Monthly Archives: January 2004

Both Jay Jaffe and Jon Weisman wonder if everything was indeed kosher with the Angels’ aquisition of superduperstar Vlad Guerrero. One thing is for sure: The move has to been seen as a slap in the face to the Dodger organization. Here is Tommy Lasorda in the L.A. Times:

“I’m very impressed with what they’ve done,” he said. “They’re gonna have a lot to say about who wins their division. That’s the good thing about free agency, you can go out and get players you need.”

What about the Dodgers, Tommy?

Lasorda shrugged and winced, a silence that spoke volumes.

Not easy to shut that man up either.

Edward Cossette ponders the concept of team chemistry today over at Bambino’s Curse. I just so happen to think it’s one of the best thing Cossette has ever done. It’s vivid, personal, and succint. Plus, I think he’s onto something when he writes:

Chemistry is not friendship. Chemistry, for certain, is akin to what the Supreme Court said about pornography: I can’t define it but I sure do know it when I see (or rather feel) it. (Of course, it’s the inability to quantify it that gets all the sabermetrics guys and gals all pissy.)

Personally, I’m always trying to get that perfect chemistry in my own life. (And I think you could just as easily substitute the word chemistry with “grace” or “harmony” or “feng-shui” so on and so forth). When I’ve got it, there is no limit to what I’m capable of as an individual who is also part of a larger group. I find it difficult to believe it would be any different for Tim Wakefield or Kevin Millar.

David Pinto offers his reaction at Baseball Musings.

Speaking of Pinto, David also has some constructive criticism for Jim Caple, ESPN’s resident Yankee-baiter, who weighed in on the Roger Clemens signing in Houston yesterday:

Caple is turning into a one-trick pony, blasting the Yankees every chance he gets. It’s fine once in a while. I know lots of people think the Yankees are responsible for all the ills of the world. When Dan Shaughnessy took over Peter Gammons Sunday column in the Boston Globe, he added a new feature, a weekly dig at the Yankees buried in the column. Maybe this made Dan very popular in Boston; maybe his Yankee hatred makes Caple popular across America. But in both cases, it turned me off because I know neither writer will ever say anything honest about the Yankees. And if I can’t trust them with one team, why should I trust them with any other team?

From what I know of Jim, he’s a smart, funny guy. He should save his criticism of the Yankees for when they really deserve it. Otherwise, the constant harping will make readers indifferent to his columns. It’s already done that to me.

As radio personality Chris “Mad Dog” Russo would say, “Excellent point Pinto, that’s an excellent point.”

And on a ridiculous note, the Yankees hired former general manager of the Chicago Bulls, Jerry Krause as a scout. Hey, mabe’s he’s a big “Moneyball,” fan. Oh boy.

Larry Mahnken is one of the best voices out there talking about the Bronx Bombers. He recently beat the spring training rush with an excellent two-part preview of the 2004 Yankees that is both sensible and detailed called, “The New Face of Evil.” (Part One covers the offense, while Part Two examines the pitching.) When all is said and done, Mahnken likes the Yankees chances to return to the World Serious in 2004, provided they remain healthy:

If theyíre healthy, I donít see any team other than Boston being able to stop them, and I expect thatís what the season will come down to once again, an ALCS vs. Boston. I know that for fans of every other team itís incredibly frustrating to see these two great teams making themselves better while everyone else scrambles to keep up, let alone catch up, but it really has to be this way. Boston improved their rotation, they improved their bullpen, they had the best lineup in all of baseball last season. They finally have the team theyíve wanted to end 86 years of broken dreams. And standing in the way of that are the Yankees, with a team just as strong, ready to break Bostonís dreams once again, as it seems they always do. It’s what makes the Yankees evil, and what make the Yankees good. Theyíre relentless.

Meanwhile, do yourself a favor and head over Rich’s Weekend Baseball BEAT, and check out Lederer’s latest interview. This week Joe Sheehan, a founding member of Baseball Prospectus, steps up at bat. Along with Rob Neyer, and Steve Goldman, Joe Sheehan ranks as one of the brightest and most compelling analysts writing about baseball today. Don’t miss it.

Lastly, here is George Steinbrenner’s clipped reaction to the news that Roger Clemens will now pitch for the Houston Astros:

“Roger Clemens was a great warrior for the Yankees — a teacher and a leader. He told the world he was retiring, and we had no choice but to believe him.”

Man, you think George is burning up?

No, I guess it sure isn’t. We are in the heart of football season, so for what it’s worth, I figured I’d watch as much of the playoffs as I could stand. I used to be a football fan, a big one. Now, my football diet is anemic. Truthfully, I didn’t watch more than one quarter of football until the playoffs all season long. My football intake has dropped steadily for years and it’s at an all-time low. Part of it is that Emily doesn’t like football at all; the other part is that I can’t be bothered with anything but baseball

GO WEST YOUNG MAN

Suddenly, Mets fans were encouraged this week that their team could land Vlad Guerrero, who is arguably one of the five best players in the game. After rejecting a five-year, $75 million deal from the Expos, the biggest offer Guerrero has seen this winter is five-years, $65 million from the Baltimore Orioles. When Miguel Tejada signed with the O’s it was widely believed that Baltimore had an advantage in reeling in Vlad (Guerrero and Tejada, both Dominican, share the same agents).

But for whatever reason, Guerrero has balked. Word had it that he would love to play for the Marlins, but Florida has not jumped into the mix with both feet. The Dodgers are in need of a star offensive player, but with ownership in flux, they have been unable to make a competitive offer. Ah, the frustrations of rooting for the Mets and Dodgers these days.

Which leaves the Mets (and now apparently, the Tigers too). What a steal this could be. An outfield of Cliff Floyd, Mike Cameron and Guerrero is more than somewhat appealing. Heck, I sure would be envious. Guerrero is my favorite National League star; Floyd and Cameron are great guys to boot. But the Mets, concerned about Guerrero’s back troubles, were uneasy about giving him five years. So they offered him three-years at $30 million with incentives that could go much higher.

However, according the The New York Times this morning, Guerrero’s agents have told the Mets that they will pass on New York’s offer:

Last night, Guerrero, baseball’s premier free agent this off-season, was prepared to accept the team’s multiyear offer, believed to be for up to five years. Two people in baseball said the team was not the Baltimore Orioles. Baltimore was the only other team known to have made an offer to Guerrero, but the Orioles’ offer deferred too much money.

So who is this mystery team? Florida? L.A.? The Tigers? A few weeks ago, Will Carroll heard a rumor that the Yankees were considering signing Vlad. Gluttony, you say? Reader Jim Gerard thinks it is sensible:

If the Mets are apparently in a position to steal him away from Baltimore for $13M a year, what’s to stop George from offering him $14M? The Yanks seem to have made up their mind not to sign him early in the off season, and the only possible explanations for it are that George had his sights on Sheffield and ignored his baseball people, who seem to have preferred Guerrero; and that the team is looking to bag Beltran after next season. (They may have been wary of his back, but Will Carroll says it’s fine.) However, that presumes: A) Beltran will still be a free agent — KC could resign him or trade him to a team that signs him long-term, which most teams would make a contingency of acquiring him; or B) he’ll want to play for the Yankees. While I love Beltran and perhaps even favor him over Guerrero because he plays a more important position, is better defensively, and has no injury issues, it’s a much riskier strategy than grabbing Guerrero now. If so, he goes to RF, Sheff moves to LF or DH, Matsui to CF (if Sheff goes to LF), Bernie’s the DH, Lofton becomes (appropriately) the fourth outfielder/pinch hitter-runner.
It’s odd that George would apparently let a talent like Guerrero go unimpeded to his crosstown rival and make a major splash on the back pages.

While I doubt the Yankees are the team that has made the latest offer to Vlad—don’t you think we would have heard some rumors leak through the New York Press by now if that were the case?—I can’t argue with Gerard’s logic. However, as much as I’d love to see Vlad in the Bronx, I think it would be hilarious and fitting if he ended up with the Tigers. First of all, he’d look crisp in their classic home uniform (are they still wearing that these days?), and the transition from oblivion (Montreal) to oblivion (Detriot) is just too funny not to appreciate.

But, nooooo. According the The Los Angeles Times, the mystery team is none other than the Anahiem Angels, who have crashed the party with a five-year, $70 million deal:

Guerrero, who speaks little English, will find a Spanish-speaking owner in Anaheim and fellow Dominicans in [Bartolo] Colon, [Jose] Guillen, pitcher Ramon Ortiz and coach Alfredo Griffin. In September, even before Colon and Guillen had signed, Ortiz heartily endorsed the pursuit of Guerrero.

“If the Angels sign this guy,” Ortiz said, “my God, watch out.”

Like I said, tough time to be a Dodger fan. I hope Jon Weisman keeps himself away from any sharp objects. And how do you think Mariners fans must feel about this one? Yeeesh.

The amount of words devoted to Pete Rose this week has been predictably overwhelming. I’m back to feeling ennervated by the whole thing. Buster Olney is just one of many to weigh in with his take (Rob Neyer also has a good column delineating the history of gambling in baseball), but my favorite bit comes from Rob Dibble, who played for Rose and remains an ardent supporter of the Hit King:

I was in the locker room, when we’d joke that if two cockroaches took off across the floor, Pete would bet on who’d make it first. And I was also on the field when Pete managed the Cincinnati Reds to countless wins.

As my cousin Jonah remarked, somehow, just somehow, I think we would find a way to count all those wins.

You didn’t think we saw the last of Don Zimmer now did you? Popeye has been hired as an advisor by the Devil Rays. According the AP:

Zimmer, who turns 73 on Jan. 17, will be in uniform as a coach during spring training and for pregame practices at all regular-season home games.

It’ll be good to have Zim hanging around Lou. Hopefully, it won’t be too long before he and George engage in some backpage-tabliod fun. I wonder if there will be any fights in the East this year. I can’t remember the last time the Yankees got into a bench-clearing rumpus, but I don’t believe they’ve had one since Giambi’s been on the team. Can I get a little help on this one?

Rick Down, who was let go as the Yankees hitting coach at the end of the 2003 season (and subsequently replaced by Don Mattingly), was hired as the Bombers’ coordinator of minor league instruction yesterday. This continues a time-honored tradition under George Stienbrenner’s watch of placating fired employees by re-hiring them (or merely throwing money in their bank accounts). That’s Yankee loyalty, Yankee pride at work for you.

Life with George often feels like Stienbrenner’s version of Crime and Punishment. For instance, David Cone is in Yankee-limbo after walking away from a TV deal with the YES Network last season to attempt a comeback with the Mets. The Boss isn’t ready to invite him back yet. Roger Clemens will certainly join Cone in Siberia should he choose to pitch for the Houston Astros in 2004. Nobody will be terribly surprised if the Rocket pitches again, right? If he does, he can count on waltzing into the Hall of Fame in a Red Sox cap. While that would be fitting, Clemens might be having drinks with friends and family elsewhere during his induction ceremony.

Finally, while Erick Almonte cleared waivers, third-string catcher Michel Hernandez (who defected from Cuba in 1996 and signed with the Yankees in 1998), was claimed by the Red Sox. As Bob Hohler notes in The Globe today, it is “the first major league movement between the archrivals since 1997.”

My good pal, and travelling companion, Jay Jaffe has a contributed a terrific piece to Baseball Prospectus, which analyzes the hitters who were recently up for election to the Hall of Fame. Using a series of advanced metrics, Jay’s piece is in-depth, thorough, and exceedingly well done. Not only that, but it’s available to everyone. (One conclusion that may be of interest to New York fans is that Keith Hernandez rates slightly ahead of Don Mattingly.) When you have some time, do yourself a solid, and do what Wacko Jacko implored Shelly Duvall to do: Go check it out.

Paul Molitor and Dennis Eckersley were introduced as the newest members of The Hall of Fame in New York yesterday. Stories in The Boston Globe, New York Times and Daily News focus on Molitor and Eckersley’s recovery from drug and alcohol addiction. Last night, I perused my library in search for something good on Molitor. The first (and last as it turns out) place I looked to was Dan Okrent’s book about the 1982 Brewers, “Nine Innings.” Okrent, famous for “discovering” Bill James, was a featured participant in Ken Burns’ “Baseball” documentary. (Emily and I have been watching some of the episodes lately, and she keeps goofing Okrent’s red-rimmed glasses.) I’ve never been able to get through the entire book, which is a shame because the Brewers teams of the early eighties were an extremely appealing bunch. I pick it up in fits and starts, but it never holds my attention for long.

Anyhow, I looked through the portions dealing with Molitor’s story and couldn’t come up with an excerpt that was particularly revealing, although his early career was far from dull. Molitor, a golden boy, was moved around often, first playing short, then second, then center field, right field and finally third base (and all of this in the first five years of his career). He was as aimable as you would ever expect anyone that talented to be. But when he was benched one day in place of Don Money at third, he finally became testy:

“I don’t like it one bit. Let someone else sit if they want Money to get his at-bats.”

Okrent added:

His anger was uncharacteristically splenetic.

I didn’t know what splenetic meant, so I looked it up. Turns out it means spiteful, irritable, ill-humored. Now, I love words; I especially enjoy looking up words that I don’t know (of which there are many). But after I discovered the meaning of the word splenetic, I couldn’t stop thinking about Okrent’s red-rimmed glasses. (It’s a good word, but one that struck me as pretentious in this instance.) I stopped thinking about Molitor and I mumbled and cursed about the word splenetic for the duration of the evening.

It reminded me of when I was a freshman at Hunter college and was taking a 400 level class on Samuel Beckett. I was living with my father in my grandparent’s spacious apartment across the street from the Museum of Natural History. They had both recently passed away and the place was in the process of being sold, but for a few months it was home. I remember studying for a mid-term in the dining room. Papers covered most of the table and I was knee-deep in high-falutin philosophies, when a friend of my father’s stopped by for a visit.

Jim was what you’d call a man’s man. He was from the James Caan, Gene Hackman school of masculinity. He was funny and wry, and looked great in a leather jacket. He was one of those guys who looked as if he could live off cigarettes and coffee for the rest of his life. He sat down with me and asked what I was studying. I pulled one of the essay questions out which concerned a concept put forth by Descartes which said, “Nothing is more real than nothing.” I was consumed with how the total heaviosity of the statement and how it related to Beckett’s work.

Jim said, “Nothing’s more real than nothing…” He mulled it over in his head for a minute. I was expecting him to share some deep life experience with me. He continued to repeat the statement to himself. He then snapped out of his train of thought and looked at me. “Nothing is more real than nothing? You know what? I’d like to talk to that guy. I really would. I’d like to have him sit right here, across this table and ask him exactly what he means by that. Nothing is more real than nothing? You know what? I’d like to punch him in right in his face. Punch him square in the jaw for asking that kind of question.”

I wonder what Jim would have made of a word like splenetic in describing a ball player.

I moved along and broke out “Cracking The Show,” Tom Boswell’s fourth collection of baseball writing, and found an article written in early 1989 about Eckersley. It makes for a nice compliment to the articles in today’s papers about Eckersley’s recovery from addiction:

This is a second chance for me. Not too many people get a second chance. I am just so happy about what has happened to me that I don’t want to stop…I’ve been so lucky, how could I be [upset about Gibson’s homer]? You wouldn’t be very appreciative if you acted that way, would you?

…I shouldn’t have thrown him a strike…But think about how hard it would have been to take if it had happened to me ten years ago.

Boswell went on to write about Eckersley’s good fortune, falling into the closer’s job on the powerful A’s team:

Eckersley is the first to point out that the A’s are a closer’s dream. No other team has four quality setup men in the bullpen. “Goose Gossage had to pitch two innings, somethings [Bruce] Sutter had to go three,” he says. “I go one. Don’t want to say my job is easy. But it can’t get much better than this.

The Athletics’ great talent helps. “I can only stay sharp if I pitch a lot,” he says. “I only pitch when we win. And we win a lot. So I stay sharp.”

Yesterday, Boswell wrote an insightful piece about how closers have been neglected by the baseball writers of America:

When will the sport, and specifically my peers among the baseball writers, figure out that no player in the sport is more central to success than a great closer? At any one time, almost every team in baseball has a legitimate slugger and at least one fine starting pitcher. Some teams have several of each. But perhaps half the clubs in the game can claim to possess even one superior ninth-inning door-slammer.

…When are we finally going to see some basic decency toward the great relief pitchers of the last 50 years? The bullpen got torched again yesterday by a bunch of ink-strained wretches who couldn’t hit a Dan Quisenberry sinker or an Elroy Face forkball if you gave each of them two tennis rackets. If relievers such as Mike Marshall, Sparky Lyle, Sutter, Fingers, Willie Hernandez, Steve Bedrosian, Mark Davis, Eckersley and Eric Gagne are so good within a one-year span that they are chosen over all pitchers for the Cy Young, then how can the entirety of their careers be judged as so inconsequential?

Heck, if I were Sutter or Gossage, I’d be feeling positively splenetic, no?

Peter Gammons is not known for trashing ball players. You can call him a yenta all you want, but he’s no vicious gossip. (If anything, he champions all kinds of players–from the greats to the lesser known talents.) So Gammons’ latest column on Pete Rose came as a bit of a surprise:

The fact that [Rose] has orchestrated the release of his book and his admission of guilt at a time when Dennis Eckersley and Paul Molitor — two great people who overcame a lot, which Rose hasn’t yet — are being elected is a bold statement that he has no respect for Cooperstown, and that he wants to be in the Hall for one reason — to make money to feed his addictions.

This is a man who admitted something in a forum in which he can make money. He has no remorse, no respect for anything but his next bet. Rose is perhaps the lowest figure in baseball in my 32 years of covering the sport.

Right on.

Edward Cossette has been writing about the Internet media vs. the Traditional media over at Bambino’s Curse for some time now. Considering that both Curt Schilling and John Henry visit and make comments on Red Sox websites (like Sons of Sam Horn), this is a story that will continue to unfold during the 2004 season. Apparently, Schilling was on SoSH recently and teed off on the Questec system. Although Cossette is partially thrilled with the intimacy that is created when players connect directly with the fans via a website posting, he raises some pertinent questions about ethics, and journalistic responsibiltiy. Essentially, he makes like Fiorello LaGuardia and asks: Say children, what does it all mean? David Pinto picks up the thread over at Baseball Musings. In all, this is a fascinating subject, and Cossette did a tremendous job of covering it today.

Paul Molitor and Dennis Eckersley were elected to the Hall of Fame this afternoon. Now that Eckersley–most famous as world-class closer for the Oakland A’s–has reached Cooperstown, perhaps the voters will begin to look more kindly on relief pitchers. Still, Bruce Sutter and Goose Gossage, arguably the two most significant relievers of the free agency era, did not make the cut once again.

Eckersley, a demonstrative and volatile performer, has been a nervous wreck of late as he waited to hear if he made it into the Hall. In a report that was published yesterday, he said:

“It’s killing me is what it’s doing…It’s murdering me. Tell me already, so I can deal with it if I don’t. I feel like a little kid, where you’re dangling something in front of me. I can’t even sleep. I’m like a yo-yo.”

Eckersley is as entertaining off the field as he was on it. Terry Pluto covered the swinging salad days of Eck’s career in “The Curse of Rocky Colavito,” while Mike Bryan had an excellent chapter on Eckersley in his book, “Baseball Lives.” Here is an excerpt from Bryan’s book:

People say baseball players should go out and have fun. No way. To me, baseball is pressure. I always feel it. This is work. The fun is afterwards, when you shake hands.

When I was a rookie I’d tear stuff up. Now I keep it in. What good is smashing a light on the way up the tunnel? But I still can’t sleep at night if I stink. I’ve always tried to change that and act like a normal guy when I got home. “Hi, honey, what’s happening?” I can’t. It’s there. It doesn’t go away. But maybe that’s why I’ve been successful in my career, because I care. I don’t have fun. I pitch scared. That’s what makes me go. Nothing wrong with being scared if you can channel it.

I used to hide behind my cockiness. Don’t let the other team know you’re scared. I got crazy on the mound. Strike a guy out, throw my fist around—“Yeah!” Not real classy, but I was a raw kid. I didn’t care. It wasn’t fake. It was me. This wasn’t taken very kindly by a lot of people. They couldn’t wait to light me up. That’s the price you pay.

I wish I was a little happier in this game. What is so great about this shit? You get the money, and then you’re used to the money. You start making half a million a year, next thing you know you need half a million a year. And the heat is on!

Used to be neat to just be a big-league ballplayer, but that wore off. I’m still proud, but I don’t want people to bother me about it. I wish my personality with people was better. I find myself becoming short with people. Going to the store. Getting gas.

If you’re not happy with when you’re doing lousy, then not happy when you’re doing well, when the hell are you going to be happy? This game will humble you in a heartbeat. Soon as you starting getting happy, “Boom.” For the fans—and this is just a guess—they think the money takes out the feeling. I may be wrong but I think they think, “What the hell is he worrying about? He’s still getting’ paid.” There may be a few players who don’t give 100 percent, but I always thought if you were good enough to make that kind of money, you’d have enough pride to play like that, wouldn’t you think? You don’t just turn it on or off.

Eckersley is a good talker. But he’s not as slick as the media-friendly David Cone; he is much closer to Pat Jordan: a straight-shootin’ sombitch. I admire him for his vulnerability and honesty. Bryan’s interview with Eck was conducted during spring training in 1988, with his his greatest years as a relief pitcher ahead of him. But Eckersley was candid about how he felt about life after baseball:

I’ve been very fortunate to pitch for fourteen years in the big leagues. That’s a long time for a pitcher. I’m afraid of life after baseball. Petrified. I’m not ashamed of saying it. I’ll be all right, but nothing will ever compare with this. I will not stay in baseball. I think about commercial real estate and money, big money!

Or maybe I’ll grow up after I get ouf of this fuckin’ game.

Funny that we should be talking about grown-ups with Pete Rose clouding the baseball landscape, but both Mr. Molitor and Mr. Eck are all grown up now, and where they belong: in Cooperstown. Here’s hoping that Blyelven, Ryno, Sutter and the Goose join them soon.

I’M NOT OLD SCHOOL OR NEW SCHOOL, I’M OUTTA SCHOOL, I’M DITCHIN’

As the Pete Rose story (a.ka. “The Hustler’s Convention”)hits the streets via the nation’s newspapers this morning, I just wanted to do a quick follow-up on the piece I wrote yesterday. After I posted the article, I had the opportunity to ask a couple of questions to Tim Machman of The New York Sun, who is one of the brightest young baseball writers in the country.

Bronx Banter: Now that the Pete Rose affair has finally come out in the mainstream how will this effect Basball Prospectus’ standing?

Tim Marchman: Honestly, I don’t think it will one way or the other. The most you’re going to see in the mainstream press is that “a website” broke this story a while ago.

BB: Will they be absolved by the mainstream media? Should they be?

TM: I think the mainstream baseball press, insofar as this is an issue to them, will judge this by results and not process. As I understand it, what Will Carroll and Derek Zumsteg reported was to the best of their knowledge true, and met a level of sourcing that would hold up at a newspaper. That doesn’t mean that what their sources told them was accurate, although it seems probable to me that it was. From my angle, they met their obligations as journalists whether or not- and these are two distinct things- a)their sources were accurate and b)what they reported actually occurs the way their sources told them it would. Either, both or neither of this could be true. In regards to a), they had a responsibility to make sure the information met a certain threshold of credibility; I’m quite certain they met it. In regards to b), whether or not events unfold the way they predicted is irrelevant as long as they met their ethical obligations to ensure the information was credible. The world is dynamic. Unfortunately, I think they will be judged by whether or not events unfold in the way they had reason to predict they would, which is of course out of their control.

BB: Do you think BP wants to remain known as “outsiders” or are they trying to get on the inside and are merely running into static trying to do so?

TM: It’s not my place to say how they want to position themselves, but I think a few points hold. First, they’re not a monolithic entity. Joe Sheehan might call up Brian Cashman and get his call returned in five minutes; Will Carroll might call up Brian Cashman later that afternoon and find that he’s out having a root canal. Forever. Second, I think Baseball Prospectus writers occupy a unique niche in that they have a great deal of access, but it’s not neccessarily always on their terms, and I think at least some of that access has been thrust upon them more than they’ve sought it. (The Pete Rose story, if I understand correctly, is a perfect example of this). Anyway, for my money too big a distinction is made between insiders and outsiders. Plenty of good writers on big papers with tremendous access to front offices remain neutral and objective; plenty of self-styled objective analysts rely on conjecture and innuendo. What matters is sound thought.

BB: Was BP in over their heads breaking the story in the first place?

TM: Absolutely not. I think there are certain things they wish they’d known to do, but they did a solid and professional job of breaking an important story.

BB: Was it simply a matter that MLB and the mainstream press were in cahoots, and the story was only going to break when MLB was good and ready
to have it out there?

TM: Yes. Writers with the access that Peter Gammons and Jayson Stark have break stories of this scale on their source’s terms; it’s just how things are done. This is a real problem in sportswriting: is it journalism or is it boosterism? What does it mean when the two best-connected and most influential baseball writers work for an MLB broadcast partner? I don’t mean to impugn Gammons’ or Stark’s integrity, but the appearance of a conflict of interest, in addition to the normal reporter/source dynamic, is troubling. They clearly knew about the story before Will Carroll and Derek Zumsteg; why didn’t they break it? The only reason I can think of is that they were serving the interests of their sources before that of their public. One of the advantages of not relying so heavily on sources is that if a story like this does come your way you can break it without worrying about consequences.

I think Marchman hits the nail on head in saying that too much of a distinction is being made between the outsiders and insiders. Broad labels like this make me inherently uneasy, and yet I’ve used them as a way to start examining the contemporary culture of baseball writing. But Tim is right: What matters is sound thought. And the Internet-based writers don’t hold a monopoly on it, that’s for sure. Gordon Edes, the head baseball writer at The Boston Globe, wrote a wonderfully definitive and thorough piece on the Alex Rodriguez negotiations late last week, which proves that some of the most sound, and responsible work is coming out of a mainstream outlet. If you didn’t catch it, I suggest you go back and take a peak.

What can we make of the lack of left-handed starters on the Yankees’ 2004 roster? While our impulse may be to yell like Chicken Little, the reality may not be as harsh as we fear. Shawn Bernard, who recently launched a Yankee-based blog called The Greatest Game, ran a simple but informative study the other day which noted that neither Andy Pettitte nor David Wells were particularly effective vs. right-handed hitting in 2003. At the same time Javier Vazquez (who agreed to a four-year, $45 million contract with New York this afternoon) and Kevin Brown were not killed by lefties either.

Jim Gerard, a reader of Bronx Banter, sent me an e-mail responding to quotes made by unnamed sources in Tyler Kepner’s story in yesterday’s Times:

One source claims Vasquez is going to have to adjust his style and will be sorely taxed by lineups “stacked with lefties.” Just who is he referring to? The Red Sox have four good lefthanded hitters (Varitek, Ortiz, Nixon, Mueller when he hits that way), the Blue Jays about the same. Vasquez hasn’t faced lineups of this stature in the National League? Silly. As is the comment that “teams are going to stack their lineups with lefties against the Yanks.” What are they going to do — import players for the series? The truth is there isn’t a team in the AL that has more than four good left handed hitters, and some teams don’t even have that many good hitters in total. Vasquez has a good BAA lefthanders; if he faces some tough lefties once in a while, well, isn’t that what he’s getting paid for?
And while Vasquez will have to work harder in a league with a DH instead of the pitcher, the Yanks’ newly fortified pen will enable their starters to go a hard six or seven and not worry about getting the ball to Mo.

As Mike Carminati correctly points out:

Yankee lefties have fared better than righties in the Yankee Stadium era (3% better ERA). However, the latest Yankee dynasty didn’t seem to benefit much from southpaws (5.23 ERA in 2000?).

Given the turnover in the Yankee rotation

The last night I was in New Orleans at the winter meetings, Jay Jaffe and I were huddled around some of the guys from Baseball Prospectus when Jack Curry from the Times rolled around. I had introduced myself to Curry the day before and had wanted to introduce Jay to him as well. Curry smiled as he approached and said, “What are you guys doing anyway? Stalking us?” He was busting chops, but it wasn’t until that point that I asked myself: I wonder what the mainstream press makes of guys like Jay and me being here?
Curry chatted with us for a good while. He was friendly and generous with his time, which both Jay and I appreciated. I think he was more curious than bemused. I can’t say for sure, but my assumption is that Jay and I would be associated with Prospectus simply because that’s who we were hanging around. And since it’s Jack Curry’s job to know who is who at these kind of things, I’m sure we stuck out. Of course Prospectus isn’t on the same level as us bloggers—although several of their writers initially had blogs of their own, and some still maintain blogs too—but I don’t know that it would matter to a member of the mainstream media. We would all be lumped together as the Internet Nerds, or The Stat Geeks, or The Sons of Moneyball.

Either way, we were the outsiders. Now, whether or not a blogger cherishes and promotes their status as an outsider, or is merely using their blog as a vehicle to become an insider is a different story. I’m sure there people on both sides of the fence. (After all, one of the Gods of baseball bloggers is Roger Angell, the ultimate outsider on the inside.) But to the mainstream press, we are outsiders.

A few weeks ago I had a conversation with a fellow blogger about the impact of blogs and the Internet on baseball writing. I think it has already had an impact, which is sure to gain momentum over the next couple of years. My friend asked, “What do you think the mainstream writers make of us?” “Not much,” was my answer. I said that some of them clearly read and enjoy our stuff, while others can’t be bothered. But most importantly, until a blogger threatens their paycheck, they won’t be overly concerned.

I don’t know the future for baseball blogs, certainly as a way to make a living. But ever so slowly, Internet baseball writing is making some waves. The most famous example came late last summer when Will Carroll and Derek Zumsteg of Baseball Prospectus wrote that MLB planned to reinstate Pete Rose. MLB denied the story and Carroll and Zumsteg were essentially left hung out to dry. Prospectus had not been in the business of scooping major stories, and suddenly they appeared to be in over their heads.

But as Will Carroll explained to me, he didn’t set out to break the Pete Rose story. “We literally fell into it – it wasn’t something we sought out or something we normally do (how many stories have we broken since?) so there was no gain to just blue-skying it.”

As David Pinto pointed out today, the BP story stated that Rose would not have to admit to betting on baseball in order to be reinstated. That hasn’t turned out to be the case. Playing Devil’s Advocate, I asked Carroll, “If and when Rose does get reinstated by MLB, do you feel you’ll be vindicated? Isn’t it like saying it’s going to rain? Eventually, you’ll be right.”

Carroll answered, “Then why didn’t someone else do it?” That’s a good question. I don’t know the behind-the-scenes relationships between MLB and the mainstream media. But judging by their reaction to the BP story, MLB was furious that the story was leaked so early.

“It’s speculation,” Carroll continued, “but I think they wanted to handle this in their own way on their own time – which is their right – but our publication caused them to go early and because they had no other way to go, they went negative. It’s a symbiotic relationship that MLB has with the media and it’s clear that some have a relationship that allows them more access than others.”

(For an all access take on the Rose story, look no further than Tom Verducci’s latest column.)

I asked Carroll, that for all the trouble it’s caused him, would he break the story again? “Without a doubt. I’d change small things – I’d know to ask for a copy of the memo rather than being shocked into stupidity. I’d know better how to conduct the investigation and confirm sources. Really, I wouldn’t so much change anything as hope to be a better journalist.”

Carroll believes the criticism he’s faced will slow once Rose is resinstated, but he’s not looking for credit or apologies. “I’d like for BP to be taken seriously as a media outlet with the respect due that type of credible, productive enterprise.”

Jon Weisman wrote a compelling article about the BP story when it first broke. When I asked him how he felt about the story now that Pete Rose is on ABC, Weisman replied, “The issue of whether Pete admits guilt is relevant, at least to the widespread discussion if not whether he should be excused. On the other hand, I don’t think this should prevent BP for being credited for being ahead of the pack on the story, however relevant one deems that to be.

“Alex, I don’t want BP and bloggers like us to be dependent on scoops to gain respect. I want us to gain respect because our analysis deserves it and our writing deserves it – before, during or after the fact.”

With that in mind, please head over to Rich’s Weekend Baseball BEAT, and take in Rich Lederer’s latest article, “One Small Step for Blyleven,” which suggests that the influence of Internet-based writers is here to stay. Just as Michael Lewis wrote about the hostilities of baseball’s old gaurd in “Moneyball,” Lederer encounters similar resistance from an old newspaper lion like Bill Conlin. Remember what Satchel said about looking back.

Gordon Edes has a wonderful piece on Red Sox pitcher Tim Wakefield in The Globe this morning. Edes catches up with Wakefield in Florida a few months after the knuckleballer gave up the pennant-clinching home run to Aaron Boone. Fortunately, Wakefield, who pitched brilliantly during the 2003 off-season, has not become the new Bill Buckner in Boston. Wakefield talks about how he’s dealt with the Game 7 loss to New York, and how the 2003 season was the happiest he’s had in Boston since he joined the club in 1995:

“That was the biggest thing for me, sharing it with our fans,” Wakefield said, “and with the guys on our team who had never been in that position before, like Todd Jones. You could see a look on his face like a little child.

“Mike Timlin, myself and Todd Jones, it was weird, but the three of us ended up in the middle of the field, sitting on the mound. We were just so blessed. I think we all felt the same way. I feel so fortunate putting that uniform on every day. I work, or play a child’s game, for a living. Yes, it’s work, but it’s still a game, something I started playing when I was 5 years old.”

Wakefield has been my favorite Red Sox for years; call it a soft spot for knucklers. This article proves that he’s a real mensch too. Check it out.

The Yankees received some unexpected news as 2003 rolled over into 2004: David Wells, the sole southpaw on their starting staff, is not going to pitch for them at all this coming year; instead, he is returning to his home town to pitch for the Padres. Wells and his agent had a handshake deal with the Yankees, but just as Wells snaked his way out of a similar arrangement in Arizona several years ago, he is now spurning the Yankees.

What goes around comes around, am I right? Wells understands that he’s probably burned his last bridge in the BX. Speaking about his old pal George Steinbrenner the other day, Wells said:

“I’m sure now I won’t hear from him ever again,” Wells told reporters during a conference call reported by The Associated Press. “He’s been good to me in a lot of ways. And in other ways, he’s been very stubborn. That’s George Steinbrenner.”

Along with Wells, Andy Pettitte and Roger Clemens are gone too:

“They lost a lot of guys at once, and I think they’re in shock,” [Wells] said.

It’s true that Cashman must be burning over this one, but shocked? That’s a reach because nothing’s shocking when it comes to Wells. The question is why would Wells leave a playoff team