4 comments Jay Mariotti and Terence Moore Are At It Again

You will swear that you already read this Terence Moore article on Monday and the sad part is that you did. I linked it then but he has written a new column that reads very similar to what he wrote a couple of days ago. That is what I like about Terence Moore, if he doesn't think he has gotten his point across, he just re-writes the same article and gives it a different title. This time he goes down the list of players the Braves did not resign, sign, or trade for and explain why he thinks they should have done so. It is as Godawful as it sounds, trust me. It's like he is too stupid to realize 5 of the 7 players he puts on this list have their best days behind them, then he puts not just one, but two, Judy Garland references in his column.

When did it become smart to sign players who are on the decline?

Judy Garland used to sing about "The man that got away."

I make fun of Bill Simmons for his dated pop culture references, but this one is much worse than anything Bill has done. The title of the column is also a Judy Garland reference. Why doesn't Moore just throw in an Abraham Lincoln beard joke or two in here so everyone knows he is really, really old?

They need a bunch of things to end a three-year skid out of the playoffs. Instead, the list of those coming to the Braves this season before going (or staying) elsewhere is long and ridiculous.

2 of the 7 people Terence Moore lists as helping the Braves get back in the playoffs were actually on the team last year (Smoltz and Hampton) and one other player (Jones) was on the team the year before, when they did not make the playoffs. How these players are supposed to magically contribute more to the team when they are one year older is beyond me. Usually teams get rid of players that can't help them make the playoffs, but Terence Moore would rather just keep resigning these players so his sources and friends can continue to play for the Braves.

Andruw Jones (7): The Braves are young throughout the outfield. By going back to the future, they would have acquired a veteran backup in Jones.

A veteran backup! What a wonderful thing to have. A older player who blocks younger guys from getting playing time AND this player strikes out every third at bat. That's the kind of guy you want backing up your young outfielders and pinch hitting, a player with no redeeming qualities in regard to speed, ability to make contact, or hitting ability.

He eventually signed with the Texas Rangers, and they've spent the spring watching Jones threaten to obliterate the Grapefruit League record for striking out.

So this was a good move? Why write an entire article about how a team has made bad personnel moves and start to list the players the team should have kept or signed and then say nothing positive about the first one except...he is a veteran backup, which could be true for anyone who has played in the league for more than 10 years and is not good enough to start. Abe Vigoda, if he had played in the major leagues for a while, could now be a veteran backup and Terence Moore would write an article encouraging a team to sign him.

Mike Hampton (6): You can't get enough pitching.

Then the Braves should sign Hideo Nomo or see if Chan Ho Park is available. Maybe Andy Ashby is still around, because you can never have enough pitching.

You can never have enough QUALITY pitching. That is what should be typed.

The Braves had the most overworked bullpen in the baseball last year and signing a guy who has made 25 starts in the last 4 years is not a good way to improve this.

That said, you can get enough of Mike Hampton's aches and pains.

2 players down and Terence Moore has only given negative reasons to keep each player. This is quality sportswriting at its best or simply the worst persuasive paper ever written.

Ken Griffey Jr. (5):

This Terence Moore's best friend and the real reason he is so upset right now. He wanted the Braves to sign him and because they did not, he thinks the entire offseason is messed up.

Who wouldn't want a guy with 611 home runs?

According to the teams that offered him a contract, 28 teams in the major leagues do not want a player of this type. Willie Mays has 660 home runs, maybe he is available to play a centerfield. He is waiting by the phone...

In fact, Anderson's recent hitting numbers are better than Griffey's, and Anderson has had fewer injuries.

Recent hitting numbers? Who wants to use that measurement to determine whether a player is a good hitter? It's so relevant and non-arbitrary.

Garrett Anderson has only hit 272 homeruns in his career, so Griffey is worth twice what Anderson is worth. At least that is true according to Mooremetrics, which is the measure of player's worth using their age, how good that player was 10 years ago, and if Terence Moore has that player's phone number.

So there have been three players the Braves "missed out" on and Moore has not been able to give a good reason to sign any of these players yet. Not only unpersuasive but also a complete waste of yours, mine and the world's time.

A.J. Burnett (4): Did I say you can't get enough pitching?

Yes, and I put the word "quality" in that sentence because it is more accurate and helpful to a baseball team.

Burnett has made 30 starts in his career twice...and they just happened to both be contract years! What a coincidence. Getting Burnett would have been nice but I am more comfortable with getting Derek Lowe for $15 million per year than Burnett at $16 million per year because Burnett is not a model of consistency when it comes to starting baseball games. (Now watch Derek Lowe get injured and make 20 starts and Burnett make 35 starts this year.)

Worse, the dollar-friendly New York Yankees didn't spend that much more to get him.

But they did spend more to get him...which is the key point. Burnett is a great pitcher when healthy but I was never completely sold on being worth the money he got. I, unlike Terence Moore, don't think it is smart to get into a bidding war for a guy who can't make consistent starts when he is in his 20's, so I can only imagine how it will be when he hits his mid-30's. I like to think of him as a blonde Carl Pavano.

Jake Peavy (3):

Here we go...Terence Moore is the only person affiliated in some way with Major League Baseball who does not understand the reason Jake Peavy has not gotten traded yet. The Padres had absurd demands for him. The Cubs were not willing to pay what the Padres wanted either, it was absurd what they wanted.

The San Diego Padres tried to give Peavy away, but the Braves were one move from making it happen.

I would not say they tried to give Peavy away. They requested Josh Vitters and other top prospects from the Cubs and wanted the Braves #1 and #3 prospects as well as their starting shortstop, Yunel Escobar in exchange for Peavy. The Padres wanted players who were ready to make an immediate impact at the major league level and declined a package from the Cubs and the Braves that had 5 prospects in it because they did not view it as enough for Peavy. They also would not take players like Jason Marquis unless the Cubs paid a portion of his salary as well. So they wanted teams to take on Peavy's salary, give up major league ready players, and pay a portion of the salaries involved in the trade. As of today, no team has found this to be reasonable.

Peavy is coming off shoulder surgery, so it's not like he has a completely clean bill of health.

Rafael Furcal (2): If the Braves have Furcal for a second time, they have two things: A leadoff hitter and Peavy.

The leadoff hitter part is very true but, again, including Escobar in the Peavy deal was not the hold up. The hold up was all of the other prospects the Padres wanted. How do I know this and Terence Moore does not?

I wish Terence Moore would just give up the "what might have been" act. The Furcal deal was not even the fault of the team, because he is the one that reneged on the deal, it was not the other way around.

John Smoltz (1):

Again, this is really what this is all about. Terence Moore is bitter that the Braves let John Smoltz go and could not sign Ken Griffey.

You just can't lose Smoltz, prolific as a starter and as a closer through the years. He spent 21 seasons in the franchise as a Hall of Famer on and off the field. Now, after a contract dispute or something, he is with the Boston Red Sox.

No, you can lose Smoltz. He missed a good portion of the year last year because he had major surgery and he is not able to pitch again until June. What sane team in their right mind is going to pay millions of guaranteed dollars to a pitcher who MAY be back in June to pitch? The Red Sox could afford to take this chance because they have a solid rotation without Smoltz, but the Braves could not afford to build an entire rotation around a 41 year old pitching effectively after his 3rd or 4th arm surgery. You will often see me running around my neighborhood in a John Smoltz jersey (when mom lets me out of the attic), so I am a huge fan of his. Unfortunately for Terence Moore, I am also rational so I don't agree with him on keeping Smoltz around at $5 million dollars guaranteed.

This is not a hard concept to grasp.

Then again, this is the same Braves franchise that didn't keep the following for their entire major league careers- Hank Aaron, Dale Murphy, Phil Niekro, Eddie Mathews. Warren Spahn, etc.

What's your point? Few players play an entire career with one team, so this is not unusual. It's not like the Atlanta Braves are the only team that eventually lets players go play for another team when they are deemed no longer effective to play baseball at a high level. A player is lucky to spend an entire career with one team, but don't tell that to Terence Moore, he is too busy moaning and bitching about any player over the age of 35 not being resigned.

Look at the comments, there is not a single positive one that I saw. No one likes you Terence.

Jay Mariotti thinks the Patriots and Bill Belichick have done something fishy in the Matt Cassel trade. The only thing fishy in my opinion is Mariotti's breath. Boom! In your face Mariotti!

First it was Spygate, the espionage caper that left a permanent cheating smear on Belichick's legacy after the Patriots illegally videotaped opponents' defensive signals. Now we have the Pioli Scheme, a suspicion that Belichick's relationship with his close pal and dearly departed partner in dynasty glory, new Chiefs general manager Scott Pioli, contributed to a ridiculously soft compensation package in their Saturday deal.

I think the compensation package was light as well, but that is Belichick's right as a head coach in the NFL. He can trade whoever he wants for whatever compensation that he wants. Just because of Spygate, any time the Patriots do something slightly bizarre everyone is going to think they are cheating.

Here's the thing though. Even if Belichick wanted to throw Pioli a bone for his help through the years, which I think may have happened, it is not cheating and he can do whatever he wants with his team. Who is right to determine what the appropriate compensation for a player is? If the Patriots undersold Cassel and Vrabel, that is their business. It was a move that had nothing to do with winning or losing games next year or any type of cheating. If they want to make their team weaker through a trade, that's their choice. It's not like the Chiefs agreed to return the favor one day, and if they did, then I would have a problem because that sounds a little bit like collusion.

For perspective, consider that the Houston Texans sent two second-round picks to Atlanta two years ago after signing quarterback Matt Schaub, who didn't have nearly the experience or success enjoyed by Cassel in his breakout 2008 season.

Do you think in retrospect the Texans regret this trade? Maybe, so that could be why Cassel did not get as much in return for his services. Teams have learned from the Texans trade for Schaub.

I don't consider anything that happened here as a form of cheating. If Belichick wants to trade his entire team for 7th round draft choices that is his choice. He is the one that has to win football games, not Jay Mariotti.

By my count, no fewer than six NFL teams -- Tampa Bay, Detroit, San Francisco, Chicago, Carolina and the New York Jets -- need quarterbacking upgrades and could have been lured into the Cassel bidding.

Brilliant observation Jay, let's look at each one to show how stupid you are. The market was not as fertile as he wants to believe it is because Cassel is still fairly unproven.

Detroit- Clearly want to keep their first round picks to improve the team because they have made no public attempts to trade them. They want Aaron Curry and they have announced Culpepper is starting for them this upcoming year. There was no need to trade for Cassel.

Tampa Bay- Just signed Luke McCown to a new contract, so they feel like they have no need for Matt Cassel on their team.

San Francisco- They are going after Kurt Warner and they already have a decent unproven quarterback in Shaun Hill.

Chicago- This would be a good destination for Matt Cassel but the Bears have other needs to address and seem pretty comfortable with Kyle Orton.

Carolina- Jake Delhomme is not that great of a quarterback, but how again would a team with $2 million to spend right now take on a $14 million dollar contract? Even if they signed Cassel to a new deal, they would have trouble being under the salary cap. Also, the Panthers don't have a first round draft pick you dumbass. Since you are so down on the Patriots only getting a 2nd round pick, what should the Panthers give up for Cassel that would be "fair?"...and don't say Julius Peppers.

New York Jets- Of course the Patriots are going to be willing to give their young quarterback with potential to a division rival. No problem there, they will just help the Jets fill their largest and most pressing need. Of course the Jets are also going to be willing to give their division rival a bunch of extra draft picks to make the team stronger, while taking on an unproven quarterback.

Before he starts listing teams, Jay Mariotti should think for 15 seconds about whether the team actually makes sense or not.

Problem is, it smacks of an integrity issue when Belichick earmarks business with a pal and doesn't maximize his return in a big trade. You think other teams aren't irked today at The Gray Hoodie's unusual graciousness?

Why should anyone really care? I am sure teams in the AFC West are not thrilled Belichick made this trade but he really doesn't need to care about what other teams think about him. It was his team and his players, he can really do what he wants. It's not like he is dumping players to the Chiefs on a consistent basis. He saw there was not a huge market out there and made a trade. If he doesn't want to maximize return, that's only his business.

His one lapse in judgment was letting Belichick off the hook on Spygate, limiting his discipline to a $500,000 fine and the docking of a low first-round draft pick. Why no suspensions? Why not an exhaustive investigation into the three championship seasons and whether the Patriots were illegally taping signals then?

Why not hire the Army to go into the Patriots camp and torture team officials until they tell the truth about Spygate? Plus, I thought the NFL did some type of investigation into the Super Bowl victories and found there was no proof the Patriots were taping teams.

Mariotti is trying to compare this to Spygate when they are two completely different things. One was cheating and the other one (this one) was not getting potentially maximum value for a couple of players. I have no problem with Belichick not wanting the #3 pick, I do wonder why he did not get a 3rd round or 4th round pick as well in the trade...but again it was his choice. Who is to say what appropriate value for Cassel was?

He also can say he loosened up almost $20 million of cap room, unloaded an older linebacker who had only 4 1/2 sacks last year and now owns four picks in the first two rounds, which will allow an aging team to keep getting younger.

Those reasons would also be very valid. I love calling out teams when they pull some bullshit but that just is not the case here. Cassel did not have quite as much trade value as many (Peter King) thought and the Patriots were ready to trade him, so they did.

Of course, some will say Cassel should have been kept as Gisele Insurance, pointing to Brady's creepy track record since he began dating his new bride, supermodel Gisele Bundchen. They initially hooked up in 2006. In 2007, the Patriots lost the AFC championship game and dealt with Spygate. In 2008, they were upset by the Giants in Super Bowl XLII, a jolt followed by Brady's lost season.

I am sure there is a direct correlation between Tom Brady dating Gisele and the Patriots not winning the Super Bowl. The Patriots made the Super Bowl and AFC Championship 2 out of the last 3 years, so it is not like everything has fallen apart lately.

Actually this also coincides with the birth of Tom Brady's child with Bridget Moynahan as well! Maybe he should disown his little son and force him to go into exile because it is messing up his football career.

But they will be a respectable operation with a dynamic QB, a renovated Arrowhead Stadium and hope in the air.

All thanks to Bill Belichick, the new GM's bosom buddy.

Yep, the trade for Cassel and Vrabel has fixed all of the Chiefs problems. Now they only have to focus on getting another receiver, improving the running game and offensive line, and improving the horrendous defense. Mostly, it was this trade that turned them around though.

I have no problem with Belichick underselling his players in a trade, he can do what he wants. The only way I could have a problem with this is if the Chiefs pass up on a player they want so the Patriots can get that player or if the Chiefs select a player the Patriots would have no chance of getting and then trade that player to the Patriots for minimal compensation. Then I would have a problem because they are manipulating the system, but to just trade players for less than market value does not scream conspiracy or cheating to me. Basically teams working in conspiracy with each other seems like cheating to me, but I don't think a situation where there is no tit-for-tat like this is a conspiracy. Again, if the Chiefs select a player at #3 and trade that player to the Patriots for a 7th round choice, that is a different story.

Don't tell that to Jay Mariotti though, he has his panties all in a wad.