7 comments Weekend Roundup

This was a pretty busy sports weekend. A lot of stuff happened in baseball, college football, and in the NFL as well. I figured I would cover some of the important things that have happened this past weekend, since it was so busy. I'm a little surprised at how much money free agents are getting from MLB teams and of course no NFL weekend would be complete without some Brett Favre drama.

1. Let's start first with an absolutely terrible signing. Jayson Werth to the Nationals. It's not terrible because Werth doesn't have talent, not at all. It's terrible because the Nationals gave a 31 year old outfielder a $126 million contract when they could have done so much more with that money. I understand after losing Dunn they wanted to make a splash but that's no reason to spend a ton of money on Jayson Werth. He's not a top player in baseball, he isn't a guy you build your team around, and he just got paid like he was. I believe the Nationals could have competed better and quicker by splitting this money up among 2-3 players.

What annoys me the most is the Nationals could have signed Adam Dunn for $60 million and then spent $66 million on two other good players for their team. How about some pitching? Maybe another hitter or so? Why spend $126 million on Jayson Werth? I don't doubt Werth may perform well, that's not my issue. My issue is he isn't worth that long of a contract nor that much money in the long-term. Free agent deals like this are how bad teams stay bad.

I think the silliest justification in the article I linked was this:

If it proves the first in a series of deals that attempt to leverage a natural, if as yet unexploited, financial advantage into a roster worthy of the talents of Harper, Strasburg and the great Ryan Zimmerman, it could look reasonably savvy. The Detroit Tigers looked quite silly when they signed Magglio Ordonez, another vaguely similar player, ahead of the 2005 season. By the end of 2006, there was a pennant flying over Comerica Park.

The Nationals are improving, but I think that's a bit optimistic. Also, the writer fails to mention Ordonez didn't exactly live up to the deal he signed. Ordonez had a few great years in Detroit, but using him as an example of how deals for 31 year old outfielders can work out because the Tigers won the pennant in 2006 is fairly wrong. If anything, it should serve as a reminder that the Nationals may not get a full 7 years of production out of Werth.

2. I am sure you saw the national emergency alert go from red to orange on Saturday, which can only mean one thing...Derek Jeter re-signed with the Yankees. We knew it would happen. There was very little doubt. They paid him based on the production he has given the Yankees in the past of course. Why would they give him a contract based on his future production? That would be silly to do.

It is sui generis, disconnected completely from market forces. Miguel Tejada, who was a bit worse than Jeter this year at the same age, was guaranteed about 15 percent of what Jeter got. Orlando Cabrera, a year younger and about as effective as Tejada last year, might not get that.

I am not sure Jeter isn't going to have a bounce-back year of some sort, but this statistic details very well just how much the Yankees were paying Jeter for what he has done for them in the past. The ridiculous part is idiots like Mike Lupica thought he should have gotten paid more. I'm all for the Yankees re-signing Jeter, but I don't think there is any way he lives up to this contract on the field.

Heck, it's not that much less than what Troy Tulowitzki, one of the best players in baseball, is guaranteed at the peak of his six-year extension.

That says a lot to me. The Yankees HAD to re-sign Jeter. They have no logical backup option and Jeter really wasn't going anywhere else. In fact, Jeter has built up so much goodwill in New York even if he starts to struggle I don't know if the contract will ever become an issue.

Imagine if Jeter is on an offensive decline. Despite all arguing to the contrary, he isn't a great defensive shortstop and he WILL NOT change positions. So if his offense starts to decline, the Yankees are going to be paying a shitload of money for him and getting very little return on that money...of course I know Mike Lupica will find a way to blame A-Rod for this.

The upside is possibly Jeter wasn't on a decline, in which case he may be worth the contract or close to it. I don't see a way for Jeter to outperform the contract he signed, which is usually a cause for concern, but the Yankees had no choice but to re-sign him.

3. It looks like the Red Sox have gotten the first baseman they so badly wanted.

It's a Latino Mark Teixeira...or as he is better known, Adrian Gonzalez. There's not much to say on this issue, but I think the Padres got a pretty good package in return for Gonzalez. The downside for the Padres is if Casey Kelly, Anthony Rizzo or Reymond Fuentes become good players then the Padres will just have to trade them away when they want new contracts.

Another interesting issue is how low-risk this trade ends up being for the Red Sox. Gonzalez will benefit from being out of Petco Park and the prospects they gave up were blocked because the Red Sox don't really need another starter or first baseman right now. Good move for the Red Sox because while they gave up prospects, they did not give up anyone who was reasonably going to contribute on a full-time basis this year. If I am a Padres fan, this just depresses me.

4. George Shinn has sold the Hornets to the NBA. He can burn in Hell.

Shinn is selling the Hornets to focus more on his faith and his charitable efforts like helping women test themselves for breast cancer by feeling their breast for them under their shirt or showing women the correct way to perform sexual acts on him.

But hey, at least it only took him 11 years to point out what an asshole he is. I thought he would never do it.

5. The college football bowl games were announced on Sunday. Even though there is really no controversy this year about the championship game matchup, I think I may be in favor of a playoff more than I ever have been. I don't want to hate the BCS, because wanting a playoff is pretty cliche at this point, but I think want to see a playoff. The idea bowl games are there for the student/athlete or they even pretend to try and match up competitive teams is a joke.

Auburn/Oregon deserve to be in the championship game, but it still frustrates me we can't see either of those teams play TCU. I know TCU gets a chance against Wisconsin, but if they beat the Badgers, which I am not sure will happen, I don't know if the debate has been settled. Why shouldn't TCU get a shot at the championship?

Other than that, the non-BCS games are full of good jokes played on the public by the corporate sponsors that choose and put on the bowls. South Carolina played for the SEC championship and now they are stuck playing Florida State in the Chick-Fil-A Bowl, which isn't a complete disgrace. The complete disgrace is this happened because the Outback Bowl prefers an average 7-5 Florida team to South Carolina...even though Florida was easily beaten by South Carolina this year.

Another joke of a matchup is Washington and Nebraska. Nebraska got passed over for Missouri in the Insight Bowl, even though the Huskers played in the Big 12 championship this year. I can't help but wonder if the Big 12 had anything to do with that, because Nebraska is a team that sells tickets, so should logically be an attractive bowl team. What's irritating is Washington and Nebraska have already played once this year and will play again next fall. That's three games in a 365 day span. So there is a 10-3 Nebraska team having to play a 6-6 Washington team that only became bowl eligible because they beat a 2-10 Washington State team and this is good for college football?

Morons who argue a bowl playoff would diminish the regular season can't seem to explain how taking a Florida team that lost to a South Carolina team over South Carolina and taking a Missouri team that lost to a Nebraska team over Nebraska shows any respect for the regular season. If anything, this diminishes the regular season because it shows bowls don't care about the regular season results, just which teams sell tickets. So just think about that the very next time you hear someone talk about the regular season will mean less if there is a playoff. Some bowls ignore the regular season results anyway.

I'm not a huge playoff proponent, but I am finding many of the reasons NOT to have a playoff don't have valid reasoning behind them.

6. Why does a team sign Terrell Owens?

"It's frustrating when you feel like there are opportunities that are left out on the field and they aren't being taken advantage of. Everybody's frustrated but I feel like I can be part of the solution as well. Go back and watch the film. I can play this game. There ain't nobody I feel can stop me when I'm out there. That's just confidence; it's not arrogance.

"Everybody can listen to what I say and say that I'm arrogant and that I'm trying to create some controversy or distraction. It's not a distraction ... When there were opportunities one-on-one, I can exploit those matchups."

His production is still great, there's no doubt about that, but whether he is right or wrong in his criticism he is just too much of a distraction for a smart NFL team to take on. He is exactly like a cancer because he has gone from team-to-team in the NFL and caused problems with the things he's said.

7. Brett Favre is injured, could this be it for him?

Personally, as you could guess, I don't care. What I do care about is that Tarvaris Jackson looked pretty good in relief of Favre. Yes, he did throw 3 interceptions, but provides the Vikings with a different look with his ability to run the ball, he also threw 2 touchdowns and he was very accurate with his passing other than the interceptions. Yes, it is a small sample size, but there is a part of me that believes if Jackson ever got a real chance to quarterback the Vikings he could do a good job.

If Favre really is injured, which after the hit that was put on him I can believe, I think if Leslie Frazier is smart he starts the quarterback that can win him the most games. I think that person may very well be Tarvaris Jackson. The least the Vikings could do for the kid is to give him a legitimate shot to run the team when Favre is injured/struggling.

7 comments Tim Keown Hates the United States Military and I Hate Rick Reilly

Ok, so Tim Keown doesn't really hate the military. He does have a few questions about the military being present at sporting events though. Also, Rick Reilly has an article that is sentimental and shitty. Actually, he is just shitty overall. He's God-awful and terrible. He's a overly sentimental and it just comes off syrupy in this column...which is par for the course with him.

I will start with Tim Keown and his article that is sort of all over the place. This article had 3 comments on it and all three were in favor of what Tim Keown wrote. It's the first time all the comments on an ESPN article are positive, at least that I can remember. I don't give a shit, screw them, I disagree with what he writes in this article.

The scene at Nationals Park before the Philadelphia Phillies-Washington Nationals opener on Monday was a familiar one for the nation's capital: huge flags stretched out across the outfield, bunting throughout the stadium and President Obama on hand to throw out the first pitch.

Obama threw out the first pitch and immediately it was clear he was better than half of the Nationals pitching staff.

Teams have long used big events to honor the military, and it's a relationship that works well for both sides.

It's not really supposed to "work" in any fashion. The military presents the flag and an anthem is sung while the military stand there on the field. It's ceremonial and I don't see the problem with it.

It's rare for military members who sacrifice so much to be recognized in such a public setting, and the teams can feel good about making the gesture to a segment of the community that deserves it.

I think this is all we pretty much need to know about why teams do this. End of story. But no, Tim Keown has more problems with this public gesture towards the military.

(Members of the military also can serve as shields for politicians who know they can provide a buffer in a public setting.)

This is not the reason the military are present at games.

(On a side note, I live in a state that is incredibly populated with members of the military and I took satellite classes in grad school at Fort Bragg with military members. I am by no means an expert on the military, but I do have some experience in their company. I have never been in the military, so maybe I have no clue. By the way, driving around Fort Bragg for someone who never bothered to get a map to get around the place is difficult. It is a REALLY hard place to find a classroom. I drove around for an hour and a half before my class. Though the fact they made me open up my golf bag at the front entrance and peeked in there for weapons definitely made up for how I got lost after that. I also enjoyed how they checked under my car for any bombs. It made me feel safe knowing there was no bomb under my car. My rambling point is that I am used to military members being around me and so I am used to military at games presenting the flag and I like this tradition.)

However, as I stood in the press box and watched this particular scene unfold, I wondered whether the relationship has become too familiar, too cozy.

Right. Perhaps American like their military members too much? We honor them too much for the sacrifice they have made for this country. Perhaps we should let some other group of people come out on the field with guns and hold the flag. MENSA would be a good choice I think.

As Tim Keown stood in the press box eating free food and sipping on sodas out of the sun, he had the deep thought that perhaps there is no place for the military at sporting events. Shouldn't they be fighting somewhere?

We spend a lot of time and energy debating the efficacy of defining our sports in war terms. During the past eight or nine years, we've become less inclined to describe games as battles and athletes as courageous for playing with minor injuries.

I think everyone knows calling an athlete courageous for playing through an injury or using war terms is pure hyperbole. No one really thinks we can equate an ankle injury with an injury that may occur during a war. It's pure hyperbole.

We rise up in righteous indignation when someone like Kellen Winslow Jr. overstates his status in the world by calling himself a soldier and his sport a war. This doesn't fly with us -- he's disrespecting the troops, he doesn't know his place, all that stuff.

I don't think anyone was indignant at what Winslow Jr. said. We just thought he looked borderline retarded for yelling that he was a soldier in his college locker room, when he was clearly a football player and nowhere near a soldier. I don't think anyone took it seriously enough to get pissed off. That was the funny part. He was a college athlete and he was very, very firm that he was a soldier. It was very juvenile. It was more embarrassing for him than anything.

But I'm wondering whether it might be worse when the opposite is true, when we approach war as if it were a sporting event.

(Bengoodfella reading this sentence quizzically 4-5 times)

I didn't know we approach war like it was a sporting event. I can't recall saying someone was going to Afghanistan "to play a few rounds with his teammates" or saying a soldier who takes an extra tour of duty as "taking the game to overtime." I just don't see the world as a whole treating war like it is a sporting event.

The men and women who held the flags at Nationals Park were all veterans of Iraq or Afghanistan. The men and women who lined the red carpet were all injured veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan.

Simply because they were at a sporting event, in their capacity as a veterans of the Iraq War by the way, does not mean what they are/were doing in Iraq and Afghanistan was being approached as if it was a sporting event. They are soldiers at a game in their capacity as soldiers and performing an act traditionally only active service members or veterans perform.

The veterans are not there because people believe they are athletes or taking part in an athletic competition in any fashion. Sports gets compared to war. I have never heard war get compared to sports.

As the injured vets were announced by name, they were cheered by the sellout crowd. As the cheering picked up, a chant started and ultimately drowned out the clapping. The chant, as you might imagine, was "U-S-A! U-S-A!"

The crowd was chanting "U-S-A!" because it is a way of saying they are behind the veterans and appreciate all they have done for the United States. It's a small token and is very nationalistic, but I think it has its place sometimes.

It says, "we know you may not hear this much, but regardless of whether we agree with the war you fighting in or not, we are behind you. Therefore we will chant 'U-S-A' to show you we have pride in our country and your sacrifices."

I preface this by saying I am sometimes accused -- and convicted -- of overthinking an issue. I'm also inclined to ascribe motives that aren't in evidence or inject too much meaning into the meaningless.

How about being accused of writing rambling articles and putting out an article that is pretty useless because you can't think of anything else to write...I wonder if anyone accused Tim Keown of that?

The "U-S-A!" chant, to me, is better suited to following a Shaun White performance in the halfpipe or a Mike Eruzione goal against the Russians -- not the introduction of a group that included a young man who lost a leg.

Why? Why on Earth is it not suitable to start chanting "U-S-A" at a sporting event where there are veterans on the field? I know of no better way, other than by monetary means, to let the veterans know we support them and are thinking about them in a situation like this. A moment of silence for soldiers not in attendance would be fine, but this isn't sufficient for the soldiers in attendance.

But to me, the chanting is tone-deaf. The moment called for something a little more somber than a nationalistic chant.

It is a nationalistic chant, but for a sport like baseball where so many of baseball's greatest players have fought in wars, I think it is appropriate. I don't think a baseball game when military veterans are on the field is a time to be somber, especially when veterans who have seen enough somber shit recently in their lives are present.

A good many baseball players missed seasons in the 1940's to go fight in World War II, even if the flag waving may be too much for people, I don't see how the "U-S-A" chant can't be seen as somewhat relevant at a baseball game in Washington.

It's not necessarily wrong, but the ground does seem a little slippery. It's not a question of supporting our troops but understanding and appreciating them in the right context.

I wouldn't disagree with this, but I think a chant at a baseball game with veterans on the field is an appropriate time. It shows their sacrifice is appreciated in the best way it can be shown at the moment. I think if I was a soldier who had lost a limb or something, I could appreciate this a little bit.

The gap between the military and nonmilitary -- in both understanding and shared sacrifice -- is bigger than it ever has been during wartime.

No one is pretending to understand what the military soldiers are going through, they are simply trying to show they support them with a chant. I don't think a chant of "U-S-A" should start every time veterans are on the field or anything, but I don't see a problem with the occasional chant.

There is a role for sports and athletes to play in closing that gap: Drew Brees, to name one, has been instrumental in raising awareness of the sacrifices and realities that members of the military face.

Anyone who knows a military member or the family of a military member already knows the sacrifices they face. Still, good for Brees.

But there are nuances involved, and those nuances make it uncomfortable to listen to a rousing chant while a brave man stands there with an empty pant leg.

I can see the problem, if you are overthinking the situation, because it appears everyone is cheering like the crowd at a gladiator arena as a wounded soldier is standing there. I can see how it would take someone back the dichotomy of cheering for a person who has given a limb in war at a baseball game. It may not seem right to cheer, but you aren't cheering or chanting because he/she got injured, it is because you appreciate they sacrificed for the country you live in (begins waving American flag). I just think silence or any other acknowledgment would fall woefully short of showing these people how we feel for their sacrifice.

What are people going to do? Not cheer? Cheering is really no different than chanting. They both involve loud noises in celebration, it's just a chant is more synchronized and stands apart more. I can see how it would feel like they are chanting in celebration when a person may not seem to have much to celebrate. I tell you, it is a big thing for that brave man on the field to be standing there and that deserves some sort of acknowledgment. Chanting was that acknowledgment at the time. That brave man isn't necessarily depressed or somber about this occasion, he is probably got a much better attitude towards his injury than one would expect him to have. I don't feel like this is a time for somberness and I don't feel this person would believe the crowd is out of line by chanting.

It may be uncomfortable to listen to a rousing chant in this situation, but this chant is no different than a celebration of a soldier, even an injured one, coming home. It's a happiness at all this person has done and a soldier has had enough negative shit in his life to be offended by a "U-S-A" chant.

-Rick Reilly is terrible. Most things he writes are so saccharine and his column on Phil Mickelson is no exception. Here he writes an article about how Phil Mickelson's victory is a victory for women.

Actually, Phil Mickelson won, but for millions of women around the country, it must feel like a lipstick-sized victory. Mickelson, in case you forgot, is the guy who stayed true to his wife. He's the guy who's been missing tournaments the last 11 months while he flies her back and forth to a breast cancer specialist in Houston. He's the guy who didn't need reminding that women are not disposable.

Rick Reilly loves a sentimental sporting event. He hates sports, but loves sentimentality. Combine his hatred for sports and love for sentimentality and you have his weekly column.

So when Amy turned up on the 18th green Sunday at Augusta National for the first time in 11 months and Mickelson practically fell into her outstretched arms, you wanted to hug somebody yourself.

I am not saying this wasn't a great victory for Mickelson, but I can't get past the fact it almost seems like his victory at the Master's somehow makes the breast cancer his wife and mother-in-law have more bearable or takes a weight off the family in some way. It doesn't. Women didn't win at the Master's, Phil Mickelson did. He has two family members who have breast cancer, their diagnosis have not changed and their lives are not any easier (outside of the check he won for winning the tournament), than they were if he had come in 3rd place.

I had to get that off my chest.

You figured a guy who came into this Masters having played only seven tournaments this year -- and never placing better than eighth in any of them -- would have a snowball's chance.

It's not like Mickelson had forgotten how to play golf or anything. It is the second full week of April, Mickelson has played in half of the overall tournaments, so we have to keep that in mind when knowing he only had participated in seven so far. The season isn't that old, so 7 tournaments is still a good amount.

"He just had this peace to him that I haven't seen in awhile," said Bones.

I heard Mickelson say twice that he was more relaxed this week because he knew he could make mistakes on the golf course, due to Augusta being a forgiving course and him feeling comfortable taking risks. So the peace had something to do with his wife AND the golf course from what he said during the tournament.

"It's been tough," Mickelson said. "The meds that she's been taking have been very difficult and she didn't feel well and she doesn't have energy and she's not just up for a lot. But to have her here, man …"

It's awesome that he won the Master's and his wife got to be there. It was a pretty special moment, especially given Tiger Woods has gotten so many headlines for being the anti-Phil Mickelson. Still, it is partially ruined by Rick Reilly writing any column about it. He has the special way of writing that seems to demean an event by fitting it into his neat little sentimental and cute world.

Amy Mickelson is the kind of walking rainbow that could put a smile on a mortician's face, so when she showed up, everything started looking up. The golf gods started raining favors down on Mickelson's curly hair. On Saturday, golf balls started going into tiny little cups from great distances. Sunday, it got even better:

Mickelson was in the running for the lead the entire tournament. He didn't just turn it around when his wife showed up.

"I saw Amy just before I putted," Mickelson said. "That was so great. I mean, I didn't know if she would be there. To walk off the green and share that with her is just very, very emotional. We'll remember this the rest of our lives."

So he started playing better because of his wife's presence even though he didn't know she was there? For me, Reilly somehow trying to tie in Amy's presence with Mickelson doing better during the weekend is Reilly trying to add an emotional element that isn't there. This was already an exciting and emotional moment, nobody needs Rick Reilly pouring syrup over the situation and turning Mickelson's Masters victory into his own greeting card-type column.

Soon enough, though, Woods will win tournaments like this, pass Nicklaus, and order will be restored in the universe. But for this one Sunday in a flower-stuffed pocket of Georgia, the good husband, the good son, the good man actually got rewarded.

This was Mickelson's third Masters victory, and he is the best/second best golfer in the world. It's not like he is an underdog or anything.

Mostly, I just want to say this isn't a win for women, which is what the title of this article says. If Mickelson had lost the tournament, come in second place, or missed the cut entirely it would never make up for the fact his wife and mother-in-law have breast cancer. It's a bit dramatic and really actually wrong to say Mickelson's win was a win for women. It was a win for the Mickelson family and whether he had won the tournament or not, women with breast cancer are in no better shape on Monday than they were on Sunday morning before Mickelson won.

If the golfer who won the tournament was a woman and she had breast cancer, it would be a completely different story, but it is a bit wrong to indicate, and actually fairly demeaning to breast cancer survivors to indicate somehow a sporting event being won by the husband of a breast cancer victim is a win for everyone. This was a big and emotional win for the Mickelson family, but to try to turn into a win for women as a whole is at-best overly sentimental and at-worst is a trivializing the struggle women with breast cancer go through.

14 comments Bert Blyleven Talks About Stephen Strasburg and Of Course Himself

We still have some room in the Yahoo Fantasy Baseball League. I think there are 3 slots left. The League ID is "420904" and the password is "eckstein." If anyone who wants to join has recommendations or preferences on how the league is set up, just use the message board for the league to say what you think. Everyone feel free to join.

We haven't heard from Bert Blyleven in a while. Fortunately he has posted a column about Stephen Strasburg and whether the Nationals should let him start the season on the team or not. I think don't the Nationals should...and of course it turns out they agreed. Either way, Bert Blyleven's explanation of why Strasburg should have started the season with the Nationals doesn't make a lot of sense the more he explains it. He lists criteria for when a young pitcher would be successful and the Nationals meet few of these criteria. I think the Nationals made the right move in putting Strasburg down at AA for a couple of reasons. Bert pretty much ignores any reason other than reasons based on Strasburg's potential.

The Washington Nationals aren’t quite sure what to do with Stephen Strasburg.

There's a shocker. When are the Nationals sure about anything really? They do know how to lose ball games and come in last in the National League East. That's about all they seem to be sure about. Oh yeah, they are also sure they are going to get some good prospects for Adam Dunn at the trade deadline this year.

On one hand, they have a pitcher with tremendous talent, a player who has breezed through his spring training appearances with ease, a No. 1 draft pick who they’ve lavished with a record $15.1 million contract.

On the other hand, there is no way if he succeeds he will stay on the Nationals team as soon as he becomes a free agent...even towards the last years of his arbitration years when other teams are going to want to trade for him and he becomes expensive for the Nationals to keep.

This is a franchise that has struggled mightily, losing 205 games over the last two seasons. Attendance has been poor and the play on the field even worse. The Nationals need some hope and an identity, so the temptation to rush their prized, young arm to the major leagues must be great.

They have him. Now the goal is to not fuck him up. Good luck with that.

But this team is not built to win just yet, as there are still many pieces to be put into place.

I will redo this sentence:

"But this team is not built to win, as they need an outfield, shortstop, second baseman, catcher, 3/5 of a starting rotation (including Strasburg), and three more quality pitchers in the bullpen. Other than that, they are right on the cusp of winning."

Also, why rush a pitcher to the majors when the team isn't even close to being ready to win?

So they must also be tempted to treat Strasburg with kid gloves. To bring him along slowly until they are certain he is ready.

Actually I think the temptation would be to throw him out there ASAP and sell some tickets before the fans completely give up on the team. (Do the Nationals have fans?)

Should the Nats throw Strasburg into action and risk putting undo pressure on his young arm and his confidence, or should they play it safe and save him for later?

What kind of undo pressure will pitching in the major leagues put on his arm that pitching in the minor leagues wouldn't put on his arm? The velocity is the same, sure major league hitters are better hitters, but it's not like 6 innings at AA are easier to throw mechanically than 6 innings in the majors. Sure, the hitters are tougher and it is may be more difficult to get outs, but 75 pitches in the majors is pretty much the same as 75 pitches in the minors. If they are worried about him, give him a pitch count and make sure you don't overwork him.

Or is that making this too easy?

But if they deem him ready physically, and provide the proper support around him, I believe they should take the chance and give Nats fans a reason to come to the ballpark.

Strasburg is physically ready. I don't think there is any doubt about that. If the Nationals wanted to wait for the proper support to surround him with then he would probably never make it to the major leagues...at least not with the Nationals. I think this, and financial reasons, were the reasons they sent him to AA.

As far as giving fans a reason to come to the park, he is only pitching once every five days, so what do the Nationals do to get fans to that ballpark the other four days when Strasburg isn't pitching?

Now that we have gotten past the introduction to the column, let's allow Bert Blyleven to talk about himself for a little bit. There is a line between giving your opinion as an ex-baseball player and bragging about your time in the majors. Bert loves to straddle this line.

I entered the majors with the Twins with a June call-up in 1970. I was only 19 and had only spent 1½ seasons in the minors, but even though I was young, I knew I was ready for the leap to the bigs both physically and mentally.

Of course he knows he was ready physically and mentally in retrospect. Really there is no certain way of knowing a player is mentally ready for the major leagues until he gets there. For some players a team may have a good idea if he is ready, but there is no way to know for sure. So it's easy for him to say now that he was physically and mentally ready.

John Olerud did it in 1989 and had a long, successful career, never playing in the minors until his attempt to hang on with the Red Sox in 2005. Jim Abbott (1989) and Pete Incaviglia (1986) also went straight to the majors and didn’t play in the minors until late in their careers.

All of these players played baseball in college and were drafted out of college to play in the majors...just like Strasburg.

But there are also cautionary tales as well, including two pitchers — David Clyde and Eddie Bane — who went straight to the majors the same year as Winfield, 1973.

David Clyde was 18 years old when he went straight to the majors. Eddie Bane went to college and David Winfield went to college as well. Both of these players went straight to the majors after college. David Clyde, probably the highest profile failure, did not. Anyone with an IQ over 50 can see even from this small sample size that a player should probably go to college before skipping the minor leagues and going to the major leagues immediately.

Of course Strasburg did go to college, so I would put him under the category of players like Abbott and Bane and not compare him so much to the David Clyde situation, which was pretty poorly managed at the time by the Rangers.

Clyde had a great arm, and Whitey Herzog once said he was “one of the best young left-handed pitchers I’ve ever seen.” But it takes more than a great arm to succeed. And perhaps rushed too quickly, Clyde saw injuries derail his career. He went 18-33 with a 4.63 ERA over parts of five seasons.

"Perhaps" rushed too quickly? He was 18 years old and never pitched once in the minor leagues. There is no way to actually rush a pitcher any faster than he was rushed to the majors, other than to rip him out of high school and put him in the majors immediately.

Physical issues aside, a young player needs plenty of help on the mental side of the game as well. That’s where not only your coaches, but your teammates come into play.

The Nationals have a pitching coach, Steve McCatty, who has never been a pitching coach in the major leagues before. In fact, Nationals fans didn't even seem to know who he was.

The first line of this article doesn't sound very good for the Nationals:

Steve McCatty’s ascension was almost as fast as his decline.

This in reference that McCatty went from a great pitcher to a crappy pitcher. Obviously a person doesn't have to be a great pitcher to be a great pitching coach, but McCatty really has no track record as a pitching coach and he is going to be in charge of the Nationals great young hope for the future. That has to be a little nervewracking for what little Nationals fans there are. I am not really sure how much pitching coaches really do, but the good coaches do make a difference with their pitchers and the bad ones seem to make a difference also...just in a bad way.

So basically I am saying I don't know if any of the pitchers on the Nationals roster or their pitching coach can help Strasburg with the mental part of the game. I wouldn't necessarily trust any of the current Nationals pitchers to give him advice nor do I know if McCatty is the best guy to be tutoring him either. Maybe Jason Marquis could give him advice, but other than that I don't know if there are that many qualified candidates to advise Strasburg.

I was fortunate with the Twins, as my team was loaded with good veteran players who were willing to help out a young kid.

Stephen Strasburg has Jason Marquis, John Lannan, Scott Olsen, J.D. Martin, Garrett Mock, Brian Bruney, Matt Capps, Tyler Clippard, and Jason Bergmann. It's not exactly a group of players many teams would want tutoring other young players. I probably wouldn't want Scott Olsen around any young players personally.

Luis Tiant, Jim Perry and Jim Kaat helped me out,

That's who Bert Blyleven had to tutor him. I would say "Advantage Blyleven" when it comes to this. Maybe the Nationals are counting on Jason Marquis to teach Strasburg how to have a near-.500 record and an ERA above 4.00.

and about half of our pitching staff had a lot of time under their belts by the time I came in, and those veterans were willing to show me the ropes and guide me through my rookie season.

Again, this is not the case with the pitchers around Strasburg. He is surrounded by pitchers who have been in the majors, but they haven't been terribly successful, plus they probably can't relate to what it is like having expectations put on him like Strasburg has. I find this to be a problem.

Does this mean Strasburg is going to fail? No, it doesn't, but it does mean if having good pitchers around him is important to Strasburg's development, then this could be a problem. It is also a reason in my mind to put Strasburg in the minors for a few months to start the season. Just so he can get used to non-collegiate batters before going up against major league hitters.

I can’t emphasize enough how important it is to have veteran help. It probably accounts for about 90 percent of a player learning the mental side of the game.

Bert's point of view is the Nationals should get Strasburg to the major leagues as soon as possible so he can help the team. This point of view doesn't exactly go well with his own statement that 90% of learning the mental side of the game is from veterans on the staff. The Nationals do have veterans, but Scott Olsen has his own personal problems he is dealing with to help Strasburg, so that leaves it up to the bullpen guys or Jason Marquis.

It's a sort of contradiction for Blyleven to believe Strasburg needs to be put in the majors, but he also believes it is important to have veteran help around him. The Nationals really don't have that. It's not a reason to hold Strasburg back, but it does make me wonder how Bert is so confident not giving Strasburg a month or two in the minor leagues is the right move. Obviously the Nationals agreed with me and disagreed with Bert.

In addition to your teammates, you also must have a good relationship with your position coach, in my case my pitching coach. He must understand what you’re going through and become something of a father figure.

That could very well happen, because Steve McCatty was on the cover of Sports Illustrated and from what I have read about him he seems to have been highly regarded. So he could very well be this for Strasburg. It complicates the decision on when Strasburg should pitch in the majors when Bert Blyleven says 90% of the mental aspect is learned from other veterans. At least I think it does. It also makes me wonder how Blyleven can say this and then also feel like Strasburg should have started the season in the majors.

My first pitching coach was Marv Grissom, a man I will never forget because he really helped me and brought me along. I’ll never be able to thank Grissom and my veteran teammates enough for helping me along at age 19.

In typical Bert Blyleven fashion, half of this column has been about Bert Blyleven himself and his adventures in the majors.

But what happens if he struggles? Do you send him down to the minors, or do you tell him he’s going to get a chance to work through his problems?

If Strasburg struggles and the Nationals send him down to the minors I think that would cause every Nationals fan to immediately start contemplating either switching to a different MLB team or just giving up on baseball....that's assuming there still are Washington Nationals fans out there.

I think that when a pitcher is that good, as Strasburg appears to be, you stay with him. You let him learn on the job in the big leagues. Don’t let him get too high or too low, and he’ll be fine.

How do you go about not letting Strasburg get too high or too low? Electroshock therapy. If he seems really happy, electroshock him, if he seems kind of sad, electroshock him.

In all seriousness, I am sort of with Bert on this, but he doesn't seem to realize that if Strasburg is getting killed in the majors then it may be better to send him down to the minors to gain some confidence or break any bad habits he may have. It's not like the Nationals need him pitching at the beginning of the season to avoid a last place finish.

You have to be focused to make it in the majors, and sometimes that’s hard when you’re young. For my part, I had no trouble being focused.

Well obviously. Bert Blyleven has never had trouble with anything. He was completely emotionally and physically ready when he went to the major leagues. He was like Robo-pitcher.

I didn’t want to party.

He just wanted to fart.

Strasburg has to open his heart and his soul to the idea of wanting to be the best, and he must focus on what he has to do to get there.

He also must not get too high or too low at any point either. That's important to know. The reason Joba Chamberlain is so inconsistent is because he fist pumps and acts excited after he gets out of an inning. The reason Homer Bailey has struggled in the majors is because he gets clinically depressed on the mound and rather than pitching he is singing songs by The Cure, trying to figure out the plot to "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind" and wondering where he went wrong in his life. (In all seriousness, it is important to be balanced on the mound, but performance often dictates how a pitcher feels after a start. So it's easy to stay balanced when you pitch well).

Ok, I do know Zach Greinke had depression problems and once he beat this depression problem he became a much better pitcher. I am not being sarcastic and saying a pitcher can pitch well depressed...there are degrees of depression and excitement that affect a player's pitching ability. I am just saying, getting too high or too low isn't such a bad thing in small amounts.

It’s all about having the total package, because you can’t make it by just having a good arm.

Mark Wohlers says he doesn't understand this statement. He thought that's all you needed for success.

The Nationals have a lot of money invested in Strasburg’s arm. They’re looking to build a team — and a fan base — for the future. As long as Strasburg’s makeup is good, I say let the kid find out if he is ready.

I say let him start if he is ready as well, which he obviously is, but the decision isn't that simple. What doesn't make sense is how Bert Blyleven says 90% of the mental aspect of the game is having veterans around to help him and that is how he succeeded in the majors, yet he never once talks about how Strasburg doesn't have this. This is a pretty obvious negative to letting him start the year in the majors without some minor league seasoning.

Amid all this bullshit advice Bert Blyleven is giving right now as to whether the Nationals should start Strasburg right now or not, an important part that should be taken into account is being completely ignored. You know, the whole financial aspect of starting Strasburg in the majors at the beginning of this year. This is probably the reason the Nationals put Strasburg in AA to start the season.

It's laid out well here.

Isn't there a money aspect to this decision as well? I know Bert focuses on the "player's" point of view and all, but how can any decision on whether the Nationals should have Strasburg start the year in Washington with the Nationals be made without talking about money? I don't think it can and Bert completely ignores this aspect of the decision.

Keeping Strasburg in the minors until late May will delay him reaching free agency and slow down his arbitration eligibility. This is important for the Nationals because if Strasburg is as good as everyone seems to believe he is and will be, they need to hold on to him as long as possible. If Strasburg is a great pitcher, I can't see the Nationals being able to compete with other teams to keep his services when he becomes a free agent. Specifically putting him down in AA at the beginning of the season is as much about the future of the Nationals as it is about making sure Strasburg is ready to handle major league pitching. The future is not now for the Nationals, so why pretend it is?

Strasburg's contract covers him for the next three seasons, which are known as his "zero-to-three" years, referring to a player's service time. But Strasburg will remain under team control beyond the life of the contract -- until he reaches free agency.

A player needs six full seasons in the majors to become eligible for free agency, and a full season is defined as 172 days. However, a zero-to-three player who is optioned for fewer than 20 days gets those days added back to his service time at the end of the year. To simplify: The Nationals need to keep Strasburg in the minors for about three weeks to prevent him from having six full years of service time at the end of 2015, thus retaining his rights through 2016. It's not being cheap. It's being smart. And every team does it.

So knowing this fact, which again I can't see how Bert Blyleven completely ignored this in his "analysis," it makes complete sense for the Nationals to be cautious with Strasburg and keep him in the minors until late May. Its not like they are trying to win the pennant this year or anything. Keeping Strasburg on the roster from Opening Day could gain them 5 wins, but millions of dollars down the road, plus Strasburg will get a chance to pitch in the minors and then debut in the majors with some (hopefully) confidence in what he is doing.

I don't see how Bert can leave this financial part out of the discussion and expect to be able to give an educated opinion on what the Nationals should do.

Under the above scenario, Strasburg would be tied to the Nationals for four years beyond the life of his current contract -- 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016...But the nature of the fourth year would depend on whether or not Strasburg will have qualified for arbitration as a "Super Two" player at the end of 2012.

I am sure a lot of people know this, but this means Strasburg could be eligible for arbitration after his third year (not full year) in the majors. So basically, if he is a good pitcher they don't want him to go to arbitration after his second year. They want to be able to slow down arbitration, sign him to an extension and buy out those years, or just not pay him that much money for his 3rd season in the majors. For a last place team, what is the point of bringing Strasburg up before late May anyway?

For the Nationals to be safe with Strasburg -- and prevent him from reaching Super Two status in 2013 -- they would probably need to keep him in the minors until late-May. If they do this, Strasburg would be considered a zero-to-three player in 2013, saving the Nationals a lot of money.

This has to be taken into account when deciding whether Strasburg should start the year in the majors or minors. The Nationals took this into account and make the smart, and easy, decision to start him in AA for the beginning of the season.

If, for argument's sake, Strasburg is as good as Lincecum, and thus is compensated equally via arbitration, his first three arbitration years will earn him $9 million, $14 million and $18 million. If Strasburg reaches Super Two status, those first three arbitration years would be 2013-15, with a fourth arbitration year in 2016, in which (in our little hypothetical universe) he would make the same $22 million as Lincecum.

This was a good article and explains exactly why Blyleven's analysis and his opinion falls short in actually discussing this situation in a fashion that gives complete information to the reader.

So, using our made-up numbers for Lincecum and applying them to Strasburg, here is what is at stake for the Nationals:

*If Strasburg reaches Super Two status, he gets: $9 million in 2013, $14 million in 2014, $18 million in 2015 and $22 million in 2016, for a total of $63 million in those four years.

*If Strasburg fails to reach super two status, he gets: $3.9 million in 2013, $9 million in 2014, $14 million in 2015 and $18 million in 2016, for a total of $44.9 million.

In other words, it could be worth about $18 million to the Nationals

So basically do the Nationals want to throw (hypothetically I admit) $18 million down the drain to get a maximum of 10 extra starts out of Strasberg? I wouldn't think so. It doesn't make financial sense at all if he ends up being as good as everyone says he should be.

One, this franchise has survived for five years without him. What's another two months?

That's a great point. In fact, that is THE point.

I don't have a general problem with Bert Blyleven's discussion of this issue, but it is the typical two-dimensional discussion of a complicated issue that some sportswriters like to make. It's all fine and good that Strasburg may be physically and emotionally ready for the major leagues, but is it even worth it for the Nationals to have him start the year with the team and start his arbitration clock early? I don't think so...and the Nationals ended up agreeing.

Even though he is obviously ready, the Nationals were right to play this one smart and keep Strasburg in the minors just to ensure he gets some confidence before he reaches the majors and to save a few million dollars down the road as well.