black eye on the game of baseball." (bolding and italics mine)

Ouch.

Obviously (and fortunately) Couric isn’t a grand jury but if S.I.’s report is to be believed but what is the difference between Barry Bonds and Rodriguez? I mean both are inner circle Hall of Fame level talents, both used anabolic steroids and lied about it.

I think it’s time we simply acknowledge that a chunk of the game’s history involved the use of both amphetamines and anabolic steroids. Our indignation at a small minority of players singled out by the media (that were every bit as complicit in the scandal as anyone) is misplaced. This was something that permeated the entire sport from the commissioner on down and should be viewed as such--to slag on a few convenient scapegoats says more about us than it does about them.

Probably the saddest aspect of all this is that a bigger scandal will go largely unremarked upon: The player's union only agreed to the 2003 tests--the source of Rodriguez’s sample--in the first place on the condition that the results remain strictly anonymous. If the players and their union ever needed another reason to never, ever trust anything management ever promises--well, here it is in bold relief. Also, the fact those very results were seized and are now being made public is a scandalous abuse of government power (if you don’t think this effects you--guess again; ever give a urine or blood sample for insurance purposes or as part of your job? Well, if you thought the results would be kept private you could be in for a nasty lesson) and this is far more worrisome than some ballplayer trying to get an edge in his profession.

(Thanks to my fellow Primates at Baseball Think Factory for their diligence and digging.)

Best Regards

John

Burn the witch!

2009-02-04T12:37:00.000-08:00

Well … not really, I just really thought it would make a cool title for a post.

Regardless, when I saw this article on Yahoo: Boras: Don’t play chicken with Manny I had to laugh. First Manny (or Boras…I’ll just call them Boramirez) turn down--or even really acknowledge--the two years/$45 million offer from the Dodgers and Boras later states (when teams could bid on free agents) that they’re willing to entertain “serious offers” for Ramirez which never materialize, then Boramirez turns down arbitration, then arrives the one year $25 million offer and now we get this announcement from Boras.

Uh huh.

What I thought interesting was Boras’ half statement of a “healthy market” without really defining the parameters of what constitutes a “healthy market.” I mean, if healthy means that there are a number of clubs willing to better what the Dodgers have put on the table then (1) why even bother with LA yet alone (2) issue warnings about not playing chicken. I’m sure the market for Ramirez is healthy but is it healthy at the levels Boramirez are seeking?

I would imagine that if Ramirez publicly stated that he was willing to sign a four year/$16 million contract that Boras’ switchboard would short out. I’m equally certain that if he said he was looking for a Pat Burrell type contract (2 years/$16 million) the same thing would happen.

What is not to be forgotten is that “healthy market” has Bobby Abreu and Adam Dunn still on the shelves--in Abreu a team gets better defense and base running, solid offense and a good citizen at a lot less per year than what Ramirez has turned down. In Adam Dunn they receive a consistent power bat (I mean, 40 HR on the nose in each of the last five seasons and six straight of 40-plus--how cool is that?), fewer headaches and a guy not yet 30 years old that can likely be had at half of what they’re seeking on an annual basis for Manny Space Cadet.

Sure, it was really convenient that San Francisco Giants player personnel director Bobby Evans stated “You can’t deny interest if there’s an opportunity to bring him to the Giants. … We’re going to monitor the market on him. It doesn’t seem to be going down, although he did turn down this offer” but let’s face it: there is an opportunity to bring him to the Giants--offer more than the Dodgers.

However, that’s not an option they seem keen on exploring; heck, any team has the same opportunity but nobody has stepped up to the levels Boramirez are demanding. The Yankees say they’re out (I say they’re not), the Mets likewise, the Red Sox (HA!) definitely not so who does that leave with $25 million lying around and willing to blow it on one player when you can probably get some combination of Dunn, Abreu and Orlando Hudson for the same amount with change left over?

Either Boras has a hole card (the Yankees) or he’s desperately trying to get Ned Colletti to bid against himself and let’s face it--is there any other team out there that would love to see the Dodgers do just that more than the Giants?

I think it’s safe to say that the duo blew this one--Ramirez’s age, demands and disgraceful exit from Boston did more damage than they initially thought; Ramirez said that ‘gas was up and so was he’ however he went into the tank while in Beantown never considering that the economy and the free agent market might follow right along.

A bit of poetic justice to be sure.

The thing is, surely Boras is not so dense to realize that a one year contract at $25 million followed by a season of Manny being magnificent proceeded by a return to the free agent auction with a healthier economy and fewer slugging corner OF/DH types on the market isn’t the worst scenario ever devised and let’s face it 2/45 is better than the 2/40 they left on the table in Boston (with no guarantees that the Red Sox would even pick up the options in this economic environment). Therefore, the question has to be asked:

Who is the driving force behind the debacle: Ramirez or Boras?

Is Ramirez’s pride wounded and he refuses to play for anything less than what he feels he is worth or is it Boras trying to save face hoping that something will transpire a la Derek Lowe that will bring another bidder or two into the picture?

Or is it a team effort: Beavis and Butthead Do America?

I guess time will tell.

This much is certain--this is one of those rare times I’ve stooped to indulge in a little schadenfreude; I was willing to do so after Scott Boras announced A-Rod’s opt out during the World Series but when Rodriguez manned up and did what he wished to do then the future Hall of Famer earned back a lot of respect from me and I was happy for him (I'm sure he sleeps better at night knowing that). Well, there are two people in MLB that bring nasty visceral feelings to the surface in me by the very mention of their names: Bud Selig and Scott Boras. I feel strongly (and have written articles) that Ramirez’s exit from Boston was choreographed to get Ramirez into free agency in what appeared to be a very lucrative market.

The fact that it could have affected a pennant race made it that much more purulent to me and quite frankly I am happy that it appears to be backfiring. Nobody will suffer from this--both men will remain fabulously wealthy and gainfully employed but it’s nice to see that when you screw with the game then sometimes the game will screw with you.

Baseball is a century-plus old institution enjoyed by billions over the decades and few have had the privilege of playing at the highest levels--it is not a playground and piggybank for small minded and greedy men whose time in the game is short.

It’s good that we be reminded of that on occasion.

Best Regards

John

Collusion vs. Deep Throat...

2009-02-03T13:47:00.000-08:00

Probably the biggest hang up folks have in wrapping their minds around a possible collusion of Barry Bonds is the very logical, honest truism of Deep Throat’s “follow the money.” I mean, baseball owners and their $18 million a year commissioner are as money-grubbing as it gets and signing superstar players and winning games, pennant races and playoff series translates into the happy music made by cash registers (or the melodious beep of debit card machines or the seductive swish of the credit card) ergo it raises the question--why would teams jeopardize the revenue that could be potentially generated by signing ol’ Barry L. Zebonds by participating in a collusive blacklisting of Mr. Sunshine and Happiness?

What has to be borne in mind is that money rarely takes a linear path. Bud Selig is a politician and as one he accumulates a lot of political capital through a number of means by getting clubs indebted to him. For example: The Toronto Blue Jays received equalization payments when the Canadian dollar was low and doubtlessly are hoping for more--because of that money they’re going to do Selig’s bidding. In the last decade (or so), he’s gone to bat for a large number of franchises to line up public money for stadium construction, he got the Red Sox and Marlins into his back pocket by engineering the sales of those teams (to the second-highest bidder in the case of the Sawx) and providing loans to the Fish (that became outright cash grants), choosing the group to get the Expos in D.C. (plus the $600+ million stadium there).

Bud is the great dispenser of goodies and because of this clubs could find that it is more financially prudent to stay on the good side of Selig for years to come rather than enjoy the short term benefits of employing you know who. You just never know whether the commissioner’s office will approve a trade that involves a large shift of cash from one team to the other to cover a Boras-inspired impulse purchase contract of which a club is desperately trying to divest itself … sometimes it’s wise to hedge your best and strongly consider any “informal recommendations” made by the man in charge.

For all his faults, Selig is very good at working a room and building up a reserve of goodwill and favour among the cartel. He has accumulated a lot of capital among the clubs (only a small fraction ever becomes public knowledge) and he has the chits to call in--having discretionary control over the Central Fund doesn’t hurt either.

As to Selig, never forget that Bonds is a symbol and think of precisely what he symbolizes to Selig: his failure to address steroids, his friend losing the home run record (I mean, did anyone think in 2001--even after his 73 HR season when he was at 567 HR that he'd hang around long enough to hit almost 200 more? I did my first out and out “players are unquestionably on steroids” column that year and I didn’t think that BLB was a threat to Hank Aaron) having probably never imagined that his lack of diligence would cost “The Hammer” the crown. He wishes to be remembered as the commissioner that rid the sport of steroids and not the one that allowed it to become entrenched--Bonds was a living breathing indictment of Selig’s failure and true legacy and watching his reaction after HR 755 cleared the fence spoke volumes.

It’s personal for Selig and he had accumulated enough clout, political capital and chits owed to indulge his feelings. On a more practical level it also allows him to posture for Congress and how would it look if the poster boy for steroids in baseball was allowed to put the record further out of reach? If the feds became even more involved in the issue it might bring a level of testing and penalties to the sport that would (1) out the ineffectiveness of the current program--Selig’s pride and joy and (2) those severe penalties and more comprehensive testing costing the sport ticket-selling level players and the revenues they provide.

He needs the sport to look steroid-free (as possible) while it was still a hot news item and focus of government attention--for both for his legacy and maintaining the profitable status quo, Bonds is a convenient scapegoat: remove the symbol and the “scourge” follows in the public and media’s eye. He knows the fourth estate will fall in step because of its dislike of ol’ Pumpkinhead and the public image is--get rid of Bonds and you’ve rid the sport of steroids. Just check out the feedback section on articles dealing with Bonds and various message boards--Bonds “is” steroids and as such needed to be exorcised…the media provided necessary “cover fire” for any collusion to take place assuring one and all that “common sense” was simply prevailing as it had in the 1980’s collusion.

This is what makes me think Don Fehr does having something that will prove Bonds was blacklisted--he’s going against popular opinion. Does anybody really miss Bonds among the players, clubs and large segments of the fan base? I don’t miss him, my take on all this is far, far more anti-Selig (just check how many times I have blasted him) than pro-Bonds and I think the whole collusion issue is simply another manifestation of Selig’s attempts to rewrite the history of the steroid era in his favour and if I accomplish nothing else in my writing career I will do my level best to make sure folks know that it was an institutional failure and not just a handful of ‘greedy, self absorbed players with a sense of entitlement.’

That is why I have written so much about it--it has little to do with Bonds for myself personally.

Getting back to Fehr, Bonds pulled out of the union’s licensing program and make no mistake--both he and Gene Orza were livid at him for so doing. Unless he has something significant he wouldn’t even bother with the issue since he’s not on a major league roster (unlike John Rocker back in the day)--Fehr is a cautious man and never moves unless he’s sure the ground is solid under his feet. He has told players in the past that wanted to file a grievance that they had no case (such as Dan Quisenberry‘s release from the Royals back in the 1980‘s) and if Barry Lamar didn’t have a case, I can’t envision a scenario where he’d bother wasting any time on a player nobody really misses and flipped off the MLBPA in effect saying “Who needs you? I’m Barry Bonds and you’re not!”

Another misconception about any possible collusive activity is that all 30 clubs have to be involved. According to the collective bargaining agreement it is simply not the case that all teams need to be involved for a charge of collusion…four or five would be enough; Selig wouldn’t need to worry about every club--the Giants already let him go, not every team had a hole in LF/DH, other teams are known for not making big signings (Royals, Twins, Pittsburgh, Cincinnati and before C.C. Sabathia--the Brewers) so Selig only would have to worry about a minority of clubs yet enough for a collusion charge to be filed.

It’s not crazy for them to understand where their financial best interests lie--one year of Bonds vs. staying on Selig’s good side…especially when they know how strong his feelings are on the matter.

An easy choice--especially if you’re not a club that prints money.

Bottom line, a team can both agree to a conspiracy regarding a player while simultaneously “following the money.”

More Bond-age

People still hate Barry Bonds (SMSN Sports)

Plus, I’ve done a satirical article on the whole Bonds saga for THT that will hopefully run this week. My favourite part is always when the Bonds-haters respond to the article on Ball Hype with a comment that states: “It‘s not funny--it‘s just not” or “You tried to be funny and you failed” or something to that effect. For the folks that truly despise BLB and believe unconditionally everything that is written about him--well, I find it irresistible not to tweak them a little; I mean, they take it so seriously. One person wrote on Ball-Hype that my collusion articles drove him from even visiting THT--think about it, remove me from the equation and THT is a tremendous resource with a cadre of talented writers but this person deprives himself (or claims to) of all that because he despises Bonds so much that he cannot bear to visit a site where there might be something that doesn’t involve venom, vitriol and blanket condemnation of the man.

He’s never met Bonds and likely never will but he allows that hatred to literally impact his personal life; that my friends is why you should never believe everything the media says about anyone or anything--they will make you act crazy.

As to his “ban” of THT--who is he hurting? Me? I’m completely unrepentant and if anything it stiffens my resolve to cover unpopular subjects and provide counterpoint to what is written in the MSM. Bonds? Chances are good that he’d simply laugh at the very notion--the only person affected or harmed is himself.

There is a lesson to be learned from that.

Best Regards

John

Booty and the Beest...

2009-01-31T13:48:00.000-08:00

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…

2009-01-29T14:27:00.000-08:00

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...

2009-01-28T12:59:00.000-08:00

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...

2009-01-28T08:39:00.000-08:00

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...

2009-01-24T14:02:00.000-08:00

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