0 comments Columnist Believes Bud Selig Should Randomly Nix Trades

Fans, teams and players don't generally like it when a trade is nixed by the commissioner (see: nixed Chris Paul trade). Commissioner interference in two teams conducting business screams of league interference in an issue that many fans believe should stay between the teams involved in the trade. There are special circumstances when this rule doesn't apply. Richard Griffin thinks the AJ Burnett trade is an example of this. You all may have experienced your own outrage at the Yankees-Pirates trade that involved AJ Burnett. The Interwebs were abuzz with the anger from all around the league at this trade happening, with many columnists immediately suggesting Bud Selig step in and nix the trade. Various columnists like Richard Griffin of the Toronto Star and Richard Griffin of the Toronto Star said Selig needed to step in. Another columnist, Richard Griffin of the Toronto Star, said it was in the best interest of baseball to nix this trade. Needless to say, this was a controversial trade that shook up the very foundation of baseball and caused outrage.

Fine, I was lying. Richard Griffin of the Toronto Star is the only person who had an issue with this trade. Let's read why.

Back on June 15, 1976, as the first wave of MLB serfs-in-spikes was about to hit the open market under the original rules of free agency, a commissioner’s decision cited as “in the best interests of baseball” was made by then-commissioner Bowie Kuhn.

I love a good history lesson.

Dear Bud Selig,

"One time thirty-six years ago this one thing happened and so it should happen again because it happened one time before."

Sincerely,
Richard Griffin

Those 36 years ago, cantankerous, contrarian A’s owner, Charles O. Finley had reacted pre-emptively to free agency with a fire-sale of all-stars, shipping soon-to-be-free outfielder Joe Rudi and closer Rollie Fingers to the Red Sox and lefty Vida Blue to the Yankees for cash totalling under $2 million (U.S).

So naturally, shipping off an expensive pitcher who no longer has a spot in the New York Yankees' rotation in 2012 is the same thing as a team in 1976 holding a fire sale to get rid of many of their All-Star players. Naturally. It's the same thing really.

Selig should have taken the same critical look at the Yankees deal with the Pirates,

One team needed some payroll relief and the other team needed a starting pitcher with the occasional ability to be a #2 starter. The trade is the Yankees admitting they made a mistake in signing Burnett, but there is no interest in baseball that is being hurt here. In fact, the Yankees are paying a guy $20 million who isn't even on the roster, so they really aren't winners. The Pirates have AJ Burnett pitching for them, so they really aren't winners either...and yet both teams are happy.

a trade of pinstriped convenience that sent the underachieving Burnett and a huge chunk of cash to Pittsburgh for two prospects with ceilings lower than Snow White’s eight-bedroom cottage.

Every trade is a trade of convenience. What isn't convenient is the commissioner of a sport stepping in and nixing a trade both teams have agreed upon.

Also, was that a Snow White reference? Really? Is that how they roll in Canada, making Snow White references?

The Yankees, after obtaining right-hander Michael Pineda from the Mariners, no longer needed A.J. But they do need some available cash to sign a left-handed hitting DH, like Johnny Damon or Raul Ibanez, and a utility player like Eric Chavez.

Which is exactly why they traded Burnett. First, Griffin is complaining the Yankees have too much money and now he is criticizing them for lowering their payroll. We will find out very soon that Griffin pretty much just hates anything the Yankees do.

The Yanks under the ownership of the Steinbrenner Lite brothers are trying to bring payroll down to about $189 million by the end of 2014.

Steinbrenner Lite. I am not sure I like that. The indication is the younger Steinbrenners aren't good owners of the Yankees like their father was. I thought everyone remembered George Steinbrenner wasn't always the best owner in sports. This is true, right? I feel like the Brothers Steinbrenner may actually be more emotionally stable in terms of how they run the Yankees franchise. I haven't heard of them firing and hiring the same manager a few times, hiring a private investigator to get dirt on a player or anything of the sort.

Nothing against George Steinbrenner, but his sons do seem to be more stable...at least at this point. Granted, George Steinbrenner is dead, which has greatly helped his reputation, but in calling the Brothers Steinbrenner "Steinbrenner Lite" it seems Richard Griffin is willfully forgetting Daddy Steinbrenner's actions as owner during the 1980's and early 1990's. He wasn't exactly a model owner.

But with Burnett, the Bombers needed a dance partner that has far less at stake, far more modest goals.

Not at all. The Yankees needed a trade partner willing to pay part of Burnett's salary and wanted to trade for him. There isn't some grand scheme where the Yankees sign the best players from other teams to large contracts and then a few years later sell them back to those teams for a small price. I know it seems like there is a grand scheme like this, but there isn't. Also, this would be a horrible scheme from the perspective of the Yankees to sign a player to a huge contract with the plans to trade the player three years into the contract, while still having to pay the majority of the contract.

What is interesting is the Yankees actually had a trade set up with the Angels. The same Anaheim (or whatever they are called) Angels that just signed CJ Wilson and Albert Pujols to a huge contract. AJ Burnett nixed this trade. Are the Angels a team with far less at stake or modest goals? No, they are not. So Richard Griffin wants us to forget about this trade so we believe he has a point.

Round up the usual suspects.

????? (cue the drama button)

What does this mean? Have there been multiple instances over the last two or three years where the Yankees have traded a player to a small market team for payroll relief? I'm thinking of this instance and then...and then...maybe Javier Vazquez being traded to the Braves a few years ago, but I'm still not sure that counts. It isn't like big market teams are consistently selling off underachieving players to small market teams. Even if they are, how is this taking advantage of these teams?

The Yankees get two mediocre minor-leaguers and pay $20 million of the final two seasons on their own bad contract for Burnett to pitch in Pittsburgh, while the Pirates pay just $13 million.

Both sides are happy with this deal. So far, there has been a lot of summation and very little explaining why Bud Selig should nix this deal...other than for the reason Richard Griffin just doesn't seem to like AJ Burnett, a cohesive argument or the New York Yankees.
The prospects in return are right-hander Diego Moreno and outfielder Exicardo Cayones.

Is that a baseball deal?

No, it is a deal to clear cap space and get a minor league outfielder and pitcher back in return. The Pirates became a better team and the Yankees cleared out room in their rotation. It is a win-win trade that doesn't threaten the competitive balance of baseball in any fashion.

It’s great for the Pirates because they are not a real contender and now have a short-term starting ace who won’t get attached and be looking for something awkward — like, say, an extension. It’s great for the Yankees because now they can add in other areas and win it all again.

No risk for the Yankees and plenty of reward.

There is still a risk for the Yankees. They are swallowing $20 million for a pitcher who they don't currently need, but could be needed if the Yankees pitching staff suffers from injuries or ineffectiveness. The risk is they are paying for a player who isn't pitching for them and got very little in return. The reward is they won't have to pay $13 million of Burnett's salary and probably didn't need his services this year.

Something doesn’t make sense.

Bucs GM Neal Huntington obviously feels that with Burnett at the top of the rotation, pitching for his next contract, no Big Apple pressure, no longer in the uber-tough AL East and for an average of $6.5 million per season the next two years, the trade is worth it.

So Richard Griffin thinks the Yankees got a great reward with no risk and the Pirates think Burnett can be a top starter...so what doesn't make sense about this trade, again?

The irony, and the reason Selig should have stepped in, is that Burnett’s not worth the same to a contender.

I am not sure this is really ironic. So because Burnett isn't worth $6.5 million per season to a contender then the trade should be vetoed? Where was all the outrage from Richard Griffin earlier this year when Atlanta traded Derek Lowe for a minor league pitcher and only had to pay $5 million of Lowe's $10 million salary? Why wasn't there outrage from Griffin then? Probably because it didn't involve the Yankees. Simply because it was a middle market team trading a highly paid player to a lower market team, it doesn't merit outrage because the Yankees aren't involved.

Face it ... the Yankees are dealing from the strength that comes with wealth. They have always acted in the best interest of the Yankees.

Who else should they act in the best interest of?

Who can blame them, but when you are the team with the largest payroll in baseball, handing out the largest contracts, your decisions have spinoff effects that are not always in the best interest of the other 29 teams.

Again, this isn't the Yankees problem. I know it seems hard to ignore the economic disparity between MLB teams when discussing topics like this, but the Yankees shouldn't have to think about the effect a free agent signing has on the rest of the teams. Individual teams should not necessarily have to do what is in the best interest of the other 29 teams.

Such was the case with the bloated Burnett contract after he opted out from the Jays following 2008. With A.J. coming off an 18-win, 231 strikeout season, the Yanks outbid all comers.

I would say in 80% of free agency cases, the team that eventually signed the player outbid all comers. So this really isn't saying much. Burnett did have other bidders though, so it isn't like the Yankees overpaid for Burnett based on the market.

They offered an outrageous five years and $88.5 million for a guy who was barely .500

It's not outrageous if that is what Burnett is worth on the open market. Also, it was a 5 year $82.5 million contract. But what good are facts when you are trying to prove a point? Facts are secondary.

Burnett was 87-76 in his career until the point he signed with the Yankees. That's a 0.533 winning percentage and I don't know if I would qualify that as "barely" .500, especially over 163 games. I do get Griffin's point that this team seems like a lot of money for Burnett.

Of course, the Toronto Blue Jays signed Burnett to a 5 year $55 million contract when he was 49-50 for his career in 2005. I'm not so good at math, but that's $11 million per year for a pitcher who was below .500 for his career at that point. So it is a bit hypocritical to criticize the Yankees for giving $5.5 million per year more in 2008 for Burnett when Griffin's local team signed Burnett to a large contract in 2005 when Burnett had a losing record for his career at that point.

and has always required the presence of better pitchers on his own staff to be most effective.

This makes absolutely no sense. A pitcher's performance is not dependent on how other pitchers on the staff perform. Burnett can pitch well or terribly independent of how other pitchers on the staff pitch. This is a really stupid comment.

The commissioner’s office should consider how that bad Burnett contract impacted other similar free agents in the winter of 2008-09 and the next off-season and how it had a negative trickle down effect that hurt small market teams like Pittsburgh.

So Bud Selig should nix this trade because the original signing of Burnett by the Yankees three years ago hurt small market teams? Does Richard Griffin realize how illogical it is to nix a trade between two teams because one of the players involved in the trade was a bad free agent signing three years ago?

Now, the Yankees are cavalierly buying their way out of trouble, refinancing happiness, manipulating the long-suffering Pirates’ fans and the baseball system that permits big mistakes to become smaller mistakes,

No one forced the Pirates to trade for Burnett. If they didn't want him, they would not have traded for him.

maxing out on the money-back they can save on the final two years of a bad-for-baseball deal, while accepting two less-than-mediocre prospects they don’t want and don’t need just so Selig would approve it as a baseball-first deal.

The one thing we all learned from the nixed Chris Paul-to-the-Lakers trade is that a commissioner doesn't need to get in the middle of two teams making a trade. Who cares if the Yankees are dumping Burnett for two crappy prospects? The Pirates are getting a fairly good deal on Burnett and if he plays well enough perhaps they can trade him for better prospects at the trade deadline this year or next. I bet Richard Griffin never thought about that possibly occurring. So I fail to see how this trade was not in the best interests of baseball.
The Bucs weren’t the only suitors for Burnett this winter.

Knowing this only further serves to submarine Griffin's point. If it was such a terrible trade and the Yankees were taking advantage of a small market team, then why were multiple teams interested in Burnett?

The World Series contending Angels also inquired, but Burnett nixed those talks, preferring to go to the least successful franchise in baseball for the last 20 years.

I am supposed to believe this was a terrible trade where the Yankees were taking advantage of a small market team, yet a large market team was also in talks to trade for Burnett? How am I supposed to believe the Yankees are ripping off small market teams and the trade should be nixed because of this, while also knowing large market teams were interested in Burnett? Isn't this proof the Yankees weren't merely picking on small market teams? The proof being the Yankees were completely willing to trade Burnett to the Angels?

He’s now a big fish in baseball’s smallest pond.

For those like Richard Griffin who seem to believe Burnett only went to Pittsburgh to take pressure off himself, Burnett has a history of choosing to play close to where his wife lives. From this article:

"All I will say is that we made a very competitive offer," said Braves general manager Frank Wren, while only confirming that Burnett wouldn't be coming to Atlanta. "I would say geography was a primary factor."

One thing the Braves couldn't offer was a geographical overhaul that might have made Atlanta more appealing to Burnett's wife, Karen, who chooses not to fly. "We knew we couldn't move Maryland closer to Atlanta," Wren said. "We were swimming upstream all along."

Burnett has been pretty consistent about wanting to play close to Maryland. So it isn't as if Burnett didn't want pressure on him or wanted to be a big fish in a little pond. Nor does the trade have anything to do with the Yankees picking on the Pirates.

The Jays thought they created something special when they paired Burnett and Roy Halladay at the top of the rotation in 2006. They got less than expected.

Therein lies Richard Griffin's bitterness and astounding insistence Bud Selig veto a trade in 2012 because of a bad free agent signing in 2008.

At least the Yankees won a World Series in A.J.’s first season, but the fact is for three years of electric stuff and erratic command, they will have paid $75.5 million

Actually, they will have paid $69.5 million. I'm not sure how this trade is a huge positive for the Yankees. Nor do I see how a large free agent contract given to Burnett and his eventual trade to the Pirates isn't in the best interests of baseball.

14 comments Gene Wojciechowski Has A Suggestion For Joe Girardi

Gene Wojciechowski is a favorite target of mine, simply because he seems to write articles that I can in no way agree with...which means I enjoy mocking him even more. As you can see from the Bottom of the Barrel Gene Wojciechowski (or Gene W. as I call him) archive, there isn't too much in there about him. The only reason this is true is because I don't follow him closely enough. Consider this problem rectified. He is now on my "bookmarked" list.

Today, or actually before Game 4 of the World Series, Gene W. writes that Joe Girardi is making a mistake going with a three man rotation. He doesn't get Girardi's insistence on using a three man pitching staff for the World Series, even though those three pitchers are clearly the Yankees best pitchers. Gene W., lifelong Cubs fan (I am 90% sure of this) who hasn't seen his team win or play in the World Series in a long time seems to know what the best way to win a World Series is...and it isn't using a three man rotation.

Who would have thought using your three best pitchers in a World Series could ever be so controversial? I thought everyone thought it would be retro-cool for a manager to pretend it is the time before pitchers started to get strict pitch counts and treated like they have to be saved for some ultimate purpose in the future that may never arise (Yes, I am talking about 45 pitch start Joba Chamberlain-type stuff, not putting Kerry Wood out there for 140 pitches and then starting him three days later). Apparently Gene W. doesn't find this cool at all. I would think a three man rotation would be refreshing, but I would be wrong.

The reason I think a three man rotation is the best idea for the Yankees and that's because even last night when Burnett got knocked out early when working on three days rest, the Yankees still had chances to win the game. Sabathia, Burnett, and Pettitte are just clearly the three best starters for the Yankees and if Girardi has confidence in them to pitch on three days' rest, then I think this may be the right move. Wednesday night when Andy Pettitte is pitching, Chad Gaudin will be plenty rested to take over in case Pettitte runs into trouble. The advantage the Yankees have is even if a pitcher on three days' rest gets hit hard early they have a good enough offense to get back/stay in the game.

Turns out there are some things George Steinbrenner's money can't buy. I just never thought one of those things would be a fourth starter.

The Yankees have been struggling over the last couple of years because Steinbrenner's money couldn't buy a legitimate #1 or #2 starter...much less a quality fourth starter. Really, not having a great fourth starter tends to be the norm for a lot of baseball teams...granted teams in the World Series tend to have decent fourth starters, but generally even good teams tend to not have incredibly effective, high quality fourth starters that just HAVE to get a start in a crucial Game 4 of the World Series. As far as the Yankees go, there is a dramatic fall off from the first three starters to the 4th starter so starting a fourth starter in the series may not be a good idea.

For those who think a four man rotation is the best, I am not arguing with you, I am just saying if you have a fourth starter named Chad Gaudin then a three man rotation is your best move. Yes, I realize the Phillies started Joe Blanton two nights ago over Cliff Lee on three days rest...but that didn't turn out too well did it? Blanton didn't pitch very poorly but the Phillies didn't win the game. Same thing for those who were freaking out over Mariano Rivera pitching too many innings in Game 2 and then pitching again Games 3 and 4. Brad Lidge was well-rested and that didn't turn out well for the Phillies either.

Girardi had every reason to believe Burnett would pitch well on three days' rest last night, simply based on his past performance on short rest. It's almost like it doesn't matter how much rest a pitcher gets which determines the pitcher's effectiveness, within reason, it's how good of a pitcher that pitcher actually is which determines his effectiveness.

The planet's richest baseball team forgot to purchase a No. 4 starting pitcher.

False, they didn't forget they mainly tried to use their farm system and guys who were reclamation projects. Even the Yankees can't buy a player at every starting rotation spot. Let's look at the graveyard of 4th pitchers the Yankees tried to find for this specific team:

Chien-Mang Wang: Is he still alive? I saw someone that looked like him in the dugout the other night so I assume so.

Sergio Mitre: I am pretty sure he is not alive.

Joba Chamberlain: The Yankees are saving him to pitch up to 200 innings in a couple more years. (One more reasons I don't like the "win" statistic: Joba Chamberlain got the win in Game 4 BECAUSE he gave up a home run to Pedro Feliz. If he hadn't given up the home run the win would have gone to Sabathia. Isn't there another stat we can use in place of the win?)

Chad Gaudin: 6-10, 4.64 ERA, 1.507 WHIP. To be fair he did put up eye popping numbers with the Yankees...he was 2-0, 3.43, 1.452 WHIP.

With options like that is there any question why Joe Girardi went with a three man rotation? Well for Gene W. there certainly is.

He's doing this because his team has a $208 million payroll, but it doesn't have a fourth starter he trusts.

Joe Girardi doesn't control the payroll. He pitches the pitchers that can win games for him. There is a difference in the Yankees having a good fourth starter and a fourth starter worthy of pitching a Game 4 of the World Series that Joe Girardi trusts to win the game.

This is like buying a tank but not having the Parts Department attach the gun turret.

I am not disagreeing. It seems to be working pretty well so far in the World Series, except for last night...which was the first time all postseason the Yankees starter hasn't gone at least 6 innings.

I'll beat the rush and say that if he goes through with it, Girardi will be pushing one managerial button too many.

Accusing Joe Girardi of "pushing one managerial button too many" is not an extreme criticism for a guy who has overmanaged nearly every game of the playoffs. It is assumed by now that Girardi overmanages, so it is expected of him. When he went to talk to Sabathia in the 2nd or 3rd inning of Game 4, I thought he was going to pull Sabathia and match up relievers for the rest of the game, only to discover in the 6th inning he was out of pitchers.

A three-man rotation of Sabathia, Burnett and Pettitte looks good on a lineup card, but what it really does is expose a major flaw of the Yankees.

The fact they don't have a fourth starter good enough to start a Game 4 of the World Series is a flaw, but I don't know if it is a major one. It is a flaw in the Yankees but it's not like they had not tried to find a fourth starter they could trust. They are still one win away from winning the World Series and I am sure they will fix this fourth starter problem in the offseason. Here is a question people should be asking...should the Phillies have pitched Blanton in Game 4? It's not like he was their best option out of Moyer or Happ. Granted Joe Blanton didn't pitch poorly in Game 4, but if the Phillies had confidence Cliff Lee could pitch on three days' rest he would be out there. the Phillies could have pitched Happ, Moyer or Blanton in Game 4. In the Phillies case, they have depth but it hasn't paid off for them yet. It is just that the Yankees have that confidence in Burnett, Sabathia, and Pettitte. It's why they paid those three so much money.

But Gaudin, who has yet to make an appearance in this World Series, could be available for Game 5 (in place of Burnett) or, if necessary, Game 6 (in place of Pettitte).

And he still can be. If Pettitte started to struggle mightily I am sure we would see Gaudin in the game very quickly. There is a reason he didn't pitch last night in relief of Burnett. I am tired of Gene W. making me defend the Yankees on this issue.

If I were Girardi, I'd present Pettitte with the lineup card as a gift, thank him for the go-ahead victory and tell him he's made his last start of this postseason.

Ok, now I am confused. Who would start Game 7 of the World Series if no Yankee pitchers pitch on short rest? Under Gene W.'s four man rotation shouldn't it be:

Game 1/5: Sabathia
Game 2/6: Burnett
Game 3/7: Pettitte
Game 4: Gaudin

Basically what Gene W. is writing is that it is PERFECTLY FINE for CC Sabathia to pitch on three days rest but not Burnett and Pettitte. So he's not really against a three man rotation, he is just against Pettitte and Burnett pitching on three days rest. I am not a huge Andy Pettitte fan, nor have I ever been, but I don't want Chad Gaudin pitching as many World Series games as Andy Pettitte if I am Joe Girardi.

Pettitte ground his way to an 8-5 win, but to think he can return on three days' rest for a possible Game 6 is pushing it, especially at his age

I understand this but he has all off season to rest and if he can pitch just 5 innings then Girardi can bring in Gaudin or any other reliever for the rest of the game. Girardi is taking a chance but he is not completely winging this. If Pettitte starts stinking Yankee Stadium up then Girardi can immediately put Gaudin in the game. It's not like Girardi has no options if Pettitte struggles.

Of the three short-rest starters, the choice of Sabathia is the only one Girardi can justify. Sabathia is 4-2 with a 2.11 ERA in six career starts on three days' rest.

Except for the fact AJ Burnett was 3-0 with a 1.64 ERA on three days' rest prior to last night. That seemed like a little justification for Girardi to pitch him on three days' rest. It didn't turn out well, but that also can be a result of the fact the Phillies have good hitters and Burnett was sort of due for a blowup (Have I mentioned I don't trust Burnett?).

Burnett is 3-0 with a 1.64 ERA on short rest. He threw 108 pitches in the Game 2 win in New York and was dominant. But you're still asking him to do something Monday night that he rarely does:

But when he does do it, he does it well usually. Soooooooooooo, I can fairly safely conclude that pitching him on three days' rest last night was not a bad idea.

Plus, he'll face the Phillies' best pitcher, Cliff Lee, who will be fully rested after his Game 1 masterpiece.

This should not be taken into account when determining who should have started for the Yankees in Games 4, 5, or 6. It's not like Chad Gaudin could have gone pitch-for-pitch in any scenario with Cliff Lee, especially if Cliff Lee if he pitches like he did in Game 1 and 5. The Yankees hitters are responsible for getting hits off Lee and no matter who starts for the Yankees it was going to be hard to hit Lee.

"Well, I mean, this is the World Series," Girardi said. "There is no baseball after the World Series for four or five months, so there will be plenty of time to rest."

We don't want to ruin Andy Pettitte's arm and ruin the rest of his career though! At least that is Gene W.'s line of thinking. Girardi probably knows he doesn't have much pitching depth, but he is trying to win the World Series and this is how he plans on trying to do it.

I am not trying to be insensitive but Pettitte is at the end of his career and there is really no reason to "save" him for another game when he can pitch as well, if not better, as the alternative.
Second-guess.

I guess I find it hard to believe Chad Gaudin could pitch any better than Burnett and Pettitte have pitched on three days' rest. I am not a huge fan of pitchers pitching on short rest but 2 out of the 3 Yankee pitchers have proven they can do it and Gaudin was a great backup for Pettitte if he struggles. I think for this Yankee team a three man rotation is the best strategy to pursue. Gene W. is wrong in my opinion.

-I want to alert everyone that I have stolen money out of my mom's purse and bought Bill Simmons' "The Book of Basketball." I am through one chapter and it is not horrible quite yet. We all know I am torn at times on Bill Simmons, mostly erring on the "I can't stand this guy" side, but it is pretty clear he tried to put some thought into the book. The foreword by Malcolm Gladwell was pretty unbearable for me, as is the constant stream of Bill describing all the Earth shattering events he saw in Boston Garden growing up...where the crowd stood as one and epic events happened in Boston Garden that could NEVER be repeated anywhere else. Bill has also mentioned how his seats could be seen by those who watched the games on television only about 1,000 times in the first chapter, so it is pretty clear from a young age Bill Simmons desperately wanted to be noticed.

Nearly every event he describes in the first chapter has three different type descriptions by Bill of what happened in Boston Garden:

1. Why the event was awesome.

2. How shaken up/excited the crowd was and what everyone walked like after the event.

3. When/If you could see Bill on television during said event. Let's just say Bill is proud he was on CBS many times over the years.

-Sometimes I feel like stretching my brain a little bit sometimes and doing some stuff on here I don't normally do. I always like to go back on my own to what I had written a year ago on this blog and see if it has any relevance in what we are talking about or what I am doing now. Most of the time it does have some relevance and I think it would be interesting to revisit some old posts because of this. The problem is I have no clue how to do this.

A great example is I noticed I did a MMQB a year ago today exactly and reading through it, I realize the stuff I am criticizing Peter King for is still relevant today, but I am not going to go through and do the MMQB again because I have already done it. It's a bizarre feeling because the MMQB is still relevant today and anyone can go back and read it if they want to...but I still feel like I need to point some of the stuff he wrote out. In feeling my way around this I decided I would re-read the post from a year ago and point out all the things Peter was wrong about one year later or have relevance today still. Doesn't sound this like fun? I know I did MMQB yesterday but I feel like today is a good day to do a MMQB Follow-up. It is going to be great fun so just hang in there. My quotes are in italics (I will do very little of this) and Peter's are in bold italics.

This is not good.

For those that don't like long introductions (which I am horrible about), re-read some of the older stuff I have posted and you get a four word introduction like this. It will be heaven for you. This introduction does sum up the MMQB Era pretty well though.

Look at Sunday's big winners and tell me what they have in common.Baltimore, Tennessee, Arizona, the New York Giants, Atlanta, Indianapolis and New England. Yes, New England, even after an 18-15 loss to the Colts in Indianapolis.

I still think it is great he included New England in the winners even though they lost. Maybe that's a little bit of the "favorite team" feeling I get from Peter now. The one lesson we will all learn after this following up session is that Peter has always been bad. It didn't just happen over the last couple of months.

My take on this week, and the first half of this NFL season, is this: The good teams, and the pleasant surprises, are the teams that plan for the future while trying to win championships today.

This still strikes me as an absolutely idiotic comment to make. Pretty much every single team is trying to plan for the future while winning a championship today. That's the ENTIRE GOAL of running a successful franchise and the good teams do this successfully while the crappy teams don't. This is such an obvious statement.

It's very Peter King-ish to say this.

Dallas (which has gone seven years without drafting a quarterback to develop),

Here Peter was in full-on "I hate Tony Romo because he got injured" mode and felt like a great quarterback in his prime wasn't good enough, that team had to find a backup quarterback that was drafted and DEVELOPED exactly like the Patriots did with Tom Brady and Matt Cassel (and you thought it all wouldn't go back to the Patriots in my and Peter's mind? Really?). Peter was in heat for Matt Cassel at this point in the season and he felt every team had to draft and develop a quarterback. Undrafted free agent quarterbacks who are great quarterbacks and still in their prime need not apply.

New GM Thomas Dimitroff in Atlanta gambled on draft day -- quarterback Matt Ryan over franchise defensive tackle Glenn Dorsey,

Yes, on November 2, 2008 Peter King was still calling Glenn Dorsey a "franchise" defensive tackle. I still don't understand how taking the best quarterback in the draft when your team needs a quarterback desperately was a "gamble." We should just be thankful Peter didn't get angry the Falcons didn't draft a quarterback in the later rounds and develop that quarterback since that was his favorite thing to do at the time.

The Cassel story illustrates why the Bill Belichick/Scott Pioli way is so effective. If we've trusted Cassel to back up Brady, why don't we trust him to play?

Possibly because some quarterbacks are good enough to be backups but not good enough to be everyday starters. I am not saying this is/was true for Matt Cassel but the logic that any quarterback who is good enough to be a backup is also good enough to be a starter is incredibly flawed logic.

If Cassel gets hurt at some point down the stretch, or when he leaves in free-agency after the season, the Patriots will put 2008 third-round pick Kevin O'Connell under center, or use him to back up Brady.

Or the Patriots will waive Kevin O'Connell in August of this year, the Raiders will sign him then waive him, then the Lions will sign him and trade him to the Jets. I know Peter can't predict the future but his "step-by-step Patriots quarterbacking genius progression" took a hit right here.

The quarterback is develop-able. That's the New England mantra. Brady got developed. Cassel got developed. And O'Connell will too.

But he won't be developed by the Patriots. I love being able to go back and throw Peter's words in his face, this is grand. He had some fantastic Patriots quarterback progression that he was absolutely sure of it's accuracy that turned out to not be completely accurate.

Neither the Raiders nor the Lions wanted O'Connell. Granted, those two teams aren't known for shrewd personnel moves but this has to tell us something, right? Of course O'Connell's career passer rating of 73.6 would make JaMarcus Russell envious of him, so maybe the Raiders should have kept him.

Kasay is an original Panther, having kicked in the first game in franchise history in 1995. If he finishes out the contract, he'll have played for the Panthers two years longer than Brett Favre played for the Packers.

Everything has always gone back to Brett Favre for Peter King. Always.

Let's go to my favorite paragraph of wrongness...

But Cassel, 26, will almost certainly not be tagged by the Patriots after the season,

Of course Matt Cassel was tagged as a franchise player. Epic miss #1 by Peter here.

Why? Because the Patriots have a system in place, a system that calls for them to draft players to replace those who leave as rich free-agents. In this case, they'll simply train 2008 third-round pick Kevin O'Connell to replace Cassel

Again, he was cut. Epic miss #2 by Peter.

and some team out there will pay Cassel $7 million or $8 million a year to be their quarterback of the future.

And that is epic miss #3 by Peter. How about the fact Cassel got a 6 year $63 million dollar contract by Patriots co-genius (or he gets credit for being so, even though I think it is all Belichick) Scott Pioli.

15. (tie) New York Jets (5-3). Three-hundredth career pick by Favre, and from the looks of him after the game, he didn't much care.

I guess after you throw 300 interceptions it just becomes habit or at least no big deal.

the Cowboys should have either drafted a decent one in the last couple of years and developed him under an excellent QB coach in Jason Garrett, or acquired a younger one than Johnson, who's 40. This fact absolutely amazes me: The Cowboys have not drafted a quarterback in seven years.

I am still a little befuddled at why the Cowboys had to draft a quarterback and develop that quarterback when they had Tony Romo on the team. I know Brad Johnson was starting for the Cowboys at this point because Romo was injured, but if he is good enough to be a backup, he might as well be good enough to be a starter. Isn't that Peter's logic?

I know every team wants a good backup, but why waste a pick on developing a backup when you have a 28 year old starter who had posted a passer rating low for the season in 6 games (when this column was written) of 82.6 and had 4 games of over 103 in passer rating at this point? The Cowboys seem to have done a decent job without drafting a quarterback and they shouldn't draft one good enough to develop into a starter because the last thing Dallas needed is a quarterback controversy to go along with all the other problems the 2008 team had.

Anybody coaching defense in the NFL would be Belichick-like if he could call "Mulligan'' on his worst five plays each week.

I think we can all agree King Peter is not Bill Simmons, but the constant references to New England his columns is a little overwhelming at times. He mentions them or Belichick 10 separate times in the column.

It's a little depressing I am saying similar things about Peter King one year later.

The Way We Were

Jeff Garcia vs. Fran Tarkenton.

No one would think of Garcia as the heir to Tarkenton, who retired in 1978 as the NFL's all-time passing yardage leader with 47,003.

Remember this horrible MMQB category? This is where Peter would compare a player in present day to a Hall of Fame player or a high quality player from years ago in the NFL. Generally the comparisons were about as good as Jeff Garcia being like Fran Tarkenton. Needless to say this was dropped by Peter at the end of the year.

e. I don't watch much college football, but that was one riveting game Saturday between Texas and Texas Tech. And as my favorite college scout Chavous said after watching 6-2, 205-pound Graham Harrell's typically ridiculous 35-of-52, 476-yard performance to shock top-ranked Texas: "He's a lot more polished than [former Tech spread QBs] B.J. Symons, Kliff Kingsbury, Sonny Cumbie or Cody Hodges. He's poised. I think he'll play on Sundays. He'll probably be a mid-round pick with a solid postseason.''

The only Sunday Graham Harrell will be playing is if the CFL has Sunday games. Looks like Harrell may have been polished but he also went undrafted. This doesn't stop Peter "The Expert Scout" King from giving his misguided and incredibly inaccurate opinion.

I don't know. He looked better than that to me, and if his size is legit and he throws the 15-yard out with zip, he's certainly got an NFL future.

Again, Graham Harrell was undrafted and now plays in the CFL and couldn't get a job as the quarterback for the Cleveland Browns in the preseason. There is a reason Peter's job is to stalk NFL athletes and try to be their friends and his job doesn't involve scouting or personnel of any type. This is one of those reasons.

h. Rookie quarterbacks Joe Flacco and Matt Ryan just beat JaMarcus Russell 53-10 in an eight-day period. Not to pile on Russell or anything.

Remember not a year before this Peter was describing Russell as more accurate than Vince Young and inferring he would be a great quarterback in the NFL. How the not-so-mighty have fallen in Peter's mind.

I even made fun of JaMarcus Russell back then.

JaMarcus Russell sucks, nearly everyone can agree on this fact.

Read somewhere the other day Starbucks is trying to figure out why they're struggling in a lot of stores, and why Dunkin Donuts and other coffee places are making inroads on the big boys. I don't think it's the cost of a $3.70 latte. I really don't.

Peter was still clueless a year ago about what people who don't make 6 figures would buy and why many people won't buy a coffee that is nearly 4 dollars.

Kids are coming later and later. We had our last at 9:42 p.m. That's 18 minutes shy of my bedtime, kids -- and it's an unwanted interruption of Family Guy on the DVR.

Yes. He bitched "Family Guy" got interrupted when he was watching it on DVR. Peter King has not gotten any more bearable in the last year.

I have given up on pretending I won't do TMQ tomorrow.

5 comments Random Thoughts

I realize no one gives a shit what I think, and for fear I am slowly turning this spot into The Big Lead, I really don't want to make a habit of this but there is nothing out there that has deeply offended me right now. Rather than write a whole write up about five lines in a column that offended me, I would rather do some quick hit random thoughts from around the Internet. I promise if Simmons is worth being snarky about tomorrow, I will post him or something else tomorrow which is snarky that involves cursing and smart ass comments.

I like to number things so...

1. The most obvious story in the world is happening. The Red Sox and the Yankees are in a bidding war for Mark Teixeira, or at least are planning on being in a bidding war.

By the time this is over, win or lose, the Red Sox effectively will have made Mark Teixeira the largest contract offer in the history of your storied franchise.

Boston or New York are actually two places Mark Teixeira could work well, as long as the spotlight is not on him all too much. As long as he has other players deflecting some of the expectations for the team away from him, he should do fine. I guess this is why you hire Scott Boras. For the Red Sox this makes sense because they could move "Youk" back to 3B and play Tex at 1B, and the Red Sox would be incredibly tough next year defensively and offensively. They could swallow paying someone paying a lot of money for production that does not always equal what they pay.

I am not down on Mark Teixeira, I think he is one of the top hitters in Major League Baseball. I don't believe he is worth the amount of money he will be paid. I was very excited when my favorite team acquired him and I just think I was a little disappointed in that he wasn't the franchise changer I was expecting. I am not sure he can be that at his next stop either.

The Yankees could do it in a big way, too, giving Teixeira the kind of money that would put him in the clouds with Alex Rodriguez.

The Yankees are a horrible location for Tex and he does not deserve the kind of money A Rod makes. I am too lazy to look up stats but I don't think Tex is worth this type of money. The Yankees are insane to give him anything close to A Rod's pay scale when they have massive holes in their starting rotation. I don't see how having a great 1B is going to help the Yankees when they have to outscore every team in the league again.

Whatever happened to both these teams starting to build through their farm system and staying away from big purchases like Tex? I think the best thing for the Yankees is to go find good pitching and Tex will end up in Boston with a huge contract and Bill Simmons can love Scott Boras again. Don't get me wrong, he is a great player and one of the best at the 1B position but I just wonder what will happen when he has to get a 2 run double in a close game and not a 7-2 game.

2. Hello New York Jets, welcome to Hell. Brett Favre has not made up his mind about playing in 2009. There is a shocker.

"I haven't even thought about it," Favre said when the prospect of playing in 2009 came up.

I would not be shocked if Brett Favre retired in mid season this year and then wanted to come back as a free agent and be signed by another team. So him not thinking about whether he wants to play next year doesn't surprise me either. This story is not going away any time soon.

"I have people - friends, family - who ask me all the time about next year.

Probably because you never make a decision or when you do make a decision, you take it back a few months later. Hopefully Brett can see how this is very confusing for everyone.

When the Jets made the deal for Favre this summer it was understood that it might be a one-year marriage,

If/When the Jets make the playoffs, because they are going to, the Jets are going to want Brett Favre back as their quarterback for another year because of this. So we are going to have a chance to look forward to will he/will he not retire through the whole offseason. I think the least Brett owes the Jets is to tell them before the NFL Draft occurs. There is no way Jets fans are happy with Kellen Clemens as the QB the year after they have made the playoffs, so really Brett has them right where he wants them.

3. Mike Mussina retired. The question now is whether he will be elected to the Hall of Fame. I am horrible with this Hall of Fame question stuff because I don't think John Smoltz, Jack Morris, or Omar Vizquel should be in, but Bert Blyleven should be. You can discount my opinion if you would like. I would put Mussina in the dreaded "Hall of Very Good."

4. Peter Gammons wants to know why Hanley Ramirez got so few votes for MVP.

It's not as if the Marlins existed in another universe; their 84-77 record was a half-game better than the Dodgers', and they did it in the best division in the National League -- the division with the world champions.

If only Hanley had gotten traded to the American League and tore up the league for 1/4 of a season, then maybe someone would consider him the MVP. Right Manny?

The real reason Hanley Ramirez did not get any more votes than he did is because the MVP award is useless and pointless like every other postseason award. It is voted on by sportswriters, who as far as I can tell, don't really pay attention to that many teams. Woody Paige did not know who Huston Street was and every other voter seems intent on ignoring statistics from the new millenium to determine which player is more valuable. Not exactly geniuses voting for the award.

But Hanley Ramirez 11th? Only Pujols and Berkman had more runs created. His OPS of .940 was the best of any NL middle infielder, better than Utley's .915.

I love it when sportswriters use cherry picked statistics when it helps their point but ignore the stats when it is not convenient.

Ramirez's job wasn't to drive in runs -- it was to create them. He reached base 40 percent of the time, hit 33 homers, stole 35 bases and led the league with 125 runs.
And he did it with average defensive skills at a critical defensive position.

I have no idea how Ramirez's "job" with the Marlins is supposed to support his case for more MVP votes or how he is just average defensively is even relevant to the MVP discussion in a positive fashion. If someone knows, please tell me. The fact he is average defensively seems to hurt his cause a little bit I would think.

5. Buster Olney says a fifth year on a contract could land A.J. Burnett. I say giving him three years is risky.

In other words, at the end of the '08 season, he was throwing better than he has for any extended period in his career.

This screams "contract year performance" to me. Burnett has been offered 4 years $54 million by the Jays. I don't think a small sample size at the end of a contract year should motivate someone to give Burnett insane amounts of money to sit on the bench injured.

Burnett, who turns 32 in January, made 34 starts and 35 appearances and threw 221 1/3 innings, all career highs.

I can't figure out if it is impressive Burnett hit career highs at the age of 32 or whether this is a reason to stay away from signing him. Leave it to the Yankees to offer a 32 year old with a consistent injury history a five year deal that lands him on the team.

He has had three seasons in his career in which he pitched more than 173 innings.

Three seasons in eight seasons he has pitched 173 innings, which at 6 innings per start comes to an average of 28 appearances. That's not bad, but more than half the time he never makes it to this many appearances.

He has had five seasons in which he has thrown fewer than 173 innings.

Including, since 2001, seasons of 23, 120, 135, and 166 innings. If I were looking for an injured pitcher to start for me, I would look at Ben Sheets before A.J. Burnett. To no one's surprise, the Yankees disagree. Apparently Carl Pavano never happened to them.

The Yankees are so intent on adding pitching that in the end, the guess here is that they will do what it takes to separate themselves from the other bidders

If the Yankees were so intent on adding pitching wouldn't you think they would actually draft some decent pitching rather than gamble on free agents?

6. Let's get some Woody Paige mailbag action going...

Hey, Woody. Rumors of a Matt Holliday trade had been circulating for a while, but they always included a prospective ace (Ben Sheets, CC Sabathia, Cole Hamels, etc.).

I am sure someone can provide me with a link, but other than Woody proposing it in his column, I have never heard a single rumor of Matt Holliday for CC Sabathia or Ben Sheets. I have never heard nor will I ever hear of the Phillies trading Cole Hamels for Matt Holliday. Clearly, this is why Woody is able to work in Colorado and be a success, he can just make shit up and his loyal readers believe him.

What I don't understand in the Carlos Gonzalez part is the Rockies already have been talking about Dexter Fowler as the next sure-thing center fielder, and now they get another young center fielder.

Woody in his exhaustive research fails to see that Gonzalez also plays right field and he actually played this position more in the minors than center field.

I'll even add this. When the Rockies went to Tucson in the beginning of the franchise, I wrote that they were making a big mistake because I had gone to spring training in Arizona for years, and I knew that the players in Phoenix wouldn't make the trip over to Tucson. So the Rockies' spring training fans got shortchanged in Tucson. They never saw Barry Bonds (uh) and the other stars because they wouldn't ride the bus to Tucson, and I think it hurt the Rockies having to make all those bus trips to the Phoenix area.

Now, the Rockies are thinking about moving spring training to Phoenix because of their lousy facilities (which they were when the Rockies went there in the first place) and because they "don't want to make all those bus trips from Tucson to Phoenix." Hello!

Now Woody is criticizing the team's choice of Spring Training facility, using this to prove what a poorly run organization it is. He is insane. How the hell does a bus trip hurt the team anyway?

The Rockies should change their name to Colorado Toast.

(Bengoodfella grabs his keyboard and bangs it against his head repeated--dkk2902920202411502565613121```47n,cmxc,dad.d;dd1d2)

This neither makes sense nor is funny. He gets paid for this. I am done...not forever, but with Woody Paige...for today.