4 comments JoeChat: More Howard and Lincecum Fun

I am a little surprised at how few people participate in Joe Morgan's ESPN chats nowdays. It used to be there were a few Joe-baiters in there who used the words "consistency" a lot and asked specific questions about Gary Sheffield to get Joe all hot and bothered so that he could lecture everyone on how no MLB teams are consistent and that's why there are no great teams anymore. Now, it is like 50 people asking Joe a few questions and Joe giving the best answer he knows how, which is to sometimes avoid the question, sometimes to lie, and mostly to say nothing of substance at all. Hell, I even posted a question and had it answered once. It was the first time and last time I asked Joe a question. There just aren't that many people chatting with Joe, but that doesn't mean what he says isn't terrible.

Last week Joe announced that Tim Lincecum wasn't yet a great pitcher and Ryan Howard deserved the contract he got because he is better than Joe Mauer who also got a huge contract this past year. When it comes to one dimensional analysis, Joe Morgan has no peer. I don't know if I am going to be doing these chats every week or not, I do enjoy doing them, but I feel a bit like I am trying to do a cover of a great song another band has done better already. No matter how well I do, it is still not as good as the original done by FJM. Still, I enjoy a good JoeChat post.

JM: Ryan Howard's $125 million contract has generated more than Joe Mauer's 180 million and Matt Halladay's contract.

Normally Joe refuses to give a straight answer to a question asked, but now he is refusing to even complete his own sentences. Ryan Howards $125 million contract has generated more...what? Interest? Criticism? Out-of-wedlock children? Low-fat butter? I can't be left in suspense like this.

It should be mentioned that of the three, only Ryan Howard has a rookie of the year award,

This is completely irrelevant when it comes to why each of these three players should get a big contract 4-5 years into their career. This is like saying Julia Roberts is a better actress than Meryl Streep (Peter King would have a heart attack at the mention of this) and Glenn Close because her movies grossed more money at the box office in the 90's. Sure this means something that Howard has all these awards, but it doesn't mean Ryan Howard should get a bigger contract 5 years later.

MVP award and a world championship to his credit.

I am not sure anyone ever said Ryan Howard isn't a good baseball player. Matt Holliday's contract is over 7 years and reaches $100 million, while Ryan Howard's contract is 2 years shorter and $25 million dollar richer. I am not even sure why Matt Holliday's contract is even being compared to Howard's. Not only are the players not comparable (of course neither is Joe Mauer and Ryan Howard), but Matt Holliday's contract is worth almost half as much per year as Howard's contract. They aren't in the same league.

Joe hasn't even answered a question yet and I am already exasperated with him.

A commenter in this chat actually asked a decent question. Dustin Pedroia has a World Series ring, a Rookie of the Year award, and an MVP...is he worth $25 million per year? I am sure there is a longer list of players with these three awards that aren't worth that much money either.

I'm a little confused at why he has generated such negative comments.

Have you seen Ryan Howard's body build? Age that body 3-4 more years and he isn't built to be a first baseman making $25 million per year. That's a lot of money for a guy who doesn't look like he will age gracefully and has to play the field and can't DH, because his team plays in the National League. $25 million per year is going to take up a lot of the Phillies payroll, even though they are going to have a fairly large budget. That's why it has generated such negative comments.

Tony (Boise, ID)

Joe, do you see anyone giving the Cardinals a real challenge in the NL Central?

JM: The Cardinals have the best pitching, with Carpenter, Wainwright, Brad Penny at the top of their rotation. I don't think anyone can match that.

End of comment. There was an actual answer here, which is always good news for a JoeChat. Let's mov--

The Cubs have the potential to match that with Dempster, Lilly and Zambrano, but Zambrano is in the bullpen now.

So the Cardinals are the best, except they aren't. The Cubs have the potential to be as good as the Cardinals, if Zambrano was a better pitcher and wasn't in the bullpen. Also if Ferguson Jenkins still pitched for the Cubs and he was in his mid-20's still, that would help the Cubs have a better starting rotation. Even if Lilly, Zambrano and Dempster were pitching well, I still think Carpenter, Wainwright and Penny are better starters.

Ray A. (San Francisco, CA)

Good Morning Joe. I wanted to get your thoughts on the Giants pitching staff this season? Also if you could compare Lincecum to one pitcher in baseball history who would it be?

Here we go. Someone is baiting Joe from his comments last week about Lincecum.

JM: Lincecum is special.

But not special enough to be considered a great pitcher of course. Joe said this last week because he is loony.

He seems to be getting better and he's already won two Cy Youngs. The thing that he seems to be better at this year is he doesn't get into hitter's counts and doesn't have to throw a fastball. And when he does, he can throw his change.

It's not like Lincecum has struggled over the past two years. I would say there isn't much he is doing this year that he didn't do over the last two years. Joe Morgan just wants to have the illusion of Lincecum being different this year for some reason.

They've talked about him using his curveball more, but he doesn't.

I think he uses his curveball plenty. Who are "they" and why are "they" trying to change anything Lincecum does? Mostly my point is I have seen Lincecum use his curveball plenty of times.

It's too early for me to compare him to the all-time greats. Those guys were fantastic pitchers and it's just too early to compare him.

I love Joe Morgan. He thinks it is too early to compare Lincecum to all-time great pitchers and he says "those guys" were fantastic pitchers. I am not 100% sure who those guys are, but let's just not compare Lincecum to them and make Joe happy. When asked to compare Lincecum to another pitcher, Joe just talks in generalities and says "they" were fantastic pitchers and refers to no one pitcher in particular. He gets paid to say things like this by ESPN.

Is there a list of all-time great pitchers I am not aware of, outside of the Hall of Fame inductees of course? It appears that Joe believes there is a list of great pitchers somewhere since he just vaguely talked about "those guys."

But if he continues like this in the next few years, we will have to start making those comparisons.

COMING IN 2012! TIM LINCECUM GETS COMPARED TO ALL-TIME GREAT PITCHERS!

But not before that date.

John P (Chengdu China)

How are all the small injuries going to effect the Yankees? Seems all the old Yankees are getting small injuries.

JM: Well old and injuries go together. Obviously the Yankees aren't old, but older. You'll see that happen throughout the season. The problem with being older is that it takes longer to recover from those injuries.

So with these statements about the Yankees (alleged) age, you would think Joe would be concerned about injuries wouldn't you? You would be wrong! Joe Morgan, that sneaky son of a bitch, throws us a curveball.

But if I'm a Yankee fan, I'm not worried about anything right now.

You got served by Joe! Joe just said older players get injured, it takes longer for a player that is older to recover and the Yankees have an older team...but he isn't worried about the Yankees. I don't think this comment is supposed to make sense.

Joe thinks of himself as an ancient philosopher. He says a bunch of crazy shit that doesn't make sense and you need to think about, but while he believes he is being "deep," he is just talking nonsense.

The Yankees, unlike Boston, don't have a lot to worry about right now.

In a normal chat, the person chatting would explain exactly what he means about this statement, but Joe Morgan just leaves it out there hanging. He changes the subject to another topic of interest and then doesn't elaborate. I wonder if Joe does this in real life?

(Joe Morgan talking to a neighbor who has been out of town for work) "I saw you were out of town last weekend. You missed a beautiful week of weather."

(Joe's neighbor) "Yeah, I hope my wife and the kids were doing well, I haven't been away from them for a while like that. I was so thankful nothing happened and the air conditioner didn't act up again while I was gone and or the car didn't die."

(Joe Morgan) "Yeah, everything seemed fine, no one called me for any early morning air conditioning fixes or roadside flat tire changes. All was well. You didn't have anything to worry about, unlike your wife, who I think just found out you had been cheating on her." (Joe turns around and leaves)

Mike (Ohio)

Mr Morgan: On the ARod-Dallas Braden spat a few weeks ago, do you think ARod does or says what he did if it'd been say Bob Gibson or Roger Clemens on the mound?

JM: I'm sure that when running out to my position, I ran across the mound. I never thought about it. But A-Rod is an easy target. There was one report that he stomped on the rubber and another report said that wasn't true. It's because he's A-Rod.

For once, I agree with Joe on this. This may never happen again.

Patrick (Clovis, CA)

Joe, looking at how hot the Padres have been this year, do you see anyone contending with them for the division playoff spot, and if so who?

JM: Yes. The Padres have gotten off to hot starts before and have not been able to hold on. I see the Giants contending, as well as the Dodgers and Rockies.

So basically Joe is telling us that every team in the NL West division has a chance at winning the division. You can only get analysis like this at ESPN...or from anyone else who has a pulse and a working brain.

Ben (los angeles)

Joe, it seems the Dodgers are in a bit of disarray.....no pitching, sporadic hitting and no fielding. any ideas?

No. Joe has no ideas. Next question.

JM: I would not say that off field issues with ownership has not effected the players.

I would not say that this sentence does not make sense.

(Only I can use double negatives in a sentence)

The players are asked about the situation and there are questions about what will happen with the payroll this year and next year. But I think Joe Torre and his coaches will right the ship.

Thanks for your contribution Joe. Here's a cookie, now go outside and play.

When asked what the problem with the Dodgers, Joe Morgan says off the field issues affect a team and he thinks the Dodgers are being affected by these divorce proceedings between the McCourts. He thinks Joe Torre will "right the ship" despite the fact the divorce is still on-going and the players will continue to get asked about it. So while acknowledging the problem that may be affecting the Dodgers, Joe thinks even though the problem doesn't go away, the Dodgers will be fine. I just don't get how if a problem like this doesn't go away, things will just be fine...assuming this is the problem with the Dodgers.

I love how Joe sees the divorce proceedings as the problem for the Dodgers, but somehow thinks the Dodgers will turn it around because Joe Torre is the manager...but explains nothing further.

Fred (Philly)

Hi Joe wuth the Phillies reasserting thier dominance over the Mets do you see any team in the east challenging them?

This guy must have been a spelling champ in high school.

JM: I don't think they asserted their dominance over the Mets, they won 2 out of 3. Even in the losses, even if they were lopsided, there was one crucial play that turned it around.

Just last week Joe was telling us when he was talking about Tim Lincecum that the purpose is to win the game, no matter how you do it. That's his guiding principle until he decides it isn't anymore. The Phillies winning two of three over the Mets isn't asserting their dominance...most likely Joe would say because the Phillies aren't consistent enough to be dominant.

On Sunday, it was the walk to the pitcher with 2 outs. They scored 9 runs after that. The game before that, there was a misplay in the field that opened things up. You figure next time Santana won't pitch that poorly.

Isn't not walking a player with 2 outs and then giving up 9 runs more than just bad luck? I don't know how a team just accidentally gives up 9 runs. Isn't an error in the field part of the game of baseball? From a guy who is all about winning the game the right way and being consistent, he sure makes a lot of excuses for a team who makes errors and then (accidentally) gives up 9 runs. Maybe the Mets can challenge the Phillies, but the fact the Mets didn't play well against the Phillies doesn't mean they are automatically a better team the next time they play.

Behn (Indianapolis)

Whatever the Cubs reasoning is Zambrano to the bullpen, a soft middle infield, huge contracts, no trade clauses, the way Jim Hendry runs the team has to be questioned. No? Time to start rebuilding for the future?

JM: I'm wondering why you're questioning the moves now, when what they've done the last three years hasn't worked.

Yeah Behn, how dare you question NOW how the Cubs are run! You are out of line! Does Joe know Behn personally and know for sure this is the first time he has questioned the Cubs moves?

It wasn't just a few questions ago that Joe Morgan said the Cubs could have the best pitching staff in the NL Central was it? What happened to that?

They've made some mistakes the last few years. Getting rid of some players who were important to the makeup of the team.

Like who? Anyone in particular? Any names? Bueller?

victor (monroe,la)

what,s the sunday night baseball game of the week this sunday?

JM: The other thing I'm looking for is how well the BoSox offense continues to play. That's been their problem this year,

The Red Sox are 6th in MLB in runs scored this year, 6th in batting average, 5th in OBP, and 2nd in SLG%. The offense doesn't seem to be the problem at all for the Red Sox. If there was a bigger way to be wrong, that's how wrong Joe would be in making this statement.

other than their starting pitching not playing up to their capabilities.

So hitting as been their problem, along with the other part of playing baseball well and winning games, which is pitching. Great analysis here. The problem with the Red Sox according to Joe is they aren't hitting or pitching well, though they are hitting well, so Joe is completely wrong about this. This is why Joe Morgan is ESPN's #1 analyst and gets the big Sunday Night Baseball games.

Boston is 23rd in ERA, 14th in quality starts, and 16th in batting average against them. I think it is fair to say pitching has been a bigger problem. Of course statistics are evil and this why they shouldn't be used...who wants the truth when speculating what a team's problem truly is can be so much fun?

Todd (Philly)

Hi Joe - I am a big fan. Tell me - who would you pick as your starting pitcher for a key game - Jiminez, Lincecum or Halladay? And why (or better yet - how do you chose?)

JM: All of the above.

Awesome. Way to make a decision. Do we think Joe knows a team can't have three starting pitchers in one game?

But the consistency of Halladay over the years, not just this year, I think I would go with him.

Tim Lincecum has pitched in two complete seasons for the Giants and won two Cy Young awards. That's pretty consistent. I am not saying Halladay is a bad choice, but I am just throwing the Lincecum awesomeness out there.

Steve (St. Louis)

Mr Morgan. Do you relly think the Cards are going to be able to afford Carp, Wainwright and Pujols in 2 years?

I don't know why the Cardinals would re-sign Chris Carpenter. I know he is still a great pitcher, but he would have to be #3 on this list for me. Carpenter will be 36 years old next April. No matter how well he is pitching, I say keep Pujols and Wainwright over them.

JM: We go back to the conversation I had in Milwaukee. Small market, medium market? St. Louis sells out every night. But if you can give Holliday 100 million, then they must have a big vault.

They just gave Holliday $14 million per year, Pujols will probably get $25 million at a minimum, Carpenter would want probably $15 millions and let's pretend that's exactly what Wainwright wants (which is conservative) as well, and the Cardinals are spending $69 million on 4 players as a conservative estimate. The Cardinals payroll is currently at around $94 million. Re-signing all of those guys isn't happening.

Ken (Philly)

Mr. Morgan, I don't get the hate for Howard. The guy hits 40 HRs and drives in 140 every year. Plus, like you said, he has the awards to back it up. I really don't understand it, Joe. Outside of Pujols, who's a better power hitter than Howard? I mean 140 RBIs each year! He's a leader and helped the Phils win the WS one year and get to the WS in the other.

JM: That's why I brought it up at the beginning. I do not understand. You have a 7-year, 100 million-plus contract for Matt Holliday. I don't see why his isn't questioned and Howard's is.

For one thing, these two players are the exact same age and Howard's contract is nearly double the amount Holliday's is worth per year. Also, many people question the Matt Holliday contract, but because many people expected him to get more than that on the free agent market he seems like a bargain somehow. I think the lack of outrage over Holliday's contract is a matter of expectations being that he would have gotten more money on the free agent market. The outrage over Howard's contract is a product of it being a lot of money and the Phillies gave him an extension fairly early in his current contract and he wasn't going to be a free agent after this year, so they had time to work on a new deal.

I don't get why Joe keeps comparing these two contracts. Howard's is 2 years shorter and worth $25 million more, they play different positions, and they are different kinds of baseball players.

There is one thing that happens in baseball - you get a reputation early in your career and it sticks with you. Maybe they're looking at him as a one-dimensional player. But he's improved. I don't understand it. I don't like the strikeouts, however. But it seems to be more prevalent these days, there are a lot of players that strike out.

Asking a question of Joe is a lot like asking your grandpa a question. It starts off fairly well with the answer to your question and then ends up with a story about World War II, how tight his new shoes are and why he refuses to go to Applebee's anymore.

JM: I enjoyed the chat today. Looking forward to talking to you next week.

There is nothing I will look forward to more...other than anything else that happens next week.