Mike Trout Declares A Hardline Punishment For PEDs

How many 22-year-old sports commissioners are you aware of? Judges? Lawmakers? Political pundits? Editorialists?

None. That’s how many. This is the inherent problem with giving weight to Angels’ star Mike Trout’s opinion as to what should happen to players who use performance enhancing drugs in baseball. He thinks they should be banned for life. Trout shared his views with Boomer Esiason and Craig Carton yesterday and it made moderate headlines because of his status as the new face of baseball and his emerging greatness. Without Trout being such a huge star, no one would pay attention to what he says. They definitely wouldn’t listen to him if he was just a run-of-the-mill 22-year-old making an uninformed statement without having the education or life experience to back them up.

This has nothing to do with age discrimination, but these are the kinds of things young people say from a position of self-anointed knowledge based on a misplaced, inexperienced view of life. Whether it’s due to the safety of not having many responsibilities; because the bulk of one’s life is still in front of him or her; or having been asked a question that was probably not appropriate to be answered by someone so young, the reply has to be put into the context of the person who’s giving it. Trout is not in a position that other people would be in when coming to a determination of an appropriate punishment.

When a player is this talented, he has a tunneled view of life in how it relates to him. It’s the conceit of youth. Trout was in the majors at 19, an MVP candidate at 20 and a superstar at 21. He seems to think that everyone should do it clean because he’s doing it clean. Life doesn’t work that way though. What Trout is saying that any player who is trying to keep his career, earn a paycheck and do what many others are doing to keep his job should be banished for life. It’s akin to chopping off a thief’s hand for stealing a loaf of bread to feed his family. The punishment doesn’t fit the crime. Players have failed tests due to over-the-counter supplements that they didn’t realize had banned substances in their ingredients. Should they be banned forever? What about a 15-year-old kid from the Dominican Republic who grew up without shoes and used a milk carton as a glove taking a pill not knowing what it is, going only on the advice of a middle-aged white guy telling him that it’ll send him to the big leagues in half the time? Does he get suspended for life?

When Trout is 30, then maybe he’ll understand that he’s not going to have all the energy in the world to play 162 games, run hard on every play and do things that most players only dream about and still be able to live the off-field life of a guy just out of his teens. Perhaps he’ll have an injury someday—someday soon—that makes him realize that his gifts are extremely fragile and they can be taken away in an instant. Then he might be willing to do whatever is necessary to get back on the field and perform.

Trout is still waiting for his mega contract. He’s making $510,000 this season. It’s a lot of money for anyone, especially a guy who’s 22. As far as athletes go, it’s not a lot of money. When factoring in his production, it’s nothing. As long as he stays healthy, he’ll get a $250-300 million contract when his free agency comes up. Trout received a significant bonus of $1.215 million when he was drafted by the Angels. Not every player can say that. Not every player has Trout’s abilities. It’s not a simplistic situation where there should be an across the line penalty regardless of the circumstances and that penalty certainly shouldn’t be decided upon by a guy who’s in his second full year in the big leagues, no matter how great he is.

Share|

//

Red Sox and Yankees: Early Season Notes

Boston Red Sox

There haven’t been any glaring John Farrell managerial mistakes as of yet. He’s pretty much gone by the book. They’re over .500 and the main concern is Joel Hanrahan’s poor start and now hamstring injury.

What’s been prominent with the Red Sox has been the continuing talk amongst the media about what a better atmosphere there is in the clubhouse with the new faces they’ve brought in. Positivity has to lead to wins and whether that occurs over the course of a long season with the Red Sox remains to be seen. Their positive attitude won’t amount to much if they’re under .500 at mid-season. There’s a media-created desperation to bolster the Red Sox into the behemoth they were five years ago and that’s not going to happen, especially with this roster and that manager.

The latest hype is the attempted credit given to GM Ben Cherington for the acquisitions he made in last August’s salary dumping trade with the Dodgers. Rubby De La Rosa and Allen Webster are receiving most of the attention for their arms. In realistic context, it’s not like the Dodgers were doing the Red Sox a favor by taking a load of money off their ledger. Josh Beckett was a “get this guy outta here” trade and Carl Crawford was hurt, but Adrian Gonzalez was acquired from the Padres for three of the Red Sox top prospects a year-and-a-half earlier and is a star in his prime. If you’re trading him, you’d better get some good prospects for him and not just add him as the X in the deal as a, “if you want X, you’d better take Y.”

New York Yankees

The Yankees have treaded water with Mark Teixeira, Curtis Granderson and Derek Jeter all out. Andy Pettitte’s been great, but now he’s having a start pushed back due to back spasms, thus dampening Mike Francesa’s elementary school enthusiasm that Pettitte could pitch forever and ever and ever as if he was trapped in the Francesa Overlook Hotel in which he’s overlooking Pettitte’s age and injury history.

They’ve gotten hot starts from newcomers Kevin Youkilis, Vernon Wells and Travis Hafner. The pitching, that was supposed to be a strong suit, has been bad behind Pettitte and CC Sabathia. The season will hinge on whether the new additions can maintain some level of production and the injured players return ready to contribute.

There are sudden concerns about Ichiro Suzuki’s slow start which shouldn’t be concerns at all—they should’ve been expected. He hit .322 as a Yankee last season and had a BAbip of .337. In 2013, he’s hitting .176 with a .167 BAbip (and no, I don’t have it backwards; his BAbip is really lower than his batting average). Ichiro’s success is contingent on his soft line drives and ground balls dropping in and finding holes. If they’re not doing either, he’s not going have numbers that appear to be productive.

—

Check out my appearance on Donn Paris’s Seamheads Podcast from yesterday here. We discussed the Angels, Astros, Mike Scioscia, the Red Sox, Yankees, Jeff Luhnow, player development, the draft and much more.

—

Essays, predictions, player analysis, under the radar fantasy picks, breakout candidates, contract status of all relevant personnel—GMs, managers, players—and anything else you could possibly want to know is in my new book Paul Lebowitz’s 2013 Baseball Guide now available on Amazon.com, Smashwords, BN and Lulu. Check it out and read a sample.

Share|

//

Link to Radio Appearance On Breakin’ the Norm

My recent appearance with Les Norman on Breakin’ the Norm is now available to listen to via podcast on Les’s site here.

Miraculously (or not) I wound up being right about Mike Napoli winding up with the Red Sox. We discussed other goings on in Boston, the Blue Jays trade with the Marlins for Josh Johnson, Jose Reyes, et al., the Marlins mess, the Mets, Zack Greinke, the Angels, free agents, trades and much more. Click on the link and check it out.

Share|

//

Being Bobby Valentine

As I’m sure you’re aware, Red Sox manager Bobby Valentine had a newsworthy interview on The Big Show with Glenn Ordway and Michael Holley on radio station WEEI. You can listen to it here.

This concisely sums up Valentine’s tenure as Red Sox manager. Valentine came on the line and asked whom he was talking to. The reply—I believe from Glenn—came in a derisive tone referencing Valentine’s weekly appearance on ESPN New York with Michael Kay as if the very idea of appearing on a New York based radio show with an unabashed Yankee-lover like Kay was a transgression in and of itself and an insult to the people of Boston.

Valentine was asked if he’d checked out on the season and Valentine replied by saying that if he was in the room, he’d punch Glenn in the mouth. Then he laughed loudly and somewhat ludicrously. It was over-the-top. He was kidding with an implied, “Wanna see how serious I am? I’ll punch you!” It wasn’t funny, but that was the intent. He wasn’t going to punch anyone.

At the mentioning of Valentine showing up late for a game against the Athletics in Oakland, Valentine got truly and legitimately angry—understandably. He wasn’t late. He got to the park at around 4 PM. The game was due to start at 7:05 PM. The reason he was late? His 29-year-old son hadn’t seen him manage all season long and was coming in to the Bay Area for a visit. The flight was late due to the fog in San Francisco and Valentine got stuck in traffic. That’s why he was at the park “late” when he really wasn’t late. But the intimation was that Valentine showed up late because he doesn’t care; because he wants out as Red Sox manager. Valentine then demanded to know who said that he was late. The hosts looked it up and found that Nick Cafardo and Sean McAdam, among other unnamed people, had reported it. Repeatedly Valentine referenced Rays’ manager Joe Maddon’s preferred time of arrival as 4:00 for every night game. Valentine said he’d talk to Cafardo when he saw him. I doubt he’s going to punch him in the mouth.

When asked about his meeting with Red Sox owner John Henry and GM Ben Cherington when both flew to Seattle to see Valentine (stoking speculation that the manager was about to be fired), Valentine tried to make a joke out of it saying that there was no brown sugar for his oatmeal and Henry’s ham was overcooked. It was cringeworthy in a way similar to Valentine’s famous “stoned” dance while he was managing the Mets and imitated a hitter trying to bat while high. But he was kidding. Was there a bit of sniping under the joke? Possibly. But this is Valentine we’re talking about. Everything he says drips with condescension. Some of it is unintentional. (I think.)

When asked a question from a fan as to whether he regretted coming back. He said no, but admitted that this season has been miserable. What was he supposed to say? That he’s had a ball with the team underperforming, the players trying to get him fired, the press baiting him, and having his reputation destroyed in large part because of a mess that was present and unfixable when he arrived?

At least he was honest. The season has been miserable. Had he said anything different, he’d have sounded like a delusional fool.

After that, he brought up the accusation of having been late again. That really bothered him.

Was this as big a deal as it’s being made out to be? No. This is a microcosm of what’s gone wrong with Valentine and the Red Sox from day 1. He wasn’t the choice of the GM; he was taking over a dreadful situation that no manager would’ve been able to navigate successfully; the media was waiting for him to trip up and trying to trip him up; it took him time to get back into the swing of big league managing after not having done it for 10 years and not having been in the American League for 20; and he’s Bobby Valentine. Being Bobby Valentine invites madness in and of itself.

As a polarizing figure, the only way for Valentine to succeed in 2012 was if the Red Sox were 100% healthy; if the players who were responsible for the 2011 collapse took responsibility for what went wrong; and if they got off to a good start to wash away the bad taste permeating the organization inside and out since last season.

None of that happened. It got worse and worse and it’s come to this. Valentine didn’t threaten anyone, nor was the interview something to treat as a headline story. It was awkward. That’s all.

But that doesn’t really matter, does it? At first when Valentine took over the Red Sox, they were a disaster. Now they’re still a disaster, but it’s a lawless land where the story isn’t the club, but the endless stream of controversies. Until the manager is gone, it’s not going to stop. The managerial death watch is on and there won’t be a reprieve. He’s not innocent, but he’s not exactly guilty either.

Share|

//

Mike Francesa’s Rant Against Twitter (With Video)

Mike Francesa went on a semi-rant about Twitter a few days ago. The clip is below. In short, he’s against the concept.

Given the amount of ridicule Francesa receives on social media and that Twitter is specifically built for the quick witticism and has limited oversight, it’s understandable that he wouldn’t want to partake and, as he put it, wishes it never happened.

Francesa, like most old-school guys would prefer to go back to the late-1950s and a Pax Americana (basically peace on American terms in a Superman “truth, justice and the American way” concept). He openly pines for the long-lost hero of his youth, Mickey Mantle; reminisces about the days in which pitchers would throw at hitters’ heads; and wants reinstitution of the walls that separated people in sports from the common masses.

Part of it is absolute nostalgia and part of it is the marginalization of those who do what he does. Sports commentary was far easier on the commentator in the days of Dick Young, Jimmy Cannon and Tim Cohane when their views were in the newspaper and there were no 24-hour sports talk stations; no ESPN; no MLB package where every game could be watched; and the viewer wasn’t relying on the recaps of the writers and play-by-play of the broadcasters to know what was happening.

Obviously it makes his job harder when he says something totally ignorant like “I don’t know how much Andrew McCutchen is gonna hit” as if McCutchen is a sprinter placed in a uniform as Renaldo Nehemiah was by Bill Walsh of the San Francisco 49ers. The more the listener knows, the harder a Francesa-type has to work to make sure he’s being factual or, at least, logical.

On some level, I empathize with Francesa. For him to have worked his way up to where he is now—and he did work hard to get where he is now, like him or not—it must be draining to have to interact with people who’ve never picked up a baseball and decided that reading a stat sheet and understanding basic concepts of sabermetrics made them a baseball “expert”.

But he also has to realize that he’s benefited from this new technology. Francesa is known worldwide because of the YES Network simulcast; because of the ability to listen to his show via the web; because of social media sites like Facebook, LinkedIn and yes, Twitter.

Like anything else, it has its drawbacks but there’s nothing that can be done to stop it and complaining about it because of the negatives doesn’t make it worthless. You get out what you put in. Short-term attention grabs are exactly that: short-term. Working to gain and maintain an audience isn’t about splashy statements that may or may not be true or boring ruminations about one’s day, but about providing interesting content. The new mediums are making Francesa have to work harder. And that might be the underlying problem.

Share|

//

The Truth About the Drafts—NFL and MLB

New York football Giants’ GM Jerry Reese was a guest with Mike Francesa yesterday to discuss his team’s haul in the NFL draft a week ago.

You can listen to the interview here.

Reese has won two Super Bowls and is the top football man of one of the most organized and serious front offices in the profession. During the interview, when discussing the media’s and public’s analysis of players and the draft, Reese said something very simple, highly intelligent and laser precise enough to stick a pin in the enormous and bloated egos of those who think they’re more qualified to assess, analyze, advise and criticize the players that are taken in any draft than those who are making the picks.

Well, I just think that there’s so many draft shows and people talk about draft picks and people don’t do it professionally for a job. We have guys who do it for a living. And the guys who don’t go to all the ballgames and scout them like we do here, I think there can be some misinformation.

He was speaking from his position running the Giants, but it applies to all drafts. My focus is on the NFL draft and the MLB draft.

The NFL draft has long been an extravaganza with a phalanx of armchair experts anointed credibility in a circular exercise without end. It’s easy to sit on the sidelines—with no responsibility—and say anything. Occasionally you’ll be right; occasionally you’ll be wrong; but without a career or job on the line, what difference does it make? All that’s necessary are a forum, the buzzwords and an audience.

I say this having great admiration for what a true NFL draftnik like Mel Kiper Jr. has been able to do in creating a niche for himself where there wasn’t one before. He worked very hard to get where he is and has made a lot of money doing what he loves.

That said, is anyone going to notice if Kiper says that he’d choose X player over Y player and Y player turns into a star? Probably. But is he going to lose his job? No.

Because the mandate of the draft analysts on ESPN, NFL Network, MLB and other outlets is to stimulate debate, disagree and draw attention to what they’re saying, there’s no reason to take it seriously.

If the mock drafts pop up and the repeated changes, “raging debates” and “eureka” discoveries as to why the “experts” are changing their minds isn’t based on any new information, what’s the point? We’re oversaturated with information as it is. It’s designed to attract webhits, ratings, attention and to sell draft guides. From higher ratings come more advertising dollars. If you know this going in and still partake for the theater, fine; if you don’t, then you’re being treated as and acting like a mindless sheep.

I could get my hands on a reputable website with the list of the top 30 potential picks in the NFL and MLB drafts, pick one and formulate a roundabout explanation as to why I did it without actually saying anything and there would be 1000 people saying it’s brilliant and another 1000 saying it’s idiotic.

Jon Gruden was savaged on Twitter for his negativity about drafted players. Said savagery was uttered by people who have no credentials to be critiquing someone like Gruden who is a Super Bowl winning coach, has extensive experience and would have another coaching job almost immediately if he chose to leave the broadcast booth.

Are you more credible than Jon Gruden? Is some guy on Twitter?

With the number of NFL players who were late-bloomers (Rich Gannon); lower round draft choices who found themselves in an advantageous system and circumstances (Joe Montana; Tom Brady); journeyman free agents who wouldn’t give up (Kurt Warner); or foundlings (Victor Cruz), and the number of top 3 pick busts (Ryan Leaf, Tony Mandarich, Blair Thomas), it’s not a science. Top NFL people are going to hit and miss.

So where does that leave Twitter-guy? Guy with a draft book and a dream? Radio man? Mel Kiper Jr.?

MLB former top picks in the draft are no more of a guarantee of success on the field or intelligence off the field. Just last week, former first overall pick Delmon Young was arrested for a fight outside a New York hotel that was classified as a hate crime because he, in a drunken state, made anti-Semitic references to the people he was fighting with.

In hindsight, Young hasn’t been a player worthy of the top pick in the draft either.

Anointed megastar Bryce Harper was caught in a viral video playing softball in a Washington DC park. What would’ve happened if Harper, trying to impress the people he was playing with, swung too hard and awkwardly and tore his shoulder in a softball game?

The video is below. It’s evidence.

Brien Taylor got into a fight and destroyed his shoulder.

Scouts were split on whether to select Ken Griffey Jr. first overall or a player named Mark Merchant. Mike Piazza was drafted in the 62nd round as a favor to his godfather Tommy Lasorda. James Shields was a 16th round pick. Albert Pujols was a 13th round pick. Jose Bautista was a 20th round journeyman who hopped from one organization to another before getting a chance to play with the Blue Jays—who almost released him.

The Reese quote basically says that if a talking head on TV gets a pick wrong, he’s still going to be a talking head on TV the next year and five years after that. If Jerry Reese gets it wrong, he might survive in his job for a year or two, but five years of mistakes and he’s out of a job and possibly out of football entirely.

It’s their living.

If you’re suggesting that you know more than they do and have on the line what they have on the line, here’s a flash: you don’t.

It’s even worse if you say you do.

Because you don’t. And won’t.

Share|

//

Radio Appearances and International Disarray

Terry Francona went on Michael Kay’s ESPN radio show in an apparent attempt to do some damage control to repair his fading image as the innocent bystander in the Red Sox’ 2011 collapse and only succeeded in making things worse.

You can read about the appearance here on ESPN.com.

In the piece, it’s revealed that—shocker!!—Francona is working on a book with none other than reporter Dan Shaughnessy who also happened to pen the piece in which Francona aired his reasons for not attending the 100th anniversary celebration to commemorate Fenway Park.

I’m not sure which upcoming book is going to fire more vendetta-tinged salvos, Francona’s or Tony LaRussa’s.

For someone who’s viewed positively throughout baseball for his good guy persona, Francona is doing his best Gary Sheffield impersonation.

Those who remember Sheffield know that whenever a reporter needed a hot story, all he had to do was walk over to Sheffield and ask him about something that he’d insisted he wasn’t going to talk about. Sheffield would invariably reiterate that stance…then go into a long-winded rant about precisely what he said he wasn’t going to discuss. Sheffield’s reputation made it easy to dismiss his complaints whether they were valid or not. Francona’s the opposite.

Francona backtracked on his decision to go public with his gripes and then snatched Kay’s bait like a starving shark.

Here’s a clip from the above-linked ESPN article:

Kay also asked the question many around Boston have been wondering: “As you sit back on Thursday, April 12, and the Red Sox are 1-5, is there a part of you that’s absolutely elated?”

Francona laughed at first, but then said: “I wouldn’t say elated. I know what you mean, though. You know, everybody has human emotions … there are so many people there that I’ve gone through so many things with, that I care so much about. You know, somebody asked me yesterday and I said ‘I hope (Dustin) Pedroia hits 1.000 and I hope (Jon) Lester wins every game.’ … At the same time, I recognize the way things ended there didn’t make me very happy. And actually really hurt me. And I’m aware of that also. So, you try to balance it a little bit. But being vindictive is not a good way to go through life. And I hope I’m not that way.”

No, the Red Sox are not playing well. Yes, it’s natural for Francona to feel a certain amount of satisfaction that they’re going poorly without him. But this looks and sounds bad because it is bad in perception and practice.

Would the Red Sox be better with Francona? If Francona had stayed, Theo Epstein was going to stay as well, so the construction of the club would be radically different. We don’t know what they’d look like with a different GM and manager, who would and wouldn’t be on the team.

It’s a question that can’t be answered.

What he’s doing is distracting and unfair to the club that gave him an opportunity that other teams weren’t prepared to give him in a situation that was ready-made to win immediately.

It’s clearly intentional payback.

Regardless of how it ended with the Red Sox, Francona’s in a far better position now with a lot more money in the bank and industry-wide respect that wasn’t there when he was fired by the Phillies after a four-year tenure of 285-363.

He wasn’t hired by the Red Sox because they were expecting the reincarnation of Connie Mack. He was hired by the Red Sox because the Red Sox were trying to get Curt Schilling to agree to a trade to Boston and Francona was an agreeable choice to the pitcher; Francona was willing to take short money for the opportunity; and he would do what Grady Little didn’t do—take orders from the front office.

This labeling of Francona being a “great” manager is directly connected to the results he achieved. That Red Sox team in 2004 was very good and it wasn’t his mere presence that was the final piece in the championship puzzle. They would’ve been good with or without Francona.

The Red Sox have earned the right to celebrate their ballpark and try to right the ship on the field. Francona’s gloating makes him look petty and babyish and won’t be lost on any club that considers hiring him as their manager in the future. He may feel safe in his new broadcasting job and is trying to retaliate for the shoddy manner in which he was treated when the Red Sox let him go, but he’s making himself look terrible and it’s casting the Red Sox in a far more sympathetic light than they were in before.

Francona needs to shut up.

Period.

—

On another Red Sox-related note, the football club their ownership purchased that was supposedly siphoning money away from the Red Sox—Liverpool FC—has made their own change at the top. This clip is from the NY Times:

Liverpool dismissed its director of football, Damien Comolli, after criticism of his transfer strategy since he was hired 16 months ago. Liverpool has spent $183 million on players since Comolli joined the club, but expensive recruits like Andy Carroll, Jordan Henderson and Stewart Downing have failed to impress.

You can read analysis of this maneuver here.

Is Comolli going to go on Kay’s show? Will he write a book?

The mess has gone international and it shows no signs of abating any time soon.

Share|

//

With Bailey Out, Bard May Wind Up Closing

Red Sox intended closer Andrew Bailey’s thumb surgery is set to cost him a large chunk of the season.

The Red Sox didn’t give up a ton to get Bailey and the decision to let Jonathan Papelbon go and replace him with someone younger and cheaper was one of the few things the club did this past winter that was in line with their original organizational theory hatched during the early years of Theo Epstein’s tenure: don’t overpay for saves.

That led to the hackneyed “bullpen by committee” in 2003 which likely cost them the World Series; and they were set to do it again in 2007 before Papelbon went to management and asked to be placed back in the bullpen.

But they altered the plot when they signed Keith Foulke for 2004 and left Papelbon where he belonged in 2007—in the bullpen.

The Red Sox won the World Series in both cases.

There’s a similar dynamic now with Daniel Bard.

They’re not identical, but similar.

Papelbon was being given an audition as a starter in the spring of 2007 and the Red Sox didn’t bother to go out and get a legitimate closer in the previous off-season so the hovering question was: if not Papelbon, then who?

Papelbon had saved 35 games as a rookie in 2006, so the Red Sox knew he could do it; Bard has struggled in his few auditions as a replacement closer and is now being tried as a starter in the face of organizational debate as to what his role should be.

In 2007, the Red Sox had the starting pitching depth to shift Papelbon back to the bullpen; now they can’t say the same with Bard.

They need him as a starter and they kindasorta have someone who’s closed before with Mark Melancon.

But a team with championship aspirations and two highly inexperienced starting pitchers in Bard and Felix Doubront backing their rotation shouldn’t feel comfortable with their circumstances.

It’s either keep Bard in the rotation and try Melancon as the closer for awhile to see what happens or move Bard to the bullpen, use Alfredo Aceves, Aaron Cook, Vicente Padilla and/or wait until Daisuke Matsuzaka comes back.

There have been renewed entreaties for the Red Sox to sign Roy Oswalt, but Oswalt’s not going to be ready to go until May and by then the team should have a gauge on where they are in the standings, on the field, with who they have and what they need.

Bard didn’t pitch particularly well as a starter in the spring and with the aforementioned wonderment as to his optimal role, there’s a chance that he could make a start or two in the regular season and be sent back to the bullpen to close.

The options are not dazzling, but the Red Sox may not have much of a choice.

Share|

//

The Votto/Cain Contract Extensions

All winter long we heard two consistent storylines regarding Joey Votto and Matt Cain. Votto, due to be a free agent after 2013, was going to cost $200+ million and the Reds wouldn’t be able to keep him. Cain was a free agent after 2012 and the Giants’ finances were tight enough that they might not be able to retain him and other key players.

Suggestions were made that the Reds trade Votto. GM Walt Jocketty said he wasn’t trading Votto; wasn’t interested in trading Votto; wasn’t listening to offers on Votto.

But it went on and on.

The most ludicrous suggestion came from Dave Cameron who wanted the Reds to trade Votto and Yasmani Grandal to the Mariners for a package that included Michael Pineda, Brandon League and Chone Figgins.

I said at the time that the only thing the Mariners could do to get Jocketty to accept that package for Votto is to put a gun to his head.

There were other trade scenarios for Votto presented in print and online; this in spite of Jocketty’s increasingly flustered protestations that he had zero interest in moving his star first baseman.

Now Votto is close to an extension and, at age 28, has a better chance to be productive and healthy for the duration of the contract than the other two first basemen who signed similar deals—Prince Fielder and Albert Pujols.

Votto is in better shape than Fielder and younger than Pujols; he hits the ball out of the park, puts up huge on-base numbers, is a good fielder and can run.

The Giants were facing the reality of having to pay Cain after this season and then pay Tim Lincecum after next season—a daunting prospect.

But they signed Cain today and his agreement—said to guarantee $127.5 million over 5 years—is for less than what he’d get if he were to go out on the free agent market.

The salary and length are reasonable in comparison to what other pitchers are getting. CC Sabathia, at age 31, signed a 5-year extension with the Yankees that guarantees him $122 million; Cliff Lee, at age 32, signed a 5-year, $120 million contract with the Phillies.

Cain is 27 and has pitched at least 190 innings in each of his six full big league seasons and 217+ in each of the past four.

His won/lost record is an unimpressive 69-73, but getting past the most simplistic of simplistic numbers, he’s one of the best pitchers in baseball whose results—low ERAs, home run numbers and hits allowed—are not a creation of a pitcher-friendly home park. If he were pitching for a team that scored in bunches, he’d have a gaudy won/lost record.

He’s big, durable and tough.

In a team sense, the Giants were staring at either keeping Cain and trying to keep Lincecum; keeping one and letting the other one leave; letting either/or leave and then replacing him with someone who’s not going to be anywhere near as good and probably not all that much cheaper; or trying to alter the template from what they’ve been a successful with over the past several years by seeking run producing bats to replace the departed arms.

Like all long-term contracts, of course there’s a possibility of injury; but with these two players, it’s not as glaring because of their history. Team circumstances were going to be worse if they traded them or let them leave.

The Giants and Reds shunned the supposed wisdom from the self-proclaimed experts and did the right thing by keeping their star players.

Share|

//

Jimenez vs Tulo

Did Troy Tulowitzki deserve to get hit by Ubaldo Jimenez yesterday?

Whether he did or didn’t, spring training and the first pitch Jimenez threw to him were completely inappropriate circumstances in which to do it.

What if the ball had broken Tulowitzki’s hand or wrist? Or worse, hit him in the head or face?

Was Jimenez’s form of field justice worth the punishment of threatening Tulowitzki’s and the Rockies’ season? Possibly his career?

There are times when a pitcher has to throw at a hitter and if he happens to get hurt and miss a few games, so be it.

Whether it’s to send a message and retaliate or for any other viable reason, it has to be done.

Like it or not, it’s a necessary part of the game.

But Jimenez’s actions with Tulowitzki did little more than validate the implication by Tulowitzki and other Rockies’ players that Jimenez has immature tendencies and is still harboring bitterness toward his erstwhile club—so much bitterness that he decided to overtly throw at their best player without pretense or a half-hearted attempt to mask what he was doing. That he charged Tulowitzki, went into over the top chest thumping and challenged him to a fight only adds to the evidence of Jimenez’s intent.

You can read about the incident here in a story from the Denver Post.

Tulowitzki and Jimenez had gone back and forth in the media this spring. The case can be made that the Indians should’ve thought twice about pitching Jimenez against the Rockies. Since Bud Selig was in attendance, Jimenez is going to get suspended.

If Jimenez was so offended by the way the Rockies treated him and was unhappy about the comments made by former teammates, the Indians had to know about it, so the Indians are also at fault.

Jimenez let the macho, “I’m a man” nonsense cloud his judgment and perception of what was an appropriate response to the Rockies.

If Jimenez was out to prove a point, he managed to do it, but it wasn’t the point he wanted to prove.

All he did was tear down the ambiguity as to which side was right and which was wrong in the sniping that has been aired since Jimenez was traded. The maturity issues and selfishness exemplified in yesterday’s planning, acting and aftermath are large factors in the Jimenez trade and why the perceived “offensive” comments were stated by the Rockies’ players in the first place.

Share|

//