Baseball is not like basketball or tennis. It's not a sport where two opposing athletes can go play after play against each other. There is no Wilt posing up Russell, or Federer serving against Nadal. And opposing pitchers rarely face each other and never using their best tools against each other.

Which is a shame. Because the case maybe that this is the last year for both Mariano Rivera and Trevor Hoffman, positions 1 and 1A in the list of Greatest Relievers of All Time, could be in their last years, having only played against each other a handful of times.

Hoffman has blown 5 saves this season, the most since he blew 7, in all of the 2007 season. After a resurgence of sorts last year, when he posted his second-best ERA for a season, his ERA this season has ballooned to a monstrous 13.15. he most likely will lose the closer spot on a team that desperately needs pitching. And by all accounts, he will retire after this season, shortly before his 43rd birthday. He will retire as the all-time saves leader.

Rivera is second in all-time saves. He is 15th all-time in ERA, and the only one in the top 30 who has pitched past the Great Depression. (The next active player...Trevor Hoffman. They are the only two active players in the top 216 players of all-time.) A first-time Hall of Famer and the best postseason pitcher ever, Rivera has been hit hard lately. His numbers don't reveal it—he has a .73 WHIP and a 1.46 ERA so far this season—but his last two appearances showed a pitcher who's cutter hasn't been biting as much as it should.

Both pitchers have lost a few mph the past few seasons. What's more they both, so far this season, have lost some movement. Rivera's horizontal movement is down to 1.7, down from 3.7 in 2007. Hoffman's vertical movement is down to 12.5, down from 14.8 in 2007. it goes without saying that movement is vital to two pitchers who don't possess serious velocity, but have made their names on a devastating cutter and an unhittable change up.

As 2 of the best pitchers of their generation—they are 3rd and 6th all-time at WHIP, and 1st and 14th for adjusted ERA+—it is ridiculous that neither has ever won a Cy Young award. Hoffman has finished second twice, including in 2006 when he lost to Brandon Webb who was 16-8, with a 3.10 ERA. Hoffman had a 1.48 ERA that season and a 849 WHIP. Rivera has finished 3rd 3 times and 2nd once, in 2005 when he lost—preposterously, to Bartolo Colon, who had a ERA over 2 runs higher than Rivera. Rivera had a 1.38 ERA and a .868 WHIP.

Now it may be that Hoffman's and Rivera's struggles are temporary and they bounce back this summer with strong campaigns. But both are over 40 years old, and time stunts every great athlete eventually. Like Patrick Ewing with the Magic, or Emmitt Smith with the Cardinals, time will eventually hit these two future Hall of Famers, and their play will decline. Perhaps it is best for them to leave when they could still perform, and not drag it out, like the aforementioned Smith and Ewing, maybe they should leave before they become pale imitations of their former selves. Or maybe they have terrific seasons. Pitch their teams to the World Series, and face each other one more time. Not likely. But maybe.

It would be a fitting end.

Brain Cushing is a jerk.

If he did what we all think he did, than the above statement is true. He would be a jerk, cheater and a liar. That would not be up for debate.

But what about Shawn Merriman? Or Dana Stubblefield? Or Bill Romanowski? Or any of the other hundreds of NFL players?

This is not to absolve Cushing. If he did take a banned substance, than everything that happens afterward, he brought on himself, including losing the NFL Rookie of the Year.

But was Merriman's Rookie of the Year taken away from him? Or was Stubblefield's? Nope.

Why all the hate on Cushing now?

For years, players of the NFL seemed to ride with out much hoopla when they got busted for steroids. In 2005, 60 Minutes reported that NFL players were prescribed steroids....and no one seemed to react at all. Roger Clemens, Barry Bonds, Jason Giambi...all major news. The NFL....shrug.

Until now.

When Will Smith and Calvin Pace and Charles Grant last year for violating the Substance Abuse Policy, did anyone care? No, it was more of a nuisance, "damn, my team is without him for 4 games!" What about when Jason Ferguson got busted? Do you even remember that? Rodney Harrison? Marcus Stroud? Shaun Rogers?

The only thing different about Brian Cushing is that he was white and successful. A burgeoning star. Ryan Tucker, another white NFL player was a fine player, but not a 1st round draft pick and a Rookie of the Year. Same with Eric Ainge. He was never a big name, big ticket guy. Cushing is.

Did the media feel they needed to treat Cushing differently? Did they have hopes pinned on him? Or did they want to trample him harder than they wanted to, say Shawn Merriman or Rodney Harrison—who now has a voice of authority position on NFL Night in America—because, the media, mostly white guys, felt the need to hit one of their own race harder?

Is that why they are clambering for a re-vote of the Rookie of the Year vote?

It's impossible to say. Perhaps race had nothing to do with it at all. But what is true is that Shawn Merriman was busted for hard steroid use and no re-vote was taken. And Cushing was busted for "...elevated levels of hCG...The level that he tested positive for was so low that it would not have been considered a positive test even a year ago." Also, "Cushing was tested randomly numerous times throughout the season and never tested positive again." And it is headline news for days.

Again, this is in no way to absolve Cushing. But it is curious that after years of benign neglect from the media and the public in general—even after big name players were caught—suddenly people seem to care.

Very curious.

Sure, it's not even a month into the season and it's far too early to judge any off-season moves. But why not do it anyway. Let's take a look at how the Yankees off-season moves have panned out so far.

Curtis Granderson for Austin Jackson, Ian Kennedy and Phil Coke

Austin Jackson, the chip the Tigers wanted in the Curtis Granderson trade is batting .322 with a home run, 10 walks and 3 stolen bases He is handling the lead-off spot very well so far. And he is playing an excellent centerfield, ranking 3rd in the AL in Fangraphs UZR.

Ian Kennedy has a 0-1 record with a 4.43 ERA and a 1.19 WHIP. He has 21 Ks.

Phil Coke has a 1.38 ERA and a 1.46 WHIP. He has 11 Ks in 13 IP

Curtis Granderson, after a good start, has cooled off and is batting .243. He has 2 HR and 4 SB. He is batting .208 vs. lefties.

Verdict:

As of this moment, the Yankees got the worse end of this deal. Jackson has taken to the lead-off spot excellently and should be a fixture in CF for a long time. Coke has done well as the lefty out of the Tigers pen. And Kennedy, despite the mediocre ERA, has actually pitched well. His WHIP is good and batters are only batting .214 off of him. He can turn into a fine 3-4 starter. Granderson has reverted to his form of the past 2 years: a low BA, some power and absolutely clueless against lefties. Hopefully his power will help alleviate the pain he brings against lefties. Loser: Yankees.

Javier Vazquez and RP Boone Logan for P Arodys Vizcaino, LF Melky Cabrera, and P Michael Dunn

Javier Vazquez has made no one forget his first time around with the Yankees. His pitches look flat and he looks scared on the mound. He has a 9.00 ERA and a 1.8 WHIP. He has given up 5 HRs in 20 IP.

Boone Logan has done fairly well in his few appearances. He has only pitched 2.1 innings in the majors and has a 3.86 ERA. In the minors this season, he had a 1.35 ERA in 6.2 IP.

Arodys Vizcaino has been hit around a little bit in A-ball this season. He has a 4.95 ERA and 19Ks in 20 IP. He is still only 19.

Michael Dunn, in AA, has been lights out so far. He has a .095 ERA in 9.1 IP. He has struck out 12.

Melky Cabrera, away from his buddy Robinson Cano, has been pretty awful. In 71 AB, Cabrera is batting .197—70 points below his lifetime average—with 11 Ks. His OPS+ is a very sad 37.

Verdict:

Pretty much a wash as both teams major league players are awful. Melky Cabera wasn't supposed to be a 10-year lock in left field, just a temporary left fielder and 4th outfielder. Vasquez was supposed to anchor the Yankees rotation and provide quality innings. Advantage, Braves, Also, slight edge goes to the Braves though as Vizcaino was a coveted young talent and has time to grow.

Nick Johnson for Hideki Matsui

If OBP is all Cashman wanted than Johnson is fine. Even batting well below his weight at .143, Johnson's 20 walks give him a .385 OBP. But still, Johnson still only has 8 hits in 78 AB, which is just plain terrible. He has 13 total bases.

Matsui, so far, has been his usual self. Batting .274 with 4 HRs, he has a 126+ OPS. However, the one stat where Johnson has the lead is in Cashman's coveted OBP where he trails Johnson with a .354 OBP.

Verdict:

Matsui. I know Cashman covets the OBP. But dude, the guy is batting .143. Sure, he'll probably pick it up, in which case, the verdict might eventually go to Johnson—he did bat .291 with a .426 OBP last year. But right now, he couldn't hit the floor if he fell down.

Brett Gardner for Johnny Damon

Damon has gotten off to a hot start, batting .321 with no home runs and 1 SB. He's slugging .423 with 9 RBIs.

Gardner, with 20 fewer ABs, is batting .310, 0 HRs, with 9 stolen bases (tied for lead league). Gardner is slugging .362 with 6 RBIs.

Verdict:

Ultimatly it's a wash. Damon has more power, Gardner more speed. It's a pick your poison; and the Yankees felt they needed speed and defense and a baserunning pest, more than another HR threat. The Tigers needed power and leadership. In the end, a tie.

Hughes for Chamberlain

Probably the easiest one in the bunch. Hughes has been excellent so far, seemingly learning from his time at Rivera's shoulder in the bullpen last year how to attack hitters. He has a 2.00 ERA and is holding batters to a .103 BA. He has 18 Ks in 18 IP.

Chamberlain—whom everyone is figuring out is a reliever at heart—hasn't been bad either. He has a 3.72, mainly inflated by one bad pitch to Kendry Morales. His fastball and slider have increased in velocity and his K/IP is way up. He seems a little more comfortable on the mound to rear back and let it go.

Verdict:

A win/win for the Yankees. Hughes seems settled in as a starter and is responding, and Chamberlain is slowly gaining back the confidence lost in the failed "Starter Experiment."

Overall, the Yankees moves haven't quite panned out as they would have liked. If not for Phil Hughes splendid start, the back pages this offseason might be more filled with Cashman's moves to get Granderson and Vasquez, and Matsui, Damon and Austin Jackson's good starts to the season. It's a long season though, and it will be interesting to keep an eye on these off-season moves as the season progresses.

For years, baseball teams from smaller markets have been crying foul over larger market teams buying championships via the larger resources they earn by being in bigger cities. So you knew when the Yankees won the World Series last year with a bunch of new free agents, that the howls and shrieks from Milwaukee, San Diego and the like were going to be louder than ever. Over the winter there has been a lot of talk about addressing this problem. Let’s see what the best baseball minds out there have come up with.

First up is the idea floated by Bud Selig’s “Special Committee for On-Field Matters:” Floating Realignment.


Floating Realignment
For those who haven’t heard, the idea goes something like this: Floating Realignment allows teams to be shifted to different divisions. Therefore powerhouses could be broken up—New York or Boston could be shifted to the Central Division, so Baltimore and Toronto would have a better chance of competing in the East. Also, Kansas City and Minnesota—small market teams—would have many more dates with the Yankees or Boston which should help alleviate any attendance issues those markets might have.


OK, ignoring potential problems with the idea coming to fruition; such as would the Players Association actually agree to this (No.), or would teams such as Minnesota or the Indians voluntarily move to the East (No.), Jason Stark writes this week on why this realignment plan will never happen.

“Isn’t it insane to mess with the fabric of your entire sport because you can’t figure out what to do about two of the most successful franchises on Earth?”

Stark is exactly right. The issue is a non-starter. Why would you separate one of the best, most storied, most watched and attended rivalry in all of sports? Answer: you wouldn’t.


There is no possible way that MLB, FOX, ESPN, not to mention the Red Sox or the Yankees would ever agree to less games played between these two teams. Ever. As Maury Brown writes in BizofBaseball.com:

“...there are some rivalries that transcend all sports, and there is no bigger rivalry than the Yankees and Red Sox. Theoretically, you could have one of these clubs jumping divisions. Fans would raise eyebrows, but the networks would flip.”

There’s also another reason not to agree to the Floating Alignment plan. Which Stark goes on to write about: shortsightedness. He quotes one GM:

“To me,” he said, “it would be embarrassing to make rules around the Red Sox and Yankees and then turn around in maybe seven, eight or nine years and find that the Mets, Cubs and Phillies are like the Yankees and Red Sox are now. Then would we have to make rules for those teams, too?”

True. Cleveland, rebuilding now, was not so long ago, a powerhouse team. The Blue Jays won two championships in the AL East. Would they have moved the Atlanta Braves when they were ruling the NL East? What about now? Also, the “small market” Twins have won the Al Central 5 out of the last 8 years—would you move them so Detroit could compete?


There is no way this plan ever comes to fruition. And Selig knows that. One wonders why he even floated it out there. Probably to show the world that baseball is diligently working on it, even if he knows that, most likely, nothing will be done for the time being.


OK. What to do then?


Capping the Wealthy
Recently, I wrote about the revenue disparity issue—an issue related hand-in-hand to the competitive balance issue—and wrote that a hard salary cap would never happen in Major League baseball. Why? For the simple reason that baseball needs the Red Sox and Yankees to be successful. Those teams draw fans and TV ratings wherever they go. They are the cash cows. Why would baseball try to make them just like every other team?


To put it gently, I doubt Fox and ESPN and the networks would be in favor of the plan. They want interest in Boston and New York to forever remain high—it means ratings. Now, this is not to say that Milwaukee, Kansas City, San Diego and Pittsburgh should never be in the playoffs—just that if they do become competitive, they should not do it at the expense of Boston and the Yankees. That just wouldn’t make financial sense. And it wouldn’t be fair to the big market clubs.


And to be honest, it’s not like the Steinbrenner family is the richest family in baseball—so it’s not like a lot of teams don’t have a lot of cash. According to the 2008 Forbes List of the richest people in America, George Steinbrenner’s net worth ($1.3B) trails those of Carl Pohlad (Twins – $3.6B), Ted Lerner (Nationals – $3.5B), Mike Ilitch (Tigers – $1.6B), Drayton McLane (Astros – $1.6B), Carl Linder (Reds - $1.4B) and Tom Hicks (Rangers – $1.4B). Oakland A’s owner, Lewis N. Wolff has assets over 1 billion dollars and Baltimore’s Peter Angelos was worth 1.2 billion. And this doesn’t even include the corporations who own teams like Liberty Media (Braves), Rogers Communications (Blue Jays) and Nintendo (Mariners).


So if financial equality isn’t the big problem—why does baseball need a cap?


Simple answer, they really don’t.


Ideas Abound
There are lots of plans out there to solve the competitive balance issue; some truly inventive. For instance, some have proposed a NBA-like system of divisions; where there are no hard and fast American and National Leagues, but 6 regional divisions that interplay throughout the season, again like basketball and hockey. The benefit, they propose, would that the big salaried Northeast teams—both New York teams, Boston, Philadelphia and Detroit—would be bunched together, and would fight amongst themselves in that division—and other smaller salaried cities would have more of a chance of winning their respective divisions.


Another proposal, pitched in a 2007 article in the New York Times by Michael Lewis—where he decried the current revenue sharing system as inadequate—is his own, population-based revenue sharing plan.

The problem is that transfers are based on local revenues. Teams that receive money are encouraged to invest it in their payrolls. But if a team actually attracts fans by fielding a winning team, its revenue-sharing receipts will be reduced....revenue sharing, as it is now structured, actually makes lasting success less likely....

Lewis then goes on to promote his idea for revenue sharing.

To create a more balanced playing field, revenue-sharing payments should be increased for teams that attract more fans. I have devised an approach for doing this based on a statistical analyzes of teams’ payrolls, winning percentages and attendance. It takes into account the size of the team’s local population, to acknowledge that teams in places like New York and Chicago have greater financial incentives to invest in players than teams in places like Milwaukee and Kansas City do.

Lewis posits that his theory would give incentives to clubs to take their revenue sharing proceeds and remain competitive. Possibly. But would larger MLB teams go for it? Places like Boston and New York already feel that they are doing enough for small market teams. Asking them to potentially do more would probably not wash. You could hear them saying, “Other teams are attracting more fans—presumably by winning—and we have to pay them more? Don’t think so.”


Capping The Poor
This winter, the aforementioned Jason Stark gave forth his own plan. And simply put, baseball keeps the luxury tax, but adds a basement tax. It’s not a hard salary floor, but like the luxury tax, for any team that goes beneath a payroll threshold, they have to pay a fine like the luxury tax.


Starks reasoning is that the smaller market teams, before they sell one ticket, should have around $80 to $90 million dollars of revenue, courtesy of revenue-sharing, the central fund and their local TV, cable, and radio deals. When you consider that nearly one-third of the teams in baseball spend less on player payroll and player development than they receive in revenue sharing, giving those teams a financial “incentive” to get them to spend their money—such as a salary floor tax—would help alleviate a lot of the competitive balance issues, according to Stark.


And that doesn’t address the fact that some of these small market owners aren’t spending the money they have outside of baseball—which brings up the question that do some of these owners even want to field a competitive team. No, Stark’s plan is simply a way to get some of the smaller teams to spend the money they get through the baseball welfare system, and to put a better product on the field.


A similar idea was written about in Itsaboutthemoney.com where their list of proposals is similar to Stark’s:


• Lower the luxury tax threshold (more teams paying)
• Continue to escalate the penalties for exceeding that threshold (offending teams’ payments increase every year)
• The top 5 teams that take in the revenue sharing/luxury tax payments must provide audited financial statements to MLB to “prove” they spent the handouts on improving the club via “sources and uses” schedules. If the team can’t prove they used the funds to improve their clubs, they either forfeit the following year’s payments or must refund the current year’s payments.
• Teams that are amongst the bottom 3 in terms of payroll for five years in a row are prohibited from receiving payments for the following year (a motivation to spend)
• Get a slotting system in place for the MLB draft so teams won’t bypass superior talent due to cost


Some good ideas there—many them among the “incentive” based variety that Stark’s had. Also addressing the draft was a very good idea—something other sports like football have to do as well.


First, Do No Harm
But perhaps the most realistic solution is one that Joe Sheehan of Baseball Prospectus wrote almost a decade ago when he was writing about the “Competitive Balance Draft” Bud Selig was at the time proposing. His article still has some truth for today’s issues.

"Addressing the emerging gaps in revenue growth, ensuring that all teams have an equal economic incentive to succeed, forcing out ownership groups that aren’t motivated to win, abandoning markets that don’t support the game (emphasis mine)….”

Correct. The main problem isn’t big market teams “buying a championship” while small market teams can’t. In fact, it’s not even about “small market” teams. Rather it is about small market owners. Owners who aren’t interested in winning, or even being competitive, but in pocketing the most money.

Say what you will about the Yankees or Red Sox “buying” a championship, at least their owners are willing to do just that—go out and spend the money to get players to win ballgames. George Steinbrenner bought the Yankees for $10 million dollars. He created their present day net worth of 1.6 billion dollars by putting a great product on the field, something that caused him to spend. But in spending, winning follows and thus, more money.


There is to be a consensus growing that there needs to be an incentive for owners to spend the money they have—or at least the money they get from other owners—on the product they put on the field. And if they aren’t interested in doing that, MLB should find owners who will. And if the fans aren’t interested in supporting their local team, move the franchise to a city that will.


In conclusion, it is important that if, and when, baseball addresses the problems of competitive balance that they don’t ruin the great product they have. Baseball is in very good shape; fans are coming, revenues are up and the game—cranky umpires aside—is in good shape. 8 different teams won the World Series in the 2000s. 23 of the 30 teams reached the playoffs with only the Expos/Nationals, Reds, Royals, Rangers, Orioles, Blue Jays and Pirates not making it. (Funny how many of the richest owners’ teams didn’t make the playoffs.) The game is competitive and healthy. Could it be tweaked? Of course. But baseball should be careful not to throw out the baby with the bath water. Whichever plan they choose, they must be careful not to destroy the very thing that draws fans to the game in the first place. They should pay heed to the first lesson all doctors learn—”First, do no harm.”

"We're struggling to sign one guy and the Yankees infield is making more than our team."

"I'm sorry that my friend Mark continues to whine about his running the Brewers. We play by all the rules and there doesn't seem to be any complaints when teams such as the Brewers receive hundreds of millions of dollars that they get from us in revenue sharing the last few years. Take some of that money that you get from us and use that to sign your players."

"Change is needed and that is reflected by the fact that over a billion dollars have been paid to seven chronically uncompetitive teams, five of whom have had baseball's highest operating profits."

So Phil Hughes is the Yankees 5th starter. Pretty much everyone figured that out by now.

The real question is how are they going to handle his innings limit.

Last year, to much debate, and to everyone’s frustration, the Yankees instituted the Joba Rules. In retrospect it wasn’t so much that he had a innings cap, it was how the Yankees handled it.

Last year, with Rick Porcello, instead of pitching him every fifth day and reducing his innings every start, Tiger manager Jim Leyland skipped Porcello’s start at times and rested him occasionally throughout the year. True, Porcello did have a 104 pitch limit in games, but that was a reasonable pitch count cap. And he wasn’t going out to the mound knowing he was only going to pitch a couple of innings before he got yanked. He was free to pitch.

If the Yankees learned anything from last year—where in effect, they blew Chamberlain’s confidence in late August and September, by pitching him only 3 or 4 innings, and raising his ERA from 3.58 at the end of July to 4.75 by season’s end—they should use Hughes differently. They should follow the Porcello-Leyland method, and let Hughes pitch his games, but let him have longer rests in between games.

For instance, in the beginning of the season, the Yankees have a lot of off days—every Monday in April and April 8th as well. They could skip Hughes some of those days, or use him every 6th or 7th day. And they could do that throughout the year—let him pitch every 6th or 7th day when possible, or skip him whenever there is a rainout. Thereby keeping him fresh, but not making his pitching habits erratic and awkward.

Hughes right now is slotted to throw about 170 innings, a little more than Chamberlain did last year, who threw 157.1.

And truth be told, that’s not so bad. Pettitte threw 194 innings last year. Clayton Kershaw threw 171 innings last year. And Rick Porcello, who pitched as a starter from April 9th to October 6th, threw 170.2

Time will only tell what the Yankees will do with Hughes. But this is a very wealthy, very well run organization. One would hope they’ve learned from last year’s debacle with Chamberlain—one that, it doesn’t seem he’s recovered from yet.

Ever since the beginning of the free agency Monopoly-money movement, baseball separated into two strata, the” big market money to burn” teams and the small market have-nots. And for the most part, there was a sort of equilibrium. To be sure, the Yankees, Red Sox and their ilk made it to the playoffs more than say, the Kansas City Royals or Pittsburgh Pirates, but certain small market teams would break into the World Series and even win it from time to time. The 2002 Angels won it all with a roster that cost $61 million, or about half of what the Yankees cost. The next year, the Florida Marlins won it all with a budget of $49 million. The White Sox and the Astros fought it out in 2005 with middling budgets of roughly $75 million. The Rockies made it to the Series with one of the lowest budgets in baseball for 2007. So did the Tampa Rays in 2008. In fact 8 different clubs won the World Series since 2001, and 13 different teams were in it. To be clear, we’re not saying the game is balanced fair and square; we’re saying certain teams have a plan to make he best with the smaller revenue they have.

And a big part of that plan is, trade expensive older players to a desperate big market team, for young cheaper talent. The Oakland A’s have been doping it for years. Toronto did it last winter with Roy Halladay. The Indians did it with Victor Martinez last summer. And so on.

However, recently that trend has changed and not for the better depending on the point of view.

It is common knowledge that the San Diego Padres will be trading their 1st baseman, Adrian Gonzalez come the trade deadline. And this week, Jim Souhan of the Minneapolis Star/Tribune suggested that the Twins should trade Joe Mauer.

Why are these even options?

Both Gonzalez and Mauer are natives of the city they play for. Both are young, emerging superstars; the kind of players a franchise should build around. These guys aren’t again overpaid former stars in decline. These are guys are just hitting their prime. Mauer won the MVP last year. Gonzalez won his 2nd consecutive Gold Gloves, led the NL in walks, and in canyon-esque Petco Park, had 40 home runs (only 22 more than the next Padre). Why would teams even think of trading these guys?

Well, as Souhan writes:

"A trade could yield a closer to replace Joe Nathan...A statistician or scout might argue that he might never duplicate his remarkable 2009 season, that he has been plagued by injuries, that the Twins are high on catching prospect Wilson Ramos, that the franchise might be better off spending the $200 million it might take to sign Mauer on a handful of other players.


Matt Snyder of MLB Fanhouse wrote a while back:

The problem here is that the Padres can't be ready to compete for the next two years. They aren't anywhere near competing. They need a large quantity of good young players, and dealing a player as attractive as Gonzalez would be on the open market is the best way to land several stellar prospects.


And The Friarhood: a Padre Fan site writes:

For the casual Padres fan, the thought of moving Adrian Gonzalez may just seem like a salary dump. That couldn’t be further from the truth, it is more a matter of trading a guy that you will not be able to sign...As I previously mentioned, the Padres trading AGON is far from a salary dump, but a move the team will need to make to ensure they are able to earn maximum value for the organizations long-term outlook.


But is that the truth? In a 2007 New York Times article, they cite:

A longtime banker, the 92-year-old Pohlad (owner of the Twins) is tied for 114th on the Forbes 400 list of the wealthiest people in the country with a fortune estimated at $3.1 billion...He is the wealthiest baseball owner..."


And with the Twins moving into a new stadium, thereby generating even more revenue for the Twins and the Pohland family, how could the Twins cry poverty?


Ken Rosenthal of Foxsports.com writes:

San Diego’s Petco Park is only six years old...Heck, Milwaukee is the No. 35 media market, smallest in the majors. Yet, the Brewers offered left-hander CC Sabathia a $100 million free-agent contract after the 2008 season. Their owner, Mark Attanasio, recently said he wants to keep first baseman Prince Fielder, who—like Gonzalez—will be a free agent after the 2011 season.


So is it the truth that the Padres and the Twins just can't sign these homegrown, young stars? Rosenthal continues:

If the Padres land a few potential building blocks, then plow their savings on Gonzalez into player development, more power to them. But the idea of building around such a player — an almost-perfect player for San Diego, really — should not be so easily dismissed...The Padres will be around $40 million — a number that almost certainly is far below the total they will collect in revenue sharing and central-fund payouts.


So what is it exactly that is preventing these teams from signing what should obviously be talented, popular stars?

In an older article written on baseballsuite101.com, James Lincoln Ray writes that when small market teams get the revenue sharing money from richer teams and spend it on players, success often follows.

The Colorado Rockies are a fine example. The Rockies used all of the $16 million they received in 2006 revenue sharing dollars to increase their payroll in 2007, and that certainly helped the team win this year's National League pennant. The Detroit Tigers are another success story. They used revenue sharing dollars to attract free agents Ivan Rodriguez and Magglio Ordonez, and those players helped the Tigers climb from a team that won just 43 games in 2002 to a club that won the American League pennant last year.


Ray goes on to write that some baseball teams don't use the money they receive to better their ballclub—a contention Yankee owner George Steinbrenner and Red Sox owner John Henry have often vehemently complained about. Instead they just pocket the money, a windfall for the owners.

One reason that some clubs fail to improve is that they don't use their revenue sharing dollars to attract free agents or to retain homegrown players. (Emphasis mine.)


This January the New York Daily News's Bill Maddon reported that Commisioner Bud Selig was going to crack down on "baseball's revenue-sharing welfare cheats." Maddon quotes John Henry:

"Change is needed and that is reflected by the fact that over a billion dollars have been paid to seven chronically uncompetitive teams, five of whom have had baseball's highest operating profits.



Maddon continues:

According to sources familiar with what went down between Selig and Players Association honchos last week, the union has targeted four teams—the Marlins, Pirates, Rays and the Padres.



In that 2007 New York Times article cited above, the Times writes:

Because the Twins always have had one of the lower payrolls in the major leagues, they are criticized by wealthier teams for not using the money they get from revenue sharing on their payroll. In the last five years, the Twins have received an average of $20 million a year in revenue sharing, but their payroll has not increased proportionately. The aggregate increase in those five years has been $16 million.

The Times was writing about the Twins decision to trade Johan Santana, ("Certainly between revenue sharing and Pohlad’s Forbes-worthy wealth, the Twins could afford to pay Santana what they would have to keep him at home...") but could have easily been writing about Joe Mauer in with same words.

The Padres should be asked the same question. And in fact, Bill Center of Sign On San Diego wrote recently:

So, are the Padres being questioned on their use of revenue sharing funds given the fact that their payroll plunged to around $43 million last season and is target for no more than that amount this year? An official of the MLBPA...said he did not think the Padres were being studied for violations of the Basic Agreement.

How could they not be? The numbers speak for themselves?

Further, recently Lee “Hacksaw” Hamilton, longtime sports talk show host in San Diego and columnist for the San Diego News Network, was interviewed about the Padres and had this to say.

They get anywhere from $15 to $18 million a year from all the big clubs in the revenue sharing pot. They get it, the Pirates get it, Kansas City gets it, Florida gets it, all the small market teams. Well, the big issue here is if you’re getting $18 million from revenue sharing and your payroll is only $40, that means you’re only putting $22 of your own money into the payroll. It’s disgraceful.

In an interview with Padre owner Jeff Moorad, Hamilton was told by Moorad that:

The gross revenue of the club is something in the range of $150 million. Most clubs have a payroll half the amount of the gross revenue. The Padres have to pay $20 million a year in stadium bonds. Moorad wouldn't change that because we have one of the better stadiums in all of baseball. He believes that the Padres can maintain a $70-80 payroll in the future.


Last year, the Padres spent about $37.8 million in payroll and the Opening Day payroll should be about $36 million. One question: Mr. Moorad, $70-80 minus 20 equals $50 to 60 million. Why isn't the payroll where you said it would be? And if there is a difference of rough 15 to 25 million, couldn't you use that to sign local favorite and entering the prime of his career, Adrian Gonzalez? Couldn't you build around him?

And Mr. Pohlad, with a new stadium generating new revenue, and your family value estimated at 2.6 billion dollars, is it really impossible to sign the MVP and hometown hero, Joe Mauer? Couldn’t he be the cornerstone of your franchise for the next decade?

There are no rules stating a franchise must spend it’s money on anything it doesn’t feel like it should. But when 2 hometown favorites—young, immensely talented, and good guys; perfect cornerstone material for a franchise—are being shunned by their own teams, when these teams obviously have the money to spend, it’s time for baseball to step in. Because it is a disgrace, and it shouldn’t stand.

Now, it is no secret that I am a fan of Brett Gardner's. In the number 9-hole and manning center, he gives the Yankees something they don't have—speed and solid defense. The ability to be a pest and distract opposing pitchers, to take the extra base and to cover tons of ground in Yankee Stadium. He is certainly no Mantle, but as a part of this superstar power-heavy lineup, we feel that maybe that is not so bad a thing.

So, his slow spring training start notwithstanding, we were happy to see an article in The Hardball Times, reiterating something we felt and wrote about previously: And that would be, that people who feel Gardner won't hit in the majors have history and stats working against them. All Gardner needs is consistent time and he will respond.

Thanks to good plate discipline and contact ability, Gardner was able to maintain respectable batting averages, and after an uninspiring major league debut in 2008, Gardner showed he has the tools to stick around the majors with his 2009 performance.

THT goes on to laud Gardner's speed and plate discipline—stating that Gardner draws walks, cuts down on strikeouts and generally makes contact and could be an above average defender and a contributor at the plate. "Coupling his good approach at the plate with his ability to hit the ball on the ground and run—a great recipe for BABIP success—I would expect his BABIP to rise from his 2009 mark of .311 to his CHONE-projected BABIP of .324. When you factor these things together, I see the picture of a .290 and possibly .300 hitter forming, and certainly not one below .270."

THT then goes on to quote another article from from Fangraphs which states that Gardner compares favorably with Nyjer Morgan. Fangraphs's article states:

The offensive comparison is more interesting. Despite Morgan’s good 2009, CHONE still sees him as a below average hitter (.321 wOBA). Gardner’s CHONE projection is surprisingly good — .335 wOBA .... For example, Gardner has the higher walk rate. This is likely a reflection of Gardner’s superior plate approach. While Morgan swings at bad pitches slightly more than average, Gardner has been better than average, while still having a slightly higher overall contact rate than Morgan.

Further, CHONE's projected OPS favors Gardner over Morgan again; .726 to .712. True, these are all just projections. And Morgan's power projections rightfully demolish Gardner's power projection. But again, power is something the Yankees have in abundance, and don't need from Gardner.

However, projections aside, the Yankee Universe seems to hate the fact that since the Yankees didn't get Holliday or Bay or someone expensive and flashy (and surely, a station-to-station power hitter, no doubt. Where have you gone, Jason Giambi, Danny Tartabull, Jack Kemp?), Gardner is nothing but a stopgap failure. The Forum at NYYFans has a question "How long with Gardner last?" Type in "Brett Gardner Sucks" or some such statement into Google and see how may hits you get.

So, as a champion of giving Brett Gardner a chance, my only caveat is something that THT writes: "...as long as Gardner does not stumble out of the gate, (emphasis mine) I feel he will secure for himself the lion's share of starts in left field. And ... batting ninth in that lineup will provide similar run and RBI opportunities to batting second in many other lineups."

In short, Gardner needs to show early that he can handle the 9th spot batting-wise. With Brian Cashman getting in half of the waiver wire, street free agents and Plan B players out there to challenge for the last outfield spot, Gardner needs to make a claim to not only get some start duty, but to claim the everyday position. Should he fail to do that, the overwhelming odds are is that someone else will be in the Yankee's outfield next year, and Gardner will be elsewhere.

No other event in the world of sports is as curious as the NFL Draft. No actual sporting goes on: no tackling, no bombs, no blitz. Yet so many love it. Anyway, here goes the first mock draft of the season.

1. St Louis Rams — Sam Bradford QB — Oklahoma
As much as Coach Spagnuolo is a defensive coach, franchises are built around quarterbacks. Ask New Orleans and Indianapolis. The Rams grab the best in the draft, providing his shoulder checks out.

2. Detroit Rams — Ndamukong Suh DT — Nebraska
The Lions luck out and grab the DT of their dreams. They place him right next to former Cornhusker, Kyle Vanden Bosch as the rebuilding of the Lion defense starts to take shape.

3. Tampa Bay Buccaneers — Gerald McCoy DT— Oklahoma
It's 3 for 3 for the Big 12 as Oklahoma DT McCoy lands with the perfect team for the speedy lineman. In any other season, McCoy would be considered the number one defensive player, so the Bucs catch a break here snagging him at number 3.

4. Washington Redskins — Jimmy Clausen QB — Notre Dame
No way does Mike Shanahan not take his own quarterback to prepare and groom. Clausen tutored under Charlie Weis and is familiar with an NFL system. Shanahan starts to put his mold on the Redskins, so expect a lot of offensive picks out of this Redskin draft.

5. Kansas City Chiefs —Russell Okung OT — Oklahoma State
After one pick, it's back to the Big 12, as the Chiefs grab the top O-lineman on the board. Okung showed spectacular strength at the Combine and solidified himself as the premier LT prospect in the draft.

6. Seattle Seahawks — Eric Berry S — Tennessee
This scenario plays out the worst for the Seahawks, who wanted either one of the 2 franchise quarterbacks or Okung to rebuild their offensive line. The consolation prize is Berry, who many consider the best pure prospect in the draft. Look for a trade down from this spot. Thhis pick might also be Denver's who would receive it in exchange for Brandon Marshall.

7. Cleveland Browns — Joe Haden CB — Florida
Eric Mangini knows the importance of having a shutdown corner—he drafted Darell Revis. Haden, who had a miserable combine is still the number one CB in the nation. Mangini will ignore the Combine, get the best pure CB-athlete and feel he can coach Haden up to be the shutdown corner the Browns need.

8. Oakland Raiders — Jason Pierre-Paul DE — South Florida
Now here's where the Draft gets fun. No one ever knows what Weird Al is going to do, but the safe money is going to say he will get enamoured with a great workout and take the guy regardless if he can actually play football or not. Paul had a knockout of a combine, showed strength, fluidity and pure speed. Davis will ignore academic challanges and questions that Paul could learn a complicated defense and just take the guy who looked the best in shorts.

9. Buffalo Bills — Bryan Buluga OT — Iowa
The Bills were caught off guard by the retirement of RT Brad Butler at the age of 26. This one year after the trade of Jason Peters to the Eagles. Buluga has showed the ability to be an above-average LT, something the Bills sorely need.

10. Jacksonville Jaguars — Derrick Morgan DE — Georgia Tech
The Jags recorded the fewest sacks in the league last season—just 2 seasons after the spent their first and second round picks on Derrick Harvey and Quentin Groves. The absolutely need someone to step in and pressure opposing QBs, and as such, take Morgan, who had 12-1/2 sacks and 18-1/2 TFL. Even with Aaron Kampman on board, the Jags could still use pass-rush help. Morgan can provide that.

11. Denver Broncos — Dez Bryant WR — Oklahoma State
This pick, acquired from the Bears in the Jay Cutler trade, is contingent on the possible trade of Brandon Marshall. Strong and quick, Bryant is nigh-impossible to cover by one DB. Character issues abound, but if his Pro Day impresses, Bryant could be considered a lock to be gone by pick 11.

12. Miami Dolphins — Dan Williams DT — Tennessee
To be sure, Bill Parcells has huge files on Derrick Morgan and Jason Pierre-Paul—the Tuna loves him some athletic pass-rushing OLBs. Those 2 gone, Parcells could go for Sergio Kindle or Ricky Sapp, but knows that the heart of any Parcells defense is the NT. And with an aging Jason Ferguson, Williams, a ideal wide-body is in Parcells' sight. Look for a trade-down (possibly with, say Green Bay, who is interested in Campbell) and for Parcells to target Williams. Williams was a one-year wonder when Monte Kiffin came to Tennessee. Parcells, however, has never been shy to take on a project, sees the NT of the future.

13. San Francisco 49ers — Taylor Mays S — USC
San Francisco needs help in their secondary, and after Mays put on a great show at the clinic—6'3", 230, 4.43-40 yrd dash and 24 reps, second highest of all safties, he made sure he'd leave in the first half of the draft. Can cover and hit. Comparisons to Ronnie Lott will be forthcoming.

14. Seattle Seahawks — Bruce Campbell OT — Maryland
The Seahawks must, MUST come out of this draft with a left tackle. And Pete Carroll loves natural athletic ability. Campbell had a combine for the ages, ran a 4.85. did 34 reps and showed a ripped body, capable of fluidity and strength. Campbell is raw, but Caroll has taken raw and made football players before.

15. New York Giants —Brian Price DT — UCLA
The last half of the 2009 season showed that the Giants defense as it was, was busted. Opposing offenses ran at will, and protected their quarterback without much trouble. Price, a disruptive shifty DT, is a perfect fit for the Giants system and could be in the rotation from day 1.

16. Tennessee Titans —Everson Griffen DE — USC
The Titans have lost a ton of talent on their defensive line in the past couple of years. Griffen has talent to burn and can be coached up by the Titan staff. Kindle and Sapp are considered here, but are more 3-4 OLBs, than a pure DE. Sleeper Alex Carrington has been a fast-riser and could be the shock pick of the draft.

17. San Francisco 49ers — Jerry Hughes OLB — TCU
Most have Hughes going early in the second round. The 49ers, who need an edge rusher, give Mike Singletary the type of player he loves. High-motor, intense and aggressive. Hughes had an outstanding Combine. He showed himself to be a natural pass-rusher. Sapp and Kindle is an option here as well.

18. Pittsburgh Steelers — Mike Iupati OG — Idaho
Unless the Steelers absolutely hate Ben Rothelsiburger, they will draft and offensive lineman—any offensive lineman—with this pick. Iupati has Steeler written all over him; tough, mean, imposing. Iupati is a natural guard who can play some tackle if necessary.

19. Atlanta Falcons — Brandon Graham DE— Michigan
Look for a trade down here. All the top players are off the board and from here till the second round, the talent level becomes interchangeable. That said, the Falcons are in need of a bookend to John Abraham. They whiffed hard a couple years back on DE Jamaal Anderson, who is trying now to become a DT. Graham lit up the Senior Bowl and followed that with a nice Combine. He doesn't have the measureables, but just knows how to get it done on the field.

20. Houston Texans — Kyle Wilson CB— Boise State
The Texans let Dunta Robinson go, which pretty much solidifes that they are going with a CB somewhere in the draft, probably the first round. While C.J. Spiller, Ryan Matthews or Jahvid Best get a look, the Texans fill their bigger need at CB. With a nice 25 reps at the combine, if Wilson runs well at his Pro Day, he may solidify his status as a top 3 CB in the draft.

21. Cincinnati Bengals — Golden Tate WR — Notre Dame
The Bengals need offensive weapons. With T.J. Houshmandzadeh gone, Laverneous Coles a bust and Ocho Cinco not his former self, the Bengals need to surround Carson Palmer with some more weapons. Tate is fast, sure-handed and familiar with a pro offense.

22. New England Patriots — Rolando McClain ILB — Alabama
Sergio Kindle and Ricky Sapp get serious looks here as the Patriots lack anything resembling the pass rush they used to be famous for. However, all Bill Belichek needs to do is watch the Ravens run up the middle of their defense during the playoff game to know that they need someone else besides Eric Alexander or Paris Lenon manning the inside LB in their 3-4. McClain, well-coached by Saban in Alabama will fit right in.

23. Green Bay Packers — Anthony Davis OT — Rutgers
Green Bay desperately needs offensive Lineman, and may move up to get one. If not, they may go with the Rutgers product. Davis showed up fat, slow and immature at the Combine. His talent and ability are there, unquestionably. The only question is, will Green Bay take a chance on his head?

24. Philadelphia Eagles — Sean Witherspoon OLB — Missouri
Witherspoon has the size and fluidity to slide into the WLB spot. Active and agressive, he fits into the Eagles attack style.

25. Baltimore Ravens — Patrick Robinson CB — Florida State
A 4.42 40 yard dash, a 30 inch vertical and great instincts secure Robinson a 1st round pick. Could go higher with a great Pro Day.

26. Arizona Cardinals — Sergio Kindle OLB — Texas
The slide ends for Kindle, who didn't have the exciting combine day that people were hoping. Not huge and not super fast, Kindle is a force to be reckoned with, but not in the class of former Longhorn, Brian Orakpo. Kindle may slide a little bit in the draft, but should still be in the first round.

27. Dallas Cowboys — Earl Thomas CB/S — Texas
Fast and instinctive, Thomas drops only because he doesn't have the size of the other safties. Good coverage skills and a solid tackler, Thomas is versatile enough to play the safety positions or throw in at cornerback.

28. San Diego — Ryan Matthews RB — Fresno State
In a weak RB class, Matthews is the best workhorse running back. At 218 pounds and 4.45 speed. Matthews is exactly what the Chargers need and could be a complement to scatback Darren Sproles.

29. New York Jets — Ricky Sapp OLB — Clemson
With Anotonio Cromartie in the fold, the Jets can turn to other holes to fill. A wide receiver might be nice, but none is worthy of this pick. Carlos Dunlap has all the skills and looks the part, but has had off the field issues and shows every indication that once he cashes his check, he wont use his talent on the field. Sapp showed that he could handle the OLB in a 3-4. He is fluid, can rush the passer or drop into coverage. Sapp could take over the role of the bust Vernon Gholston and would fit in well in Rex Ryan's defense. Keep an eye on Tyson Alualu as well.

30. Minnesota Vikings — Maurkice Pouncey — Florida
The Vikings lost the ability to run halfway through last season. Pouncey can step in from Day 1 and help solidify the Viking O-line. Smart, big and surprisingly quick, Pouncey can shift John Sullivan over to RG and try to get Adrian Peterson running again. With Artis Hicks gone, it is imperitiv

31. Indianapolis Colts — Jared Odrick — Penn State
Solid but not spectacular DT who hustles and can get into the backfield to disrupt plays. High-motor quick (4.98 40) seems like a perfect fit for the Colts defense.

32. New Orleans Saints — Terrence Cody DT — Alabama
The Saints gave up 4.5 yds per carry last season. Lucky for them, most teams were playing catch up and had to pass to stay in the game. Cody could be a 2-down lineman and negate and chance of a run up the middle by any team. He could keep the linebackers clean and limit opposing offenses. He is the kind of pick a Super Bowl winner can afford.

That's it. And as I promised, no Tim Tebow. Write back with comments or counter-arguments.

During the 2009 season there was a cacophony of calls for Joe Girardi’s head. The Yankees missed the playoffs—a mortal sin around New York City—the season before, and had started off the 2009 season slowly. Sites such as “firejoeg.blogspot.com” popped up on the web, and tons of message boards (some not even sports-related) were wondering when/begging for, Girardi’s removal.

And then there were the constant comparisons to his predecessor, Saint Joe Torre, which filled talk radio and the back pages. It got so bad, that the fans and people even complained when he took out Sabathia, Jeter and Teixeira early on Yankee Stadium’s Opening Day, even though they were losing 10-2 and it was a chilly out. The press surely didn’t like him—too brusque—and criticized almost everything he did. Indeed, even when the Yankees were winning, as in last year’s playoff series against the Twins, some called the Yankees “lucky” and said Phil Cuzzi was more responsible for the Yankees winning than the Yankees themselves. And his players thought he was too hard and “not fun.” Girardi was being set up to be Jay Fieldler to Torre’s Dan Marino.

Heck, even the “highbrow” web site Slate.com got into the act:

“Often caught by television cameras modeling taciturn expressions while consulting thick binders full of arcane statistics, Girardi looks like an engineer, runs a game like one, and even talks like one. (How are the playoffs different from the regular season, Joe? “You have your parts, and you understand what you need to do with your parts, and you just go from there.”) And in this year’s playoffs, Girardi has done a fantastic job illustrating why baseball is a game for delinquents, not engineers.”

Then the Yankees won the World Series.

Now everybody loves him.

So far this spring, everything around the Yankees has been a peachy-keen lovefest. The media has covered Girardi in gooey praise as they reported on the Yankees visit to an arcade! Hooray! They reported how none of the previous managers did this, and how this was a good “team-building” idea. And they positively gushed this winter when Girardi praised the Jets.

Ian O’Connor, formally not a fan of Girardi’s did a puff piece on him recently, profiling Girardi’s toughness. He even commented on his “dockworker arms.”

And it wasn’t just the light fluff. LoHud’s Chad Jennings wrote that “Having the players buy into the system and respect Girardi is also huge.” The New York Times changed their tune as well: Instead of complaining about his over-managing, now they write “One of Girardi’s greatest strengths last season was how he managed the entire roster, showing a smart sense of when and how to rest his veterans, and he will again find ways for Rodriguez, Jorge Posada and Derek Jeter to remain fresh. He proved equally adept at cultivating trust and communication among his players and the staff.”

The media also gushed about how he’s lightening up his usually intense training on his pitching staff this spring. The Daily News wrote how Girardi called Andy Pettitte over the winter and told him to not start throwing right away, but to get extra rest. The LoHud blog takes the article further to give a quote of Pettitte’s about Girardi.

“He pays attention,” Pettitte said. “He’s constantly thinking, ‘What can help us? What can keep us healthy?’ like no manager I’ve been around. He wants us to feel good. He wants to take care of us, whether it’s baseball, our families, that’s the way Joe is. He’s constantly thinking of ways to help us in life and to get us through this baseball season.”

Was there a subtle poke at Torre there or is it just me? “Like no manager I’ve been around?” Hmmmm.

That said, in the early part of the 2010 spring training everybody seems to be smitten with goo-gobs of love for the Yankee manager. It will be interesting to see how these same people react when the Yankees lose 2 games in a row to the Indians. Or when David Robertson blows a 9th inning save to the Red Sox when Rivera or Chamberlain was still out in the pen.

My guess is that the love won’t be there.