A Birthday Visit from JR

Hey Ryan, it's your old buddy Jeremy Roenick here. A little birdie told me it was your birthday today. I want it to be a good one, so I have some ideas on how to celebrate like a champion. For example, here's what I did on my birthday last year:




First, I kicked the hot Swedish chicks out of bed. They're nice, but they can get clingy at times. Then I wiped the eyeliner and mascara off my face (to this day I don't know what happened that night, but I'm sure it was pretty wild.) After a big-ass breakfast, I called up Joe Thornton. He won't admit it, but Big Joe misses JR Time a LOT. Then I called up Daniel Carcillo, but he hung up on me. What a jerk. 


After the calls, I played a little NHL94 and made Gretzky's head bleed, because that's always fun. And "Swingers" was such a great movie. Oh well. I went on the patio, grilled some steaks and drank a lot of beer (but since you're from Minnesota, you may want to skip this step, since I think you would burst into flames upon contact with the sun.) 


It gets a bit fuzzy after that, but I know the Swedish girls came back and we had a golf cart. Then there was an awful lot of tequila...you know, screw it. Here are some tits to look at:

Happy Birthday! Your buddy, JR. P.S.: Say hi to your mom for me.

Makin' a list, checkin' it twice

You’re on a sports blog. Can I presume every single one of you knows that in 2003, Major League baseball gave steroids tests to all teams’ 40-man rosters? All results were confidential, and if very few players were caught, MLB would not have instituted random drug testing. Unsurprisingly, but sadly, 103 players returned positive results. Random drug testing was instituted, and a handful of players have been caught. (Does anyone think the players are taking less steroids? Not really. It’s presumed they’re taking steroids that are undectable/untestable.) The tests were supposed to be confidential. However, once the government got involved with the steroids issue, things started going awry.

Slowly, the names have been leaking out. There was Alex Rodriguez. Recently David Ortiz and Manny Ramirez were named as allegedly being on the list.

There are 30 teams in baseball. The 40-man rosters are the 25 Major League players and 15 protected players—presumed to be the most likely to make the majors sooner (as opposed to far in the future or never). That’s 1,200 players.

There is grumbling about these names being leaked. The tests were confidential, so I was in favor of leaving them that way (I mean, as a fan of the game and a believer in the purity of the sport, I want to know who’s ruining it, but as a fan of fair play, they players were promised confidentiality, so I accepted that as the right thing). Now that a few names have been leaked, I think it’s time to release the full list of names.

Part of me wants to know, because I’m curious, but part of me really doesn’t want to know because it will be sad.

103 people means 2 ½ teams, if the incidents were limited to teams. That’s equivalent to four major league teams. While it wouldn’t surprise me to find that some teams end up with higher representation than others (I’m not speculating here: Clumping is part of statistics), I would guess no team was entirely untouched—as much as we might think our home teams were “clean”, they weren’t. I think seeing the names on a list will help fans understand how wide-spread the problem is. Once we see how wide-spread it is, the sooner the big-named players who are implicated can get on with playing baseball, and the sooner we can get over this era in baseball. At first, Alex Rodriguez was out there by himself. Now Manny and Ortiz are joining him.

This doesn’t make me accept what they did any better. Just because all your friends jumped off bridges doesn’t mean that your Mom won’t be upset when you do it, too.

The implicated players will have an uphill climb to gain the respect of fans again, but perhaps that’s how it should be. They were doing something illegal, and likely gained some benefit from it (even though we’ll probably find a fair share of steroid users who were busts or mediocre players—those who were led to steroids to give them an edge where they didn’t have the ability). They need to face the consequences.

Speaking of that, where should these guys sit in the book of records? I’m not sure. There was a time before 2003 where players may have taken steroids but not been caught, because not everyone was tested. If you don’t admit it, and weren’t caught, no one will know. How far back was it a problem? No one knows. I think we’re going to have to leave the lists where they are. Anyone who really cares will look at history and see Sosa, Bonds, and McGwire’s names listed in the steroid scandal, and look back and find Roger Maris. Babe Ruth has been ousted in his home run hitting records by many people, and we still remember him. The steroids era happened. We can’t completely cleanse it from baseball. We simply need to leave it behind, as the black mark in history.

Give us the names. Let us grieve over the lost innocence of the sport. We will learn to accept the past, and move forward with the—hopefully clean—future.

For those of you a little hungry, head on down to the new stadium of the Dallas Cowboy’s, where you can get a pizza for the incredibly low price of $90! Hurry! Offer is limited to those with a luxury box, which is a bargain at $800,000 not including tickets.!

Sometimes life isn’t fair…and sometimes it is

I don’t know if Roger Clemens did steroids. Just like I don’t know if OJ Simpson killed his ex-wife or if Barry Bonds did steroids. There’s evidence, but from my following of the cases (not in-depth) there’s not enough. It’s frustrating, but it’s the way our legal system rightfully works. We’re innocent until proven guilty, as a precaution against innocent people who were in the wrong spot at the wrong time paying for a crime they could’ve committed, but didn’t. So, I don’t know that Roger Clemens used steroids; I just think he did. And I’m not alone.

Roger Clemens was “snubbed” by the Yankees in their final tribute to Yankee Stadium--did you know that the Yankees are moving to a new stadium, and that this year was the last year they’d play in this stadium? In July, the All Star Game was at Yankee Stadium for the last time ever. It’s true! I digress.

For the final celebration, the Yankees invited back so many of their people from the years past. Joe Torre wasn’t there, but that could be written off because he’s busy managing a team in contention for the playoffs. Roger Clemens wasn’t there, and, reportedly, he was heartbroken. The Yankees were afraid the boos over his behavior in regards to the steroids issue would put a damper on what should be a celebrated day.

I’m sure Clemens wanted to be there. And he could’ve been, in either of two ways: he could’ve admitted to steroids, or at least admitted to relationships with people who took steroids. He may be innocent of steroid abuse, but he certainly has taken a childish way of denying it, and has had a disaster of publish relations recently beyond the steroids (although, to be fair, I doubt you could find a single baseball player who hasn’t had at least one affair). Chuck Knoblach, Andy Pettite, and Jason Giambi were all acknowledged at Yankee Stadium, despite their imperfect past. All three of them admitted, and apologized for, their steroid use.

What happened is that Clemens allegedly did something wrong, and is paying for his crime. His superstar status did let him completely get away with the crime (if one was committed). It sucks, yes. But it’s part of life. Sometimes, life is fair.

Clemens may be innocent, and a victim of being in the wrong place. However, even if he didn’t actually use steroids, he was near them, and he should’ve been up-front about that. Even if he chose not to use them, his wife did, so he had a working relationship with a provider.

If Clemens is found to be a victim of bad circumstances, I only hope the Yankees apologize. But this much is a lesson: be careful with whom you associate. By your wife taking steroids, it makes people much more suspicious of your behavior.

By the way, Roger. You could’ve been at Yankee Stadium for that last game. No one was stopping you from buying a ticket and attending. I’m sure that tickets were hard to find. You made a lot of money in your career; you could’ve found someone willing to sell the ticket for an unreasonably high price.

Not to get political, but with $700 billion bailout of the finance industry, you could take that money and pay every member of every team’s 40-man roster--plus 15 other people on each team--career salaries of A-Rod. Now that’s a lot of money.

The best hitters fail 7 out of 10 times

We’ve all heard the saying that the best hitters in baseball fail seven out of ten times. I’d like to take a moment to discuss failure.

That 30% success ratio is wrong. Chipper Jones of the Atlanta Braves has a .365 batting average. Rounding properly, he’d be closer to four out of ten than three out of ten. And when you consider the number of walks (and hit-by-pitches), that number--the on-base percentage (OBP)--is up to .467--closer to five out of ten than four out of ten. And when you consider that OBP includes sacrifice flies (but not sacrifice bunts) as a valid plate appearance where the player doesn’t get on base--thus fails--and that Chipper Jones has four sacrifice flies. Well, he’s closer to succeeding 50% of the time than 30% of the time. (The American league leader is Minnesota Twins catcher Joe Mauer at .413.)

Also, there are “sacrifice plays” that aren’t officially sacrifices. If your team has a guy on second base, and you’re at the plate, you want to hit the ball to the first base side of the field--the runner has a better chance of advancing than if you hit it between second base and third base. If you ground out to second (a 4-3 play), the runner usually advances. Technically, the result is the same as the guy who lays a bunt down the third base line--you’re out, but the runner is on third base. However, the guy that laid down the bunt doesn’t get charged with an at-bat--either for batting average or on-base percentage. It seems unfair, but the guy laying down a sacrifice bunt is only hoping he’ll reach base, but accepts the fact that he’ll probably be out. The guy grounding out to second had no intention of being out; he was just insisting that his hit was towards right field. (I really can’t comprehend how guys can choose where to hit. Then again, I can’t comprehend how they can hit the ball three out of ten times. I consider myself lucky if I get a hit three out of one thousand times…)

Hitters are allowed to fail. That doesn’t mean that we’re all okay if we only do well 40% of the time--or are average if we do well 30% of the time. The “three out of ten” only applies to one position in the American League: the DH. If a team had an outfielder that only caught three out of ten fly balls, well, you’d have a problem. Imagine if a shortstop only fielded three out of ten ground balls that came his way. If a guy on a team has a fielding percentage under .900, it probably means he’s had limited opportunities, and made an error. Most people would be happy with a success rate in life of over 90%.

Moving along, pitchers aren’t happy if they’re only succeeding 60% of the time--that is, allowing 40% of their base-runners on base. Of course, they usually hover around allowing 35% of base runners to reach base, so about a 65% rate of success. Also, it’s considered ideal to throw two strikes to every ball, or a 67% rate. Those numbers might not scream success in the real world, but still better than the old adage of 30%.

The reality is, succeeding 30% of the time depends on what you’re doing. If you’re hitting home runs in 30% of your at-bats…feel free to play for my teams! But in general, 30% isn’t good enough.

Wow. This guy clearly blew a call--like Jeff Kellogg did last night calling Twins third baseman Brendan Harris out at second base--but owned up to it. Of course, the NFL actually punished him for his poor call, which really did cost his team the game. Did Kellogg’s call cost the Twins the game? There’s no way of knowing.

Breaking the Bats and the Spirit

There are so many technological advances in the world. Baseball bats were being broken so often, parents couldn’t afford them for their kids, so aluminum bats were invented. Then the problem came: the ball hit off the bat so much harder and faster, kids were getting injured on line-drives (mostly the vulnerable pitchers).

People argued about what should be done. Obviously, parents wouldn’t be able to afford new bats when their children broke them. Wood bats can cost well over $100 each. And yet, the aluminum bats were putting their children at risk of serious injury.

With all the technology, I’ve always wondered why scientists hadn’t found a metal bat that wasn’t’ quite as responsive as the present ones—metal bats that more mimicked wood bats. It seemed like a good solution: safer for the children, but also not overwhelming for parents. The cheaper a sport is, the easier it is for parents to let their children play. (For example, hockey and football require safety equipment, some parents are forced to keep their children from playing.)

Someone, however, has approached the solution differently. Rather than coming up with a new metal bat, Ward Dill came up with a new way to make wood bats. The bats are made of wedges of wood, glued under pressure, and are guaranteed for a year. The bats act like wood bats because they are wood bats. And, they won’t shatter like many wooden bats, which are also a danger.

I strongly hope that non-professional players adopt these new bats—and whatever else scientists come up with to improve conditions for cost-effectiveness and safety for those playing. (Admittedly, these bats are still very expensive, but they are guaranteed for a year, and would be safer. Also, presumably, in time, these could become cheaper.)

I purposely said “non-professional”. I hope professional athletes continue with the traditional wooden bats. To me, it’s part of the game. How many times is the groan from the crowd when a guy weakly grounds—or flies—out because his bat broke? It’s frustrating, but so is the umpire calling a guy out on a stolen base when he was safe. Bats have always broken. Now, there’s debates about types of wood used and sizes of handles, and that should be researched. Bats should break on occasion. It’s the nature of the game, but if there is proof about the variables, then these should be addressed.

Then again, I don't take change well. I don't want instant replay, either.

Yahoo! Auto-draft sucks. I think.

I'm part of a fantasy football league through Yahoo! Sports. I'm sure you all remember my compelling football articles throughout the past year, with all my football knowledge, so you know I'm going to absolutely kill my fellow fantasy football players... Or not. On a good day, I could probably name ten professional football teams. My biggest accomplishment last year was winning one week, but it was a bit of a fluke. I have no idea how points are calculated. I know nothing.

The league was an auto-draft league. Sure, I could set draft preferences, but I don't know that I could name ten football players, and if I could, they certainly wouldn't be any good, since I live in Minnesota, and that means the players I overhear mentioned are probably Vikings. So, I let Yahoo! take care of drafting my team.

My Offense, according to trends, is actually pretty good. The trend is what percentage of fantasy teams have picked up a guy. I've got Peyton Manning as my quarterback, and needless to say, he's owned at 100%. He's one of the two Manning Brothers. The lowest percetage owned on my offense starting line-up is 95% owned (some guy named Hines Ward who plays for the Pittsburgh...Penguins*). On the bench, 68% is the lowest number in the percentage owned category (some guy named Ted Ginn, Jr., of the Miami Dolphins--whom I shall henceforth call Tony Gwynn, Jr.). On my bench the lowest percentage owned is 68%, and there five guys on the offense bench. It should be noted, that I'm only guessing that "WR" is "wide receiver" and "RB" is "running back." I have no idea what "W/T" is--"weight-lifter/tap-dancer"? I know the QB--quarterback--position.

My kicker, Rob Bironas (of the Tennessee Somethings--Titans, perhaps), is 91% owned. His back-up is less popular at 57% owned, but how often are kickers used in the game? No, seriously, how often are they? Is having a good kicker vital to fantasy football? I have no idea! I'm pretending they don't.

But here's where Yahoo sports failed me. My one "D" position is filled by a guy who's 97% owned--hey! I've heard the name Jared Allen before! Oh, he plays for the Vikings, that's why. The next highest percentage is 61%--Terrenece Newman of the Dallas Cheerleaders--who is a "DB" (Defenesive Back, I presume). My two DL (Disabled List? Defensive Linemen?) guys are 11% and 14% owned. I have on guy on my bench, but he's at 0% owned. The only good point about my Defense is that I've got a guy named "Chike Okeafor", of the Arizona Something (Cardinals, I think. If I recall, they moved from St. Louis and weren't creative enough to come up with their own name).

The disparity between the popularity of my offense and defense makes me think that perhaps Yahoo auto-draft isn't set up well. It seems that rather than filling each position, and then coming back and filling the bench, they simply filled the offense, the bench for the offense, and then the kicker, and by the time they got to the defense, there was no one left. My guess is the other fantasy football owners in my league probably set up their draft to get all the positions filled with good guys, before letting auto-draft fill in the cracks.

It's a good think I wasn't planning on winning.

Oh, if anyone knows any defensive football players who are probably flying under the radar, I've got two empty bench spots open.

*One of my friends is a huge hockey fan. During baseball season, whenever she sees "PIT" she always thinks of the Penguins, leading to the great text message: "...the Yankees beat the Penguins". And after a few minutes of thought, I remembered that Pittsburgh has the Steelers. Right?

I had a better idea for a post planned for today, but I managed to leave my flash drive at home this morning and I can't remember what it was.

In other news: Today I found out that Rod Barajas and Randy Choate share my birth day. Ryan Spillborghs shares my birthday!

Parents Dominating Kids’ Play

I was on my high school newspaper staff, holding four different editor jobs. I was never a staff writer. As such, I only vaguely had to be concerned that there was nothing in there that could get us in trouble. I knew you could tell the truth, and omit enough details to get the readers up in arms about an issue that didn't exist. I never did it, but I was well aware that it could be done.

That brings us to this story found in numerous places (I originally read it on Yahoo! Sports). The story says that a little 9-year-old boy was told he couldn’t pitch anymore, because he was overpowering in his league. He throws harder and better than any other pitcher. His coach on Will Power Fitness refused to stop him from pitching, and the opponent forfeited, and now the team is banned from playing. The parents are now suing. The boy, Jericho Scott, is quoted as saying he just wants to play ball. His mother is indignant: "I think it's discouraging when you're telling a 9-year-old you're too good at something. The whole objective in life is to find something you're good at and stick with it. I'd rather he spend all his time on the baseball field than idolizing someone standing on the street corner."

As the writer intended, I was indignant. A boy shouldn’t be told he can’t do something because he’s too good. The league suggested moving up a level, or switching positions. I have two issues with that: if a boy has been playing with a team all season, likely he’s built up camaraderie with his teammates and friends; beyond that, moving him up a level will put him with older kids, whom he probably isn’t socially ready to deal with. Secondly, why make a kid switch to a different position? You don’t see the CEO of a pharmaceutical company coming out of his office and saying, “I’m sorry, Linda, but you’ve cured too many diseases and you’re showing up your co-workers. You’ll need to switch to receptionist now.” It was all wrong. It was parents getting too involved and too focused on winning and being sore losers because some kid was better than theirs.

And then an ESPN columnist dug into the story, and reported back. It turns out that the kid played in a higher league when he wasn’t playing for this younger league. The higher level has teams of kids from 9-13 (and Scott turned 10 this week, so he’s not out of his age group). On that team, he’s the number four pitcher; good enough to be on the team, but not dominating to the level of Cy Young, as he was in the lower league. Even more suspect is that Scott hasn’t played on Will Power Fitness all year. He joined the team, along with an all-star from the higher level league, mid-year. If Scott had joined the lower-level team to play short-stop, because he sucked at fielding, that would be a legitimate move. But he joined a development team to play a position at which he was already developed.

The issue is still about parents being too involved. They think young Scott is a victim because he’s not allowed to play on a team for the sole sake of being the best and winning. In short, his parents are teaching him to be a bully. If you’re better at something than most kids your age, make sure you rub it in!

The story originally was definitely meant to make us feel sorry for the poor abused kid. The details come out, and we discover that we were only told half the story. The lesson here is to know the full story. And this isn’t my final opinion, because we might find out more details that explains this situation to turn the lower-level league back to the bad guys.

Bullpen

I know this was a long time ago, but remember back when the snow was on the ground and we were wearing winter coats up here in Minnesota? No? Um, well, anyway, six months ago, we were discussing the Twins starting rotation. Back on February 21 I wrote that I didn’t see Bass being a starting pitcher, but if he made it to the majors, it would be in long relief. And so that happened. However, he didn’t seem to make it as a long reliever, either, but was recently optioned to the Twins AAA team. Because he’s out of options--and obviously cleared waivers--he has 72 hours to decide whether or not to accept the assignment. Last reports had him unsure of what he was going to choose.

Now, on one hand, it did seem odd to many people that Bass was the one optioned. The bullpen has been struggling a bit--Guerrier can’t seem to get people out at the rate he’s shown the last year and a half--so getting rid of one bullpen member before a long road trip (14 games in 15 days, all on the road) seems crazier. Even crazier than my run-on sentence there. But it does make sense. Lately, it takes a dire situation for Bass to appear on the mound. The team has to be losing by a great number of runs, or literally have no other bullpen pitchers left. (Last week, towards the end of the game, starter Scott Baker ran down to the bullpen when there was only Bass left. I would not have been surprised to see Baker brought in before Bass. Bass did pitch, incidentally, and did fine.) Granted, his overall stats were not significantly worse than any of the other relievers, Joe Nathan and Jesse Crain excepting, there’s less of a history. The Twins have seen Boof Bonser do very well at the major league level. Matt Guerrier has been a solid bullpen arm for two years now. Dennys Reyes, while both have some very nerve-wrecking outings, have two advantages: some very good innings, and they’re left-handed. Bass clearly was the odd-man out.

I wouldn’t be surprised to see another bullpen pitcher called to the Twins during the road trip--even before the September 1st roster expansion. It’s possible the starting pitching can hold their own and keep the bullpen load manageable, but that’s a very optimistic view--a bit too much for my optimism, too. Sure, two of the teams the Twins face on the road trip aren’t very good (Seattle and Oakland), but we’ve seen Seattle beat us up. It won’t be a cakewalk. (Why do we still use the term cakewalk? Has anyone taken part in a cakewalk in the last century?)

At any rate, I expect the disappearance of Bass from the bullpen to be transparent. He was so rarely used that his inning could easily be eaten by another pitcher, or shared. (He’s pitched 7 2/3 innings since the all-star break.)

This isn’t to say I don’t feel bad for the man. He was given opportunities, and had plenty of good outings, but because his bad ones were so much more memorable than the good, he sadly needed to go. If the Twins were in a rebuilding year, like they were supposed to be, he would’ve been given more opportunities to play, and possibly would’ve been doing better. But in a playoff race, a team can’t afford to put an unproven pitcher out there often as he needs to be.

It’s my little sister’s 23rd birthday tomorrow. Happy Birthday, Wee Sister! I feel old.

Miss Manners

In my life, I’ve been a guest in other team’s ballparks, and I’ve been a host to fans of other team’s in my ballpark. These aren’t official titles. I’ve never walked into the Metrodome with a Ranger’s fan, as a true host, but as someone who is at “home” in my team’s ballpark, ‘host’ seems the best word for it. Thus, I’d like to take this moment to remind people how to act. It’s written in the perspective of baseball, but could easily be translated to any other sport--and any other level of any sport, from little league to major leagues.

You wouldn’t walk into a house for the first time and say, “That’s one ugly choice of color for the walls!” Even if the host has chosen puke green and complimented it with bright pink, etiquette reminds you to just keep your mouth shut. You don’t mention how ugly or untalented or obnoxious the kids are. Sure, if it’s your best friend, you’d probably say something, but if it’s someone you’ve just met…well, Miss Manners reminds you to be polite. Just tolerate it, and don’t come back if you don’t like it.

It all comes down to respect. Respect the other team, respect yourself, and have a good time.

Therefore, there’s no reason to walk into a different team’s ballpark and say how ugly it is, or how bad the home team is. Appreciate the differences from your own preferred ballpark, and appreciate the fact that the other team is a professional team on the same level as your own. When another team shows up in your ballpark, bringing along their fans, appreciate the effort and passion those fans have for their team that brings them from afar. They love their team as much as you love yours.

It doesn’t matter if your team is much better than the opponent. In fact, that’s all the more reason to be respectful. In Kansas City last weekend, some drunk Twins fans were insulting the Kansas City Royals players for no reason. “Alex Gordon? No one’s ever heard of him!” Now, from a Yankees fan, that would at least be justified, because usually everyone has heard of every member of their team (although, to be fair, this week in Minneapolis there were a few names in the line-up I had never heard of before). But, seriously, how many people outside of Twins Territory have heard of Kevin Slowey, who was the pitcher for the Twins that night? It’s not a fair argument to tell the Royals that no one has ever heard of their player when your own line-up isn’t filled with marquee players. Respect that they are professional ballplayers. (By the way, I would’ve been in favor of some Royals fans taunted back, jovially, that no one had heard of Kevin Slowey. As long as it’s kept in the spirit of good fun, it’s all good.)

This doesn’t mean you can’t have fun. In the four years I’ve been going to Kansas City, every time I’ve run into Royals’ fans who are polite and knowledgeable. This year’s favorite “taunt” to Twins fans was: “When are you guys going to start spending a lot of money on your team so we have an excuse?” It led to intelligent conversations about things like history, scouting, and luck. We’ve made friendly bets with Royals fans (Wee Sister won a hot dog once, because Pat Neshek’s first pitch at Kauffman was a strike). When we went to check into our hotel, we told the guy we had reservations. He looked at our Twins shirts, laughed, and teased, “Not in those shirts, you don’t!”

Don’t be the obnoxious guest, that when you leave the hosts say, “I hope they never come back!” And don’t be the host that the guests leave and say, “I’m never going there again!” It should be a joy to be a guest in another ballpark. Each one is unique and offers its own quirks, amenities, and style. They should all be appreciated and enjoyed and respected. It takes two sides for the respect. Uphold your end of it, no matter what the other side tries.

Should MLB allow trades to include draft picks?

Should MLB allow trades to include draft picks?

Many sports allow professional teams to trade draft picks. The worst team can trade for a decent player by allowing a better team to take their number one draft pick. Major League baseball, however, doesn’t allow this to happen. There are gentlemen’s agreements, but if someone reneges on it, there’s nothing that can be done. For example of a gentleman’s agreement, it’s wrong to say the Twins took Johan Santana in the Rule 5 pick in 1999. The Twins took Jarrod Camp, for the Marlins, with the agreement that the Marlins would take Johan Santana, and they’d make the trade of the players (with the Twins getting cash compensation as well). The Marlins could’ve easily decided upon picking Santana that they wanted to keep him, and there’s nothing the Twins could’ve done. I imagine things like this happen on occasion in the actual draft in June, although I haven’t heard of any examples. Most teams want the best player they can get. The rules of the Rule 5 draft make things a little murkier.

But the question comes up: should MLB allow teams to include draft picks in their trade?

Personally, I’m glad they don’t. Hooray for other sports--most of them having salary caps--for making it work, but I just don’t see it working favorably in baseball the way things are set up right now. The difference between MLB and the other professional sports is the deep level of lower-level franchises. I’ll be honest. I don’t know how many minor-league levels other sports have. I think hockey only has one that’s affiliated with teams, and then there are other independent hockey leagues. Football players are often developed in college programs. Baseball has six levels of minor leagues. For example, the Twins have six minor league teams across five levels (no Short-Season A [but very few teams do], but two rookie-level teams).

Because of the depth of the minor league teams, every single organization has a responsibility to fill rosters at every level, and to develop players at every level. Smaller market teams will put more stock in their minor league system, while larger-market teams are more likely to trade their minor league players, knowing they can afford a free agent pick if their short at a position. However, this is why it’s important to both small- and large-market teams to develop minor league players. The large-market team needs attractive minor-league players to attract the small-market team in a trade for a star player. The small-market team needs attractive minor league players to fill in when they lose star players in trades or in free agency. Both markets have a responsibility to their fan base to develop their minor-league team, even if it’s for entirely different reasons.

This is why I’m glad they can’t trade draft picks. A small-market team who trades their draft picks away to get a few good players in a year when they’re making a run at the playoffs can hurt their team’s long-term future.

In a round-about way, draft picks are traded. By signing a high-level free agent player, a team will forfeit either a first- or second-round pick. But for the magnitude of the number of rounds in the draft, and the diamonds in the rough that come out of lower-level rounds every year, losing at most two picks is hardly going to affect an organization (NBA has 2 rounds/60 picks; NFL has 7 rounds/256 picks; NHL has 7 rounds/210 picks; MLB has 60 rounds/1,502 picks). However, this is why trading draft picks doesn’t work as well for baseball. A savvy general manager would simply trade away his top two picks, and go on to sign top free agents. You can’t lose draft picks you don’t have.

Other sports have set themselves up to allow the trading of draft picks. Baseball has not. As such, baseball organizations need to keep their draft picks, to keep their minor league systems stocked for the future. It’s not in the interest of anyone in baseball to have a team fail, and a losing team will fail if no hope is ever offered. As long as a team drafts well, there is hope for the future. With no draft picks, there would be no hope for the long-term future.

Trade Deadline Break

I could go overboard and write about MLB’s trade deadline today. Obviously, there have been some spectacular trades--some loved by the fans, and some not. Some even lead to bad grammar, like this poster spotted at Progressive Field in Cleveland:


I find few things harder to tolerate than obviously misplaced quotation marks. It’s not sarcasm (around the word “trade”, I might believe that explanation). Use underline or bold or asterisks for emphasis!

But I’m not going to do that.

I didn’t write last week because the hours I normally should’ve written, I was in Chicago, touring Wrigley Field. Stupidly, I forgot to upload those pictures, and the cameras are at home and I’m not, so instead I’ll share the photos I did download. (Hey, between four girls, we took 808 pictures in six and a half days. Be glad I didn’t upload them all!)

First, I have to send a kudos to the staff at Wrigley with Wee Sister and two of our friends, in our Annual Girls’ Trip. We arrived ten minutes late for our tour, because it shouldn’t have taken over an hour to get from our hotel to Wrigley, but it did. We walked up to get our tickets from Will-Call, and the person had our tickets out, and knew who I was before I even said anything. She said we were late, but pointed out where we could go in. The guy inside the gate unlocked the gate to let us in, and walked us to our tour group, where we were able to slip in unobtrusively. Our tour guide was funny, but very knowledgeable on the history of the Cubs and the stadium, and shared details of the stories that were lore, and explained why either they probably did happen, or why they probably were just stories. (As a bonus, he was cute, too!)

From Chicago, we continued on to Cleveland, to watch three baseball games at Progressive Field (obviously, the Twins were in town, because that’s what the Annual Girls’ Trip is about: watching the Twins play on the road). We watched the game from three different views:

Upper deck, behind home plate.


Lower deck, left field.


Cheap seats.

Things to note when going to Progressive Field:
Parking is found all over the city, and prices could vary greatly. The first day we parked in some old parking ramp that was a little creepy, and paid $20. The next two days, we parked much closer to the stadium in a newer/nicer parking ramp, and only paid $10. We didn’t check out the trains to see if that would work.

The gates open an hour before the game, except for Gate C, which opens earlier for fans who want to watch batting practice (but fans are only allowed in selected areas). We, of course, did not know this and stood around waiting for the gates to open the first night.

In an effort to make sure Indians’ fans get excessive calories, the stadium does not allow you to bring your water bottle, but you may bring juice boxes. While I understand not allowing disposable water bottles, it’s a bit annoying to not bring a polycarbonate water bottle, which is clearly not disposable, and I will be taking home with me. I hate leaving my seat during the game, so the drinking fountain option was highly inconvenient.

You may bring your own food, which is good because the food selection is very limited. The usher at the door recommended to us that we forego buying food at the stadium and bring in our own. However, you may not bring in a whole pizza, but you may bring in single slices.

While they don’t allow noisemakers, they do make a special exception to the annoying guy with the drum. Anyone who’s listened to Indians’ games knows what I’m talking about. We found him annoying.

These benches were very cool. They spelled out “Who’s on first?”


One of their in-game contests, not quite as famous as Milwaukee’s Sausage race, was their condiment race. I believe Onion won twice, and Ketchup once, while we were there:

It was a cute race; something to distract the fans while the players meandered on and off the field between innings.

We were there for hat day, so we had our trip mascot model it for us:


On our trip back to our frightening hotel Saturday night, we stopped at Ghetto K-Mart. We were bewildered that you could buy Twins boxer shorts there (along with Indians boxers, pajama pants and shirts, as well as Red Sox shirts):


Wee Sister and I will hopefully be heading to Kuaffman Stadium next weekend. I’ll try to share pictures then.

That's a wrap

What if I told you that the Detroit Tigers should have been declared the winners of the 2006 World Series? You’d probably lock me away, but hear me out.

In the 2006 regular season, the St. Louis Cardinals won the NL-Central with 83 wins--just two games over .500. But that was enough wins to get them into the first round of playoffs. The Tigers had 95 wins during the regular season--or, a whooping 14 games over .500--and yet only came in second place in the American League Central. However, it was enough wins to get them into playoffs as the Wild Card.

In the first round of playoffs, both teams had three wins to advance. In the second round, both teams had four wins to advance. And in the final round? The Cardinals had four wins, while the Tigers only won once.

A little math will tell you that in 2006, the Tigers had a total of 103 wins. The Cardinals only had 94. Therefore, by rights, the Tigers should have won the World Series, and the Cardinals stole it from them, right? Sure, the Cardinals won four in a best-of-seven series, but they had less wins total. Yes, they had three more wins in the final round, but they had nine runs less in total. Something is clearly flawed here. The team with the most over-all wins should win, right?

Prior to 1969, there were no playoffs other than the World Series. Before that, the champions of both leagues would play each other in a best-of-seven series (or best-of-nine, for a few years). Under those rules, the World Series would’ve pitted Mets versus the Yankees, both of whom led their leagues with 97 wins--and neither of whom made it to the World Series in 2006. If you go before the Leagues were divided into three divisions, the Tigers were in the AL-East, and wouldn’t have been in the playoffs (the Yankees had 97 wins in ’06). Without the multiple playoff rules, the Tigers and the Cardinals wouldn’t have had a chance of the World Series title.

It sounds like I’m controlled substances and have a misguided view of how sports should work, right? It’s like saying the Patriots deserved to win the Super Bowl in February 2008, because they were undefeated before then. Of course not! The reason for the playoffs are for great stories, surprising upsets, etc.

And yet, that’s been the view of this year’s Home Run Derby. Josh Hamilton hit 28 home runs in the first round (to Justin Morneau's eight), and didn't even need to hit in the second round (but hit four anyway) while Morneau got nine to move on. After two rounds, it was Hamilton clearly--clearly!--edging out Morneau, 32-17. That's a 15 home run difference.

Granted, the home run derby is no where near as big of a deal as the World Series or the Super Bowl or the Stanley Cup*, it’s still a case of "who gets hot when." No one should take away from Hamilton’s awesome performance in the first round. That was amazing to watch. The kid has great talent, and a great story. The thing is, Morneau got the hits in the playoffs. As great as Hamilton is and as impressive as he was during the whole contest, when it all came down to the final round, he didn’t have enough get the win. Just like the 2008 Patriots.



*NBA will be included when they get a cool name, rather than “NBA Championship”.

Contract Inanity

According to a Yahoo.com article, Alex Rodriguez will lose $200,000 because he terminated the contract that he signed with the Rangers that was passed to the Yankees. He re-signed a contract with the Yankees, making more money for a longer time. The Yankees don't offer contract bonuses for All-Star Appearances (probably because it's expected their large fan base will get people in who don't deserve it...although this year it’s not true!). But the Rangers did, and he used to have a $200,000 bonus for getting voted onto the All-Star team.

What shocked me about the article is that Chipper Jones didn't even realize he had a contract provision that gave him a bonus. Grady Sizemore said he wasn't aware that his All-Star selection had an escalation in the value of his option for 2012. He lets his agent deal with that stuff.

That's a sad state of affairs. They don't know--or care--what's in their contract? Let's contrast that to Curt Schilling, a player I don't necessarily like, but I have to respect his negotiating these items into his contract: $333,333 for each of six weigh-ins per year (if he meets certain criteria, no doubt set by the team to keep him in shape, but still awesome he could work it into a bonus), six season tickets to State Street Pavilion in lieu of outdoor seating, use of team uniform for charitable events, and day-care for all home games. Now that's a contract.

If I were a general manager, I would not encourage "fun" clauses in the contract. I would make it mandatory. It doesn't even have to be related to baseball. If your hometown hockey team beats the team's local hockey team, you're required to volunteer ten hours at the local hospital. Every time you're the last one on the plane, you have to bring in cookies to share after the next home game. Let's be a little creative, people. If you're not going to get creative with your contract, you might as well just get a straight salary.

All-Star Voting

Ryan's gone! Time to stage a rebellion and take over the blog!

It’s not popular among avid sports fans to say that they’re in favor of fans voting for the All-Star (or Pro Bowl or whatever) players. Fortunately, I’m sitting in the relatively safe environment of the internet, and can stand up and say this: I am in favor of the fans voting for the All-Stars. I just wish the fans weren’t idiots.

Fans persist on voting for guys based on historical performance. I know Jason Varitek was a great catcher. But I know he’s getting into the twilight of his career. He’s no longer the top player in MLB at his position. Kids like Russell Martin, Joe Mauer, and Brian McCann have taken over that role.

David Ortiz continued to garner votes despite the fact that he’s been injured since the end of May, and there’s no saying he’ll be able to play at the All-Star game. His production, although still good, is down from his past years. (Although it’s a relief that he’s gaining the votes in the DH category, rather than at first base.)

And yet, I still can’t complain. The All-Star game isn’t for the players. It’s for the fans. By allowing the fans to vote, you’re making them a part of the game. I also have a feeling that it’s a bit of an honor for the players to be voted in by the fans. Sure, it’s an honor to have the respect of your peers and make the player vote, but how special is it for a guy to gain wide-spread respect across the entire country--or world?

The problem is the blind voting. I don’t mind young children voting for their home team no matter what. There’s something special about childish complete trust and faith in their team and players. But, I’m sorry; I’m a Twins fan, and I love Brendan Harris, but he’s not an All-Star. In my multiple votes, Brendan likely got one vote, but otherwise it went elsewhere (although, to be fair, I can’t remember who anymore). Sure, I give an extra bonus to hometown players. Even if Joe Mauer the clear-cut American League best catcher, he still would’ve gotten my vote, because he’s been outstanding. There are arguments over the best first baseman, among them Justin Morneau, so my vote can go that way.

I also wish there was a way to limit things to one vote per person. It would give a clearer perspective of the general fan population, but there’s no way around it. Even in the US elections, where there are measures in place to keep people from voting multiple times, I’m sure it still happens (I don’t know how, but I read stories every once in a while).

At any rate, fan voting is good. Having one player from each team is good.

Also, I’m a little frustrated with the sports writers who write off the Twins record because they went 14-4 against the National League. Every other American League team faced the National League, too. I’m not saying that they’re playoff contenders, but it’s not like they had an unfair advantage to gain their record. I’m off my soapbox now.

Designate Everybody

I’m pretty sure everybody by now has heard that Hank Steinbrenner, heir apparent to the Yankee Throne, is upset that his pitcher, Chien-Ming Wang hurt his ankle running the bases in an inter-league game in a National League park. Steinbrenner takes the opportunity to offer his opinion on the situation of a pitcher batting:

“Truthfully, the NL owners should be concerned with it, even with the practice their pitchers get doing it. You don't need to lose your best pitcher. The pitcher has enough work to do. It's something Bud (Selig) needs to address and he needs to address it soon. Don't give me that traditionalist crap. “

Personally, I’m a fan of having two different leagues with only slightly different rules--the DH versus no DH. It adds a little fun when the teams play each other to suddenly have to change one little aspect of the game. (Interestingly, I’m only moderately in favor of inter-league play. It was kinda an extra challenge when the American League pitchers suddenly had to bat in the World Series. However, it is fun to see a little bit of it, but like most people, I think the rules should be flipped in inter-league play. AL rules in NL parks, NL rules in AL parks. Give the fans a chance to see--in person--the other side. Rather than bringing up TV ratings for a couple series, it would bring attendance up for a couple of series. I digress.)

I’m sure the Mariners would agree, because Felix Hernandez hurt his ankle in an inter-league game--after hitting a grand slam off of former Cy Young winner Johan Santana. Sure, he didn’t sprain his ankle running the bases, but rather making a defensive play. The pitchers should have a designated defender to prevent injury possibilities on the field in general. Twins pitcher Pat Neshek hurt his arm pitching, so perhaps there should be a designated pitcher would prevent injuries to starting pitchers, too. After all, if I’ve learned anything from Hank Steinbrenner, it’s that we have to protect the pitchers!

But it gets me thinking. The starting pitchers are pretty valuable to the team, and most pitchers suck when it comes to batting. But pitchers aren’t the only position with a reputation for poor batting.

We should have a designated hitter for the catcher. Catchers are traditionally a poor-hitting position, and a team only has two catchers (usually with an “emergency back-up guy who’s really a third baseman or first baseman, but was a catcher when they were six, so they’ll do in an emergency). No one wants to see a star catcher like Jason Varitek, Ivan Rodriguez, or Joe Mauer get injured, do they? Last year Mauer hurt his hamstring. Reports were that he could catch without pain, but he couldn’t run the bases. If only he could’ve had a designated hitter, his defensive skills behind the plate wouldn’t have been lost for a month.

Middle infielders are valued for their defense, not their offense (although an offensive - giggle - middle infielder is definitely a valuable commodity!), so let’s get them designate hitters, too.

In fact, maybe baseball should become more like football and lacrosse: there’s offense and defense, and never the twain shall meet. Half the team will play in the field as the defense, and the other half the team will come to the plate as offense. Although, really, there should be designated batters and designated runners, too. You don’t want to hurt your team by having your power-slugger trip running the bases and spraining an ankle.

And there should be designated warm-up guy, too, just so nobody hurts himself warming up before the inning. With the multiple balls flying around the field, anything can happen.

Or maybe--and this is a novel, ground-breaking idea!--we should just recognize that there are risks playing sports, and accept the rules the way they are, and appreciate the differences between the leagues.

Time for a Bake Sale!

It’s a sad state of affairs when a New York sports team is reduced to beg for money, because they simply don’t have enough to finish a small simple project, like building a $1.3 million ballpark. Sadly, due to IRS regulations, they’re having trouble getting the $400 million more they need. The state is presently paying $450 of this cost (reference).

To put that in perspective, the Mets new stadium costs $850 million--and they’re going to finish their project. New York is paying $165 million (reference).

Another team set to open a new ballpark soon--a year after the two New York ballparks--is the Twins. Their total project will cost $522 million, with $392 million from a public subsidy (reference). The Twins, despite playing in the arctic circle where snow could play a factor in about one quarter of the regular season (and the entire post-season), could not get an extra $100 million to add a roof onto their new building.

The Yankees payroll, by the way, for 2008 is $70 million more than the Yankees, and $150 million more than the Twins. (In 2007, the payroll differences between the Yankees versus the Twins and Mets were $74 million and $120 million, respectively.)

Is that enough perspective for you? Bear in mind when reading the numbers that there is cost of living. The same ballpark built in Minneapolis would cost more if built in New York City. However, the approximate cost of living difference is 61% from Minneapolis to New York City, so just multiply the Minneapolis numbers by 1.61 to get how much the Twins stadium would cost in New York City. Thus, the Mets and the Twins have similar costs in their ballparks.

Some public funds go to ballparks. It’s a fact of life that I shall not debate here. But I do think that if you design your ballpark to cost significantly more than the other ballparks around it, you’ll need to chip in and pay a bit more of your own money. When another team in the same city is building a ballpark, designed by the same architectural firm (all three stadiums in question were designed by HOK Sport), there’s no reason that one needs to cost twice as much as another, which the Yankees are claiming by demanding the extra $400 million, which would bring their stadium cost to $1.7 billion. Maybe it’s time they held a bake sale to fund their luxuries.

Twins pitcher Scott Baker is off the DL! Official period of mourning is over!

R-E-S-P-E-C-T

I don’t like golf. I know, I probably shouldn’t admit that here, but so be it. But let’s clarify this: I don’t hate it because I think it’s dumb or people who play it are talentless. That's not true at all. I just have no desire to play it or watch it. It’s not my sport. That being said, golfers are amazing athletes. Even the great Wayne Gretzky agrees with me: "You ever tried to golf? You better be a good athlete if you try to golf."

I’ve always thought Tiger Woods was an amazing athlete. What he’s done for the sport both through playing and publicity has been stunning. In a sport where a non-fan (such as myself) viewed the average competitor as a middle-aged white guy, Tiger Woods came in and broke the racial barrier and age barrier.

We’ve established the golfers are athletes (if you disagree, take the argument up with Gretzky). We’ve established that Tiger Woods was phenomenal. Thus, I really respected Tiger Woods.

But recently he was asked about NHL’s Stanley Cup Playoffs. Game five was an amazing game: it went into a third overtime before the game was finally won by the Penguins, who were trailing in the series, having only won one of the first four. It was a sudden death overtime that, had the Red Wings won, would’ve meant death to the Penguins. Pretty exciting. If a basketball playoff game went into three overtimes, I’d be impressed with the excitement.

Tiger said about the hockey playoffs: "I don't really care," he said with an impish smile. "It's all about the Dodgers. I don't think anyone really watches hockey anymore."

If he had left off the last statement, things are okay.* To be honest, baseball had started, the Wild were out of playoffs…I didn’t follow the Stanley Cup Championship series much--I knew the Red Wings were ahead in the series (and won), and that they were playing the Penguins. I heard about the triple overtime game. But I didn’t watch any of the games. I didn’t go off searching for articles about it. I didn’t really care--it’s all about the Twins. But there was absolutely no call for the last statement by Tiger Woods. Just because you don’t watch hockey doesn’t mean no one is. If that were true, I could say that no one watched soccer (football for the Europeans). I don’t care about it, and I don’t watch it. But even I’m smart enough to know that stadiums are filled with fans all around the world--more than any other sport, if I understand correctly.

It’s okay to joke around, but you better add addendums to your statements. “I don’t think anyone really watches hockey anymore. :short laugh: It’s been a great playoff series and a nice win for the Penguins.” If you haven’t been following it, just admit it, but don’t disregard the fans who are watching.

I know nothing about golf, but I wonder if more people paid to watch hockey (at all levels) last year than paid to watch golf (at all levels). Irrelevant. As a professional athlete, Tiger should be showing respect to other professional athletes, rather than dismissing them. You don’t hear brain surgeons saying that what heart surgeons do isn’t important. It’s professional respect.

(And this applies to fans, too. Just because Yankees fans as a whole are obnoxious is no reason that you must be obnoxious back. Moral high ground, people.)

*Or if he were a well-known hockey fan. For those in Minnesota, Twins first baseman Justin Morneau could make that statement because it’s well-known that he’s a big hockey fan. In fact, if you buy NHL 2K8, you could even pick Justin Morneau as your goalie.

Instant Replay, the instant replay

Ryan’s written about this already, so consider this an instant replay of the previous mentioned subject, but from a different angle.

Commissioner Bud Selig has been long trying to find ways to speed up the game. The games run a long time, and aren't filled with the intense action of football and hockey, where players are running into each other, knocking each other down, and in general putting themselves in harm's way constantly. (Minnesota Twins apparently play the fastest games in the majors, but there are some nights they need to speed things up, too.)

Like Ryan mentioned, part of baseball’s charm is the human element. Some days, the strike zone is just a tiny keyhole. Other days, the strike zone is so big, you could fly a 747 through it. As a fan, this doesn’t bother me--as long as it’s consistent for both sides. It’s not fair giving Greg Maddux a strike zone big enough to drive a truck through, while his opponent has a strike zone the size of a Matchbox car. It’s frustrating to see a location called a strike for one pitcher, and a ball for the other. I have an acquaintance who would like to see balls and strikes called mechanically--the technology exists to do that, but no. I’m not in favor of that.

So, instant replay. There are multiple times it could be used. I listen to the radio at the ballpark, and have friends at home who are watching on TV. It’s very frustrating to be sitting there after a player has been called out attempting to steal and thinking, "he looked safe to me", and hear from the radio, or from friends, "he was safe." It can change the course of the game. Instead of a runner on second with no outs, there are no runners on with one out.

When a ball is hit down the line, and the umpire gets turned around, he has to make the best call he can from what he sees. He has to decide if the ball went over first in fair or foul territory. When a batter checks his swing, the first or third base umpire has to decide whether he truly checked it, or failed to check it. When a ball is hit towards the stands, should fan interference be called, or was the ball out of play? When a ball is hit close to the foul pole, was it a home run or a “long strike”? For that matter, did the pitcher really commit a balk or not? And was that ball really caught on the fly or did it bounce as the fielder dived for it? (A couple of years ago, Torii Hunter was nominated for some fan-based vote award--best outfielder or something. The video they had to highlight his skills showed clearly that the ball bounced before he caught it, but the umpire called it caught. A day later, mlb.com picked a different video where Hunter actually did make a catch.)

When should instant replay be made available to the umpires? I’m in favor of never. Just let the umpire make the call, and move on. They’ll get it wrong. And it will be annoying and frustrating every time. However, sometimes they’ll get it wrong against the team you’re cheering for, and sometimes they’ll get it wrong in favor of the team you’re rooting for.

The main reason I don’t want it for anything is because once you allow something, it makes it easy to allow more. Today, we’re allowing instant replay on home runs (which might not be a bad idea). Two years from now, someone will argue that it’s needed on base-stealing calls. And some day in the future, umpires will all be sitting in their homes, watching the games on TV making the calls, and the fans in the stands will have to await every call to be announced on the JumboTron. That will take all the fun out of booing the umpire when he doesn’t make the call in my favor…

Speed the game up. Let the umpires make the calls as they see best, accept that they’re humans and they’ll make mistakes, and move on.

Hockeytown...state

In December, in an event possibly mentioned here at the Victoria Times—or possibly ignored, St. Paul, Minnesota was named by Sports Illustrated as Hockeytown taking the title away from Detroit.

The Wild acknowledged the honor, but have stuck to their slogan, “State of Hockey”. It seems the legislature is in on the act. They had added to an education bill to make hockey the official state sport. It was removed because there are some parts of the state where hockey isn’t popular. Well, the Walleye is our state fish, and I don’t like fish, therefore, the walleye should be taken away. There are many people in the state who are lactose intolerant, and milk is still the official state drink (link). I’m not here to argue that legislature should get the bill back on the table.

I grew up in Minnesota, and had pretty much no exposure to hockey as a kid. I followed baseball exclusively, as can no doubt be noted in my posts. But I can’t deny the sheer number of children who are on the rinks playing hockey. I like to ice skate, which I’ve done since I was a wee child. No hockey was played on the outdoor rink down the block, so I was never tempted to try it. However, now whenever I got to local parks, it amazes me the number of kids with sticks and pucks who are out there. It doesn’t matter if there are only two kids, they’ll find a way to play a game. If there are 20 people of all ages, games still go on (although a distinct lack of goalies; the costs of equipment is prohibitive—once I saw the goals turned over, making a smaller target, and other times).

Maybe Minnesota is the State of Hockey. Why not? We can play it cheaper than some states (find a frozen pond, and your only expense is a snow shovel, skates, a punk, and a stick). In winter, outdoor choices are limited, and skating gives kids something to do that’s simply fun—but challenging. The number of schools—high school and college—with strong hockey programs is likely unmatched (Massachusetts and Michigan are up there). It’s not a pastime to hockey families, it’s a part of their lives.

Too late now

The Yankees are in last place, and two of their prospects are Ian Kennedy and Phil Hughes. Twins fans will remember those names as being mentioned as possible trade bait for Santana, but not both together. Hughes had an ERA of 9.00 (and a 0-4 record, but pitchers have almost no control over that). Kennedy has an 8.48 ERA (0-3), and the Yankees are 20-22.

The Mets made the trade, giving up three pitchers and an outfielder. They’ve got a better record than the Yankees, 20-19, but not by much. But they have Santana, who has a 3.10 ERA (4-2 record).

Did the Yankees screw up by not making the trade? It depends. If they wanted to be the Yankees forever, then maybe. The Yankees, stereotypically, have bought the best players on the free agent market every year, as needed; trading their future one year and buying great players to fill in the next. Smaller-market teams have developed talent within, suffered through learning curves, and enjoy the good years when they can get them; there are no holes to fill in, because the future is always with them.

Would Santana have helped the Yankees win more games in 2008? No doubt. However, based on their minor league stats, I’d expect them to turn things around, and they’ll be very useful members of the Yankees’ rotation for a while (as much as it pains me to say this). It might be harder for teams that are used to winning to, well, not win. It’s painful to watch players go through learning curves. If you’re not used to learning curves, you might see it as a complete disaster.

It’s not. It’s a change in philosophy. It’s the Yankees looking at the smaller-market teams and saying, “Wait. We could do that, too, and it would be a whole lot cheaper.”

The whole question comes down to: do we want to win now, or do we want to win in the future? If the Yankees insisted on taking the philosophy “live for today, for tomorrow may never come”, then they needed to try harder to gain Santana . But it seems as if the Yankees have decided that tomorrow will come, and they’ve held onto their future.

The only thing they might want to notice is that future doesn’t always turn out the way you expect. “Sure things” fail sometimes, and you never know when.