0 comments Kevin Youkilis Says He'll Always Be a Red Sock, New York Media Will Always Manufacture Drama

Kevin Youkilis recently made the huge mistake of saying he considered himself a Red Sock at heart. Naturally because he plays for the New York Yankees now, this an unacceptable way to endear himself to the Yankees fans. Well, actually Yankees fans probably don't care how Youkilis considers himself as long as he plays well this year. They get that when Andy Pettitte was signed by the Astros a few years ago, Pettitte still considered himself to always be a Yankee even though played for the Astros. The New York media didn't enjoy this comment by Youkilis though, and so columnists like Johnette Howard say Youkilis needs to embrace New York. Sure, Johnette Howard would be outraged if Andy Pettitte stated he didn't consider himself to be a Yankee when he signed with the Astros, but it doesn't work both ways. It's fine for a long-time Yankees player who no longer plays for the Yankees to consider himself still a Yankee, but it isn't all right for an ex-Red Sox player to consider himself a Red Sox when he plays for the Yankees now. Embrace the Yankees, Kevin Youkilis, or go home forever. You'll never be a true Yankee!

So Kevin Youkilis said on his first official day as a Yankee that he'll always be a "Red Sock" at heart? On the list of crimes in the sports world, this is a misdemeanor.

Or it's not a crime at all, but just a reflection that he cherishes the eight-and-a-half years he spent in Boston, winning two World Series during this time. This is the typical sportswriter opening that starts with "This topic I'm getting ready to talk about really isn't THAT big of a deal," followed by 500-1000 words making that topic a deal big enough to get an entire column out of it.

Still, somebody should've pulled Youkilis aside before he arrived at spring training and told him that he doesn't want -- and the Yankees shouldn't want -- his stay here looking like the second coming of Tom Glavine's turncoat years with the Mets.

Because if a veteran player is going to come play in New York then he better prepare to forget all of his friends, family and teammates who he knew prior to coming to New York. It's like baseball's own version of the Witness Protection Program. You play in New York, prepare to entirely give up your previous life.

So Johnette Howard starts off saying the crime Youkilis committed isn't a major crime and then says he doesn't want to be seen as a turncoat like Tom Glavine was seen as being. Soooooo...it IS a big deal that Youkilis still has fond memories of New York then, because it sort of seems like it is a big deal. This is like when a woman says, "Sure you can go out with your friends and get drunk as opposed to spending time at home with me while I have the flu. I would love to see you and have you take care of me, but it's no big deal to go out with your friends and leave me alone sick on a Saturday night."

Men don't fall for this trick anymore, so the joke is on you Johnette Howard. We know it isn't all right to go out and get drunk with our friends while you are sick and we know it isn't all right for Kevin Youkilis to say he will always be a Red Sock at heart. We know this is true because Johnette goes out of her way saying it is all right, which naturally means because she is writing a column about how it isn't all right, then it isn't really all right.

Everyone confused now?

New Yorkers remember the moral of that story: Love the one you're with.

Or else.

Say you love the Yankees OR ELSE! Boy, it sure doesn't seem like a big deal, does it? Johnette Howard seems to be enjoying some dominatrix-style journalism, but everything is cool in reality. It's just a misdemeanor for Kevin Youkilis to say he will always be a Red Sock. There's just hell to pay for saying this, that's all.

By the time Glavine came to a fiery end in the Mets' historically bad September 2007 collapse -- serving up a horrifically bad one-third-of-an-inning start on the final day of the season, and then infamously promising he was not going to torture himself over it the rest of his life -- it was easy for scalded Mets fans to say get out, already. Just go.

It sounds to me like Johnette Howard has more of an issue with Tom Glavine than she has with Kevin Youkilis.

Go back to Atlanta on that midnight train or Peachtree Center bus or whatever TNT corporate jet you arrived on.

Yes, go back on whatever corporate jet TNT has provided, you big corporate shill. Go back to that corporate environment of Atlanta, Georgia and stay away from our small town of New York (Johnette Howard turns on YES Network happy she lives in a town without corporate shills).

No more lamenting how his stay here had a cloud of karmic doom hanging over it from the minute he left the Braves in a snit -- angry that general manager John Schuerholz didn't pay him what the Mets were willing to give him -- and busted up his dental work on that cab ride after he got here.

Okay, again, this article is supposed to be about Kevin Youkilis.

Glavine still lived in Atlanta. 

Renounce your home in Atlanta or have your home burned down.

He had a legacy with the Braves that he cherished, and there were times during his 61-56 run over five seasons with the Mets when he'd drop hints that he wanted to return. No wonder the Mets and their fans were feeling a bit chapped by the time he left.

Youkilis was in Boston for 8.5 years. Glavine was in Atlanta from 1987-2002. I would say he had pretty good ties to the city. Kevin Youkilis isn't Tom Glavine. Youkilis was traded away from the Red Sox, while Glavine only left to show John Schuerholz he could get big money somewhere else. Both teams moved on without each of these players, but Youkilis isn't bitter towards Boston and didn't sign with the Yankees to stick it to Boston. There's no real comparison to Glavine and I can completely see why Youkilis says he is a Red Sock at heart. It's a non-story.

Youkilis left Boston under uncomfortable circumstances, too. He didn't want to go after eight-and-a-half seasons. Not really. But after former Red Sox manager Bobby Valentine questioned the veteran's effort and commitment, Youkilis was traded to the White Sox last June because the breach between the two men seemed irreparable.

But then Valentine was gone mere months after Youkilis was. And now there's this sad little feeling still hanging in the air that none of it had to happen -- to Youkilis, I mean.

And given the chance to come back to Boston (come on, Youkilis could have come back if he really wanted to I would bet), he chose to sign with the Yankees. It's a non-story. The idea Youkilis has to pledge his allegiance to the Yankees and renounce ever saying anything good about the Red Sox is absurd. He's getting paid to do a job for the Yankees and he will do that job. I can't imagine Johnette Howard would be up in arms if Andy Pettitte had signed with the Astros and proclaimed that he still was a Yankee at heart. There aren't different rules for the Yankees and players can play for the Yankees and not pledge their undying loyalty. There is no lifelong blood oath a player has to make to play for the Yankees. There is simply a contract to be signed.

It's understandable.

Except, you know it isn't understandable because Johnette Howard is warning Youkilis about being a turncoat.

He took a one-year, $12 million contract with the Yankees because it was the best offer he got. It's not like the whole league was clamoring for his services at this stage of his career.

Oh yeah, the Yankees really took Kevin Youkilis and made him look like a fool. They gave a 34 year old declining player coming off his worst year as a professional $12 million to play first/third base. I bet Kevin Youkilis feels stupid right now.

I love the idea that Youkilis settled for the best offer he could get on the free agent market and that offer was $12 million. Isn't that the very purpose of free agency, to get the best offer available? $12 million for a guy coming off a .235/.336/.409 season, and that's with a .236/.346/.425 "revival" with the White Sox, isn't anything to sneeze at. I won't say the Yankees overpaid, but Youkilis did well for himself. To paint him as settling for a deal (like Howard seems want to do) isn't quite accurate.

So now that he pulled the trigger and he's here, Youk -- are we allowed to call him that, or does that stay in Boston too? -- might want to ask around for a little friendly advice on how to handle this from someone other than Patriots quarterback Tom Brady, his brother-in-law. 

Hey look, it's a reasonably forced Tom Brady reference that is presented only for this punchline:

Brady's only experience of making nice with New York is buying a pied-a-terre in the West Village and not being mocked for his Uggs.

HAHA! Tom Brady dresses well, buys expensive apartments and shops in expensive parts of New York. Good one. Tom Brady knows nothing about pressure and having to adapt to playing in New York. He plays in New England where there are few media members and certainly no media members who enjoy seeing the local team fail.

In related news, Brady is married to a very well-known model. I get it's funny to rag on him for what he wears and his fashion-forward off-the-field reputation, but being married to a model do we expect him to dress like shit and not look good in public? Brady is wealthy and he can afford nice clothes. His wife wears nice clothes for a living. That is her living, dressing nice. So it is fun to pick on Brady, but it's like knowing Russell Martin is married to a real estate agent and mocking him for having a house with nice resale value.

Johnny Damon's example, once he jumped from the Red Sox to the Yankees, is the better example to follow. Damon always acted like he was all-in when he was here. Yanks fans missed him when he left.

In what way has Kevin Youkilis not acted "all-in?" By saying he always feels like a Red Sock? That's just him saying he played for them the longest and had the best memories in Boston.

After watching Youkilis' gritty play for years, it's hard to believe any conflicted feelings will roll through his mind once the games begin.

And yet, Johnette Howard was worried enough about Youkilis' conflicted feelings to write an entire column about how he should pledge his full allegiance to the Yankees and try to avoid being like that asshole turncoat Tom Glavine.

Still, Youkilis was smart to realize that even as soft rollouts go, opening spring training by saying, "I'm not going to replace Alex Rodriguez" and "I'll always be a Red Sock" was not the most bang-up start.

Youkilis just has to say the right things and not give the New York media a whiff of any controversy they can blow up and turn into a huge issue. It's not like Youkilis has any experience handling an over-eager media horde who is looking to take one failure or incident and turn this one incident or failure into some big issue it probably doesn't deserve to be turned into.

Regarding A-Rod, he might've gone too far the other way.

Did Youkilis forget A-Rod isn't even A-Rod anymore? They played the same number of games (122) a season ago and -- what do you know? -- their stats were nearly identical: Rodriguez hit 18 home runs, Youkilis hit 19; A-Rod had 57 RBIs to Youkilis' 60; A-Rod hit .272, while Youkilis finished at .235. They each had 51 walks.

So naturally Youkilis should have said, "Hell yes I am here to replace A-Rod. He sucks now and I am a better player." Because that would have gone over so well and not turned into a media circus with SportsCenter leading off the show with this news story. It would have created a dilemma for the New York media. Defend A-Rod or the guy who said he is a true Red Sock? I'm guessing the New York media would still defend the guy who says he feels like a Red Sock at heart. If given the choice, the New York media would probably defend Fidel Castro before taking A-Rod's side. 

So no need to tiptoe into town, Youk. Bang your chest a little. And don't make the gaffe Glavine did.

I'm fairly certain that Tom Glavine never stated he would always be an Atlanta Brave at heart when arrived to play for the Mets. Maybe I just missed that quote. 2003 was a wild and crazy time for me.

Better to say nothing if you can't fake it even a little.

Love the one you're with.

If Johnette Howard remembers the lyrics to the chorus that precede this specific phrase, they go,

"If you can't be with the one you love, honey, love the you're with."

Basically the point of the song is to not drown in the sorrows of what you don't have, but enjoy what you do have. Youkilis aying he will always consider himself a Red Sock at heart is loving the one he is with, while acknowledging where he used to be. Stop blowing little shit like this into a big deal when it isn't a big deal.

23 comments Mike Lupica Wants the National League To Have the DH and I Want Mike Lupica To Go Away, So Neither of Us Will Get What We Want

I'm not a huge fan of Mike Lupica. It may be the way he sits forward in his seat and interrupts people on the "Sports Reporters," it could be just his overall smugness, or it could be because I just don't like his writing. Either way, Mike Lupica wants the National League to have the Designated Hitter and I want Mike Lupica to go away forever to a country without television or Internet. Neither of us will probably get our wish. Why does the National League have to have the DH? Unfortunately, Mike Lupica tries to answer this question. He fails, at least in my opinion.

Is this really a huge priority for baseball? Expanding the DH to the National League? Why can't we just get rid of the DH? Or would that negatively affect the Yankees in some way? How would they be able to stash aging, expensive hitters at the DH position if there isn't a DH?

There is no president of the National League any longer, no president of the American League, there is just commissioner, Bud Selig, that's it and that's all.

I already see where this is going. One set of rules. Blah, blah, blah. If you want one set of rules, don't have home plate umpires anymore and have computer determine the strike zone. Make everything uniform in every stadium so no team has an advantage in any form while playing another team. That would give every game the same set of rules and takes the subjective opinion of a ball and strike away from the umpire, as well as make certain one ball park isn't built to focus on the home team's strengths. Of course, I am sure Mike Lupica would hate these ideas. He only wants a consistent set of rules in certain cases.

These are just obvious reasons there should be one set of rules in baseball,

Not really. The rules in baseball are just one set of rules. One league uses the DH and the other league doesn't. I think it adds a little bit of intrigue during the World Series and interleague play. I may be in the minority on this opinion.

Baseball is unique in there isn't really a uniform field size as well and Mike Lupica seems to have no issue with this. Some field have more foul territory and shorter fences, while other fields have less foul territory and fences that are further back. It's just part of the game.

why it is has become completely and officially and clinically insane to have the designated hitter in one league and no designated hitter in the other.

Fine, let's get rid of the DH then. Baseball survived for 80 years without it. But we all know that isn't the conclusion Lupica is trying to achieve. He doesn't like the different sets of rules, but he also doesn't want to get rid of the DH. So it isn't really the different set of rules that bothers him, but the lack of a DH in the National League.

because the out-of-date rules about the DH now affect the integrity of the season and the schedule more than all the interleague baseball does.
It's the integrity of the game that pays! This is a pretty weak argument in my opinion. Interleague play takes up a small amount of the schedule, so for the majority of the year teams are playing against each other with both teams used to having/not having the DH. It isn't like when the Nationals to go to play the Phillies in Philadelphia there are different rules than if the game was played in Washington.

Your team is supposed to be your team.

I'm not sure what this means in the context of this argument. Every MLB team has a roster of players that aren't necessarily used in certain set ways. Some players play a different position one night or bat in a different position in the order the next night.

Only now there are all these interleague games every season. Why? Because baseball gets a spike in attendance out of them, that's why. I get it. This is about business.
Interleague games are about business. I get it. The DH in American League parks and no DH in National League parks affect the integrity of the game again, how? Let's stay focused and not just try to take up space to fill the entire column.

But this is about the business of baseball today, and I don't care what the records say about how the American League usually does against the National League in interleague baseball.
You mean the records that show the American League does well against the National League, so the fact there are different rules doesn't seem to negatively affect the American League. In fact, since the National League traditionally does worse during interleague play, wouldn't it make sense to get rid of the DH so the American League doesn't have an "advantage" during interleague play?

It no longer makes any sense to have two sets of rules for what my dear friend Bob Ryan calls the greatest game ever invented by mortal minds.

Why do writers like name dropping Bob Ryan so much? It is good to see Mike Lupica has friends though. Dan Shaughnessy consistently name drops Bob Ryan as well. Dan Shaughnessy's columns generally look like this:

"The 2004 Red Sox. Curse. 2003 Red Sox and 2003 Yankees. ALCS. Bob Ryan told me this was true. Aaron Boone. The Celtics and the Patriots. Boston sports are great. Curse of the Bambino. Bob Ryan."

I need to meet a guy named "Bob Ryan" just to name drop him in casual conversations. This would probably be the greatest length a person had ever gone to in order to start an inside joke with himself.

There are only two ways to do this,
There is actually a third way. Mike Lupica could just deal with the different rules in the American and National League. I don't like the DH, but it really doesn't bother me during interleague play.

knowing that the Major League Baseball Players Association is never going to give up DH jobs without a fight,
So the reason to change the rules about pitchers batting that have governed the National League for over 100 years should be changed because the union doesn't want it? I realize this is a valid point, that the union doesn't want to lose the DH jobs, but the fact there may be an argument over this change isn't a reason to avoid the fight if baseball really wanted to get rid of the DH.

What about what the National League wants? I guess that doesn't matter?

One solution comes from my friend Tom Hirdt of the Elias Sports Bureau, who says that you eliminate the DH, but expand rosters to 26 or 27 players.

"It gets rid of the DH, but brings more strategy into the game," Hirdt says.

Well, that gets rid of that problem I guess. Though I doubt Mike Lupica really has two friends. That seems a bit unrealistic.

In reality, this doesn't fix the problem because Mike Lupica wants the DH in both leagues. This really isn't about the union or different sets of rules, but is about Mike Lupica wanting the DH used throughout baseball.

The simpler solution is to give everybody the DH, have everybody play the same rules the American League has been playing for years, no harm, no foul, we move on.

"No harm, no foul, we move on."

You know, except for the fact the National League may not want the DH. Who cares what the National League wants though? It's just the National League. If the National League was so important, the Red Sox and Yankees would play in the National League. They don't, so who cares what National League teams want.

(By the way, if anyone wants to accuse me of just protecting my favorite team, you are wrong. I would love to have Chipper Jones DH every night so Martin Prado could play third base and the Braves could then acquire an everyday left fielder to replace Prado. The DH was made for guys who are the point in their career Chipper Jones is.)

There are two sets of rules for Major League Baseball. Enough. If you agree, write a letter to the baseball commissioner about this, or Michael Weiner of the Major League Baseball Players Association, or to the owner of your team, or to the general manager. This has to be the last year of this.
I really don't see the problem to be honest. I don't like the DH, but I also don't mind the different rules in each league. If you make me choose, I choose not to have the DH.

This has to be the last year where someone like Vlad Guerrero of the Orioles has to basically take a furlough from being a regular player when the Orioles play interleague ball in a National League park.
Oh sure, because Vlad Guerrero shouldn't have to be punished due to the fact he can't field a position anymore. We don't want baseball players who only have one skill set at this point in their careers to be disadvantaged in any way. I don't believe this is a bad thing that Vlad Guerrero can't play because there is no DH in the National League. Unfortunately, in the National League the players who hit have to also field their position. I don't see this as a bad thing.

"You know, I like how Ivan Rodriguez fields his position, but I don't really want him hitting. This has to be the last year Rodriguez has to bat and can't just be a permanent catcher with no hitting responsibilities."

Or David Ortiz of the Red Sox, the second-most important hitter on a team that thinks it has a chance to win the AL East and maybe the World Series this year, has a great season disrupted and not because of injury or a slump, because of the rules.
David Ortiz can still play first base when he has to. As I expected, this DH rule change is really just a covert way to make sure the Yankees and Red Sox don't have to put any of their highly paid players on the bench in a National League park. When in doubt while dealing with a Mike Lupica column, just assume it is all about the Yankees and Red Sox.

To get Ortiz back in the batting order the other night against the Phillies, Adrian Gonzalez - who IS the Red Sox's best hitter - had to go play rightfield for the second time in his career.
Let's pretend Mike Lupica gave a shit about the flip side of this rule. When the Braves are playing in an American League park, Brooks Conrad or Julio Lugo has to play third base. Why can't the DH be outlawed so the Braves can keep their absolute best players in the lineup and don't have to start an inferior player in the hitting lineup or in the field? If we are going to cater to the American League teams fielding needs, let's pretend to cater to the National League team's hitting needs.

Did the Red Sox lose two of three to the lowly San Diego Padres at home using the DH last week? You bet they did. Then they lost two of three to the Pirates in Pittsburgh and used Ortiz solely as a pinch-hitter.

I do like how Mike Lupica is basically just saying the rules should be changed so the Red Sox have the best chance to win games and get their best team on the field. Who knew Boston and New York could come together like this?

This is some great shitty reasoning being used. The Red Sox lost to crappy teams, so the rules need to be changed so this doesn't happen.

So maybe they would have lost those two of three anyway. But they should not have had to try.

Just like National League teams shouldn't have to try to find another quality bat on their bench when they are in an American League stadium. The argument American League teams don't have enough good fielders to put their best team out on the field, so they need to use the DH, is just as good as the argument a National League team doesn't have enough hitters to put their best team on the field against an American League team, so they shouldn't have to use the DH.

This is a system that has gone on for far too long and needs to be changed now, and the only way it gets changed is if everybody who loves baseball starts to make some noise about it.

But I don't like the DH. Don't assume everyone agrees with you. I'm just not a fascist asshole who believes just because I don't like something it shouldn't exist.

It is a little different for the National League teams, because most teams have a hitter coming off the bench for whom managers are always trying to get some extra at-bats.

What a fantastic generalization. Every National League team has a hitter coming off the bench that needs more at-bats. Even if this was true with every team in the National League, I don't want the DH in the National League.

It would sound a lot better if you could say, Get rid of the DH now. Again: I like Tom Hirdt's idea, but I don't believe it will ever happen.
Translation: Mike Lupica doesn't want it to happen because then the Yankees would have too many players and not enough batting spots available. Where can the aging, out-of-shape "players" go if there isn't a DH?

So the movement is to bring the DH to the National League, as much as that is going to upset Cliff Lee. It is the only thing that makes sense.

Not true. I like the idea of adding roster spots and playing without a DH.

But in our national pastime, you have a system that is as out-of-touch with the modern realities of the game as wool uniforms and those tiny gloves they used to use.
What would be next? A designated fielder for the entire game? A designated runner for the entire game? I'm being ridiculous because I see no problem with the current set up.

There is, I believe, a lot about to change in baseball over the next several months. They are surely going to add a couple of teams to the playoffs and they might cut the schedule down from 162 games, and might move a team to the American League so we have leagues of 15 and 15, and go ahead and try to figure how interleague baseball is going to work with THAT.

Oh yeah, it would just be straight madness if there were equal teams in the American and National League. Interleague play only works best when each league has a different number of teams, that's what Mike Lupica believes.

I enjoy how Mike Lupica wants the rules changed because one league has the DH and the other league does not, but he thinks putting the same number of teams in each division would cause chaos.

I will give them all of that. But they have to give me something back. They've got to give me one set of rules for all of baseball, once and for all.

Then let's add a roster spot and get rid of the DH...but Mike Lupica doesn't want that. What he really wants is to use the American League set of rules for baseball and use the DH in the National League.

8 comments Doesn't Anyone Care About the Feelings of New York?

There is something really important that has gotten lost in the rejection of the Knicks and Yankees by LeBron James and Cliff Lee, and it is not the fact that JemeHill is still talking about LeBron James' decision to go to Miami six months after he made the decision. What's important is what this means for New York as a whole? Why don't these players want to come to New York on the biggest stage possible to get constantly critiqued and criticized by a reactionary media with their unreal expectations and constantly changing and never-ending criticisms?

It can't be possible that a player just doesn't want to play for the Knicks and Yankees, that's not possible at all, but their rejection of the city of New York means something is wrong with the city of New York or the players themselves. Fortunately, JemeHill gets to the bottom of this issue. She can't seem to fathom the idea that all other MLB and NBA cities in the bidding for James and Lee were also spurned. It's all about New York to her. If she could fathom it, she would only care by wondering what the other cities in MLB and the NBA being spurned meant for New York.

The day the New York Knicks officially announced they signed Amare Stoudemire to a $100 million contract, Knicks owner James Dolan characterized playing in New York City this way:

"We have to overpay players to get them come play for a team owned by me. Really, we've tried other options and I am so incompetent I can't seem to make the other options work."

"It takes courage to play where the lights shine the brightest," he said. "It takes leadership and character and competence to step up and say, 'I'll go first.' And it takes great skill to succeed in the No. 1 market."

In all other markets it takes zero skill and zero leadership to play. Pitching in Philadelphia? Piece of cake. Do they even have newspapers there? Probably not. There's no pressure on Cliff Lee to perform in Philadelphia, certainly not.

I'm not assaulting Lee's character or other intangibles, but it's hardly a secret that being a marquee player in New York City is just as challenging as it is rewarding.

It's also hardly a secret that being a marquee player in Philadelphia is also just as challenging as it is rewarding. It is not a secret that playing in Miami and being a marquee player is just as challenging as it is rewarding, especially when you open yourself up to criticism like LeBron James has done. I guess JemeHill thinks Miami is a small farming town located somewhere below the southern-most point of the United States, which to her is Pennsylvania. Yes, New York City is the biggest stage because it is the media capital of the United States, but there are other cities where there is pressure to perform well. Players not going to New York isn't a sign they don't want to face pressure.

It seems as though there is no longer an ironclad rule in sports that if athletes want to prove their mettle, they go to New York.

Morals in this country are eroding rapidly! I blame Obama!

Notice how JemeHill thinks it is a bad thing that athletes don't go to New York "to prove their mettle." She also probably thinks the Yankees should not be able to buy all of their players and there should be a salary cap in baseball. She wants all players to go to New York, but also wants the Yankees to quit getting all the best free agents.

Here's a brief list of free agents who have chosen New York over the last 2 years...just to show that not only is JemeHill dumb for thinking New York is the only place a player can prove their mettle, but she is also wrong. New York still becomes home to a good amount of talented free agents.

C.C. Sabathia
A.J. Burnett
Mark Teixeira
Raymond Felton
Amare Stoudemire
Jason Bay
Antrel Rolle
LaDainian Tomlinson
Jim Leonhard
Keith Bullock

This doesn't include a list of players who re-signed to play in New York and continue the effort to show their mettle on the largest stage. I won't list them but provided they are fairly large. Great players are still choosing New York, but it isn't a bad thing for sports if they weren't.

So what happened to that New York City mystique?

OMG! Panic! Where has the media-built mystique of playing in New York gone to?

"Our Plan B is patience," Yankees GM Brian Cashman told reporters during a conference call Tuesday.

Screw patience. There need to be moves made RIGHT NOW. These needs to be quick, knee-jerk moves the team will regret down the road. Nobody gives a shit about actual progress, but the illusion of progress is all JemeHill wants.

The sports fan in me would have loved to see Lee take on the psychological challenge of leading the Yankees to a World Series,

The sports fan in JemeHill doesn't want to watch Cliff Lee go against the Yankees in the playoffs again for the third straight year? I guess a World Series between the Phillies and Yankees isn't classified as "sports" in her mind.

particularly because it would have meant battling a reloaded Red Sox team,

Notice the tag I have that says, "ESPN thinsk there are only two teams in MLB?" I didn't create that tag for this post. It's an ongoing issue I find with ESPN's coverage of baseball. Any move that does harm to the only and most important rivalry in sports is seen as a bad thing. If it were up to JemeHill all available free agents would have to decide between playing for the Yankees or the Red Sox.

(Even though it does feel like that's the choice right now anyway)

I hope JemeHill knows the Yankees are still going to play a reloaded Red Sox team. These two teams will play quite a few games against each other this year. It is so irritating as a fan of sports to hear a sportswriter dismayed that Cliff Lee didn't do anything to further enhance the Red Sox/Yankees rivalry. It's not like Cliff Lee went to North Dakota to play baseball. He went to Philadelphia, which by all accounts appears to be a rather large city, not to mention a team that has made the World Series two of the last three years...but it is not New York so JemeHill is contractually obligated by ESPN to hate the move.

I would also argue very few things have done positive things for the NBA lately than LeBron playing for the Heat with Dwayne Wade and Chris Bosh. It gave many NBA fans an enemy to cheer against and has led to high ratings for Heat games against their rivals. Of course JemeHill doesn't care about what is good for the NBA, she cares that New York was rejected by LeBron. That's all that matters to her for some reason. Even those who live in New York and are Knicks fans may not understand her point of view.

but the realist in me understands that the psyche of today's professional athlete is centered on minimizing the possibility of failure.

Yes, because in a rotation with Roy Halladay, Roy Oswalt and Cole Hamels, there will be no focus on the performance of Cliff Lee in the mining town of Philadelphia, where there isn't a newspaper reporter in sight.

Certainly no athlete of any generation liked to fail, but athletes have so much exposure now that failure comes with a harsher stigma that smart athletes want to avoid.

Which is why LeBron James teamed up with Wade and Bosh to create an even larger stigma and focus on himself than if he had chosen any other team in free agency...including New York. If anything, James opened himself up to MORE criticism by choosing the Heat over the Knicks. If JemeHill thinks James is avoiding exposure to failure in Miami she isn't paying attention at all.

A star doesn't just fail a city today. He fails the world. He doesn't just fail at Yankee Stadium and in the New York tabloids. He fails on Twitter, Facebook and YouTube. Failures have become as memorable and lasting as successes.

I don't know if JemeHill is stupid or what, but Cliff Lee has joined a rotation that is being called "the best ever" and LeBron James was predicted to win 70+ games in Miami this year. How is this avoiding failure or staying away from unreal expectations?

Not every athlete is equipped or wants to be a savior.

Does avoiding that pressure make someone such as Lee a less dynamic player?

Because being the 2nd best pitcher on the Phillies is so much different from being the 2nd best pitcher on the Yankees. Lee is hiding from the world by signing with the Phillies and essentially guaranteeing the Phillies will be predicted to be in the World Series by 75% of baseball experts. A team being predicted to go to the World Series contains no pressure for Lee, I am sure.

It is idiocy, in fact it is journalistic malpractice, to say LeBron James and Cliff Lee avoided pressure in choosing the Heat and Phillies respectively. It's very, very, very not true.

Kevin Garnett spent 12 seasons in Minnesota trying to build the Timberwolves into a championship team, and ultimately, he became a Celtic because he grew sick of trying to learn from losing.

Garnett, who won an NBA title with the Celtics in his first season with the team, admitted after James chose Miami that he wished he had left Minnesota sooner.

This is something JemeHill constantly does. She either creates a false argument to prove as incorrect or she completely misses the point of something intentionally/unintentionally in order to prove her point.

Kevin Garnett didn't leave Minnesota because the spotlight wasn't enough, he left because the team was terrible. Cliff Lee and LeBron James didn't go from great teams to bad teams, so there is no lesson to be learned from his situation. It wasn't an issue of being out of the spotlight for Garnett, it was the issue of being on a team going nowhere.

"Loyalty is something that hurts you at times, because you can't get youth back," Garnett said. "I can honestly say that if I could go back and do my situation over, knowing what I know now with this organization, I'd have done it a little sooner."

What the hell does loyalty have to do with this discussion? Neither Lee or James re-signed with the teams they were on the season before. Try to convince a Cleveland Cavs fan that LeBron James was too loyal. I'd like to see that.

What Lee is required to do in Philly is magnitudes easier than what he'd have been expected to do in New York, where he and CC Sabathia would have anchored the staff and, win or lose, had every pitch scrutinized and second-guessed on TV, on radio, in print, online and at the corner bodega.

I bet there will be no second-guessing in Philadelphia...is that really want JemeHill believes? Has she ever paid attention to the Philadelphia media? This is just idiocy.

Shouldering the fate and fortune of an entire franchise and city has become an overrated experience for extraordinary talents like Lee, LeBron and even Alex Rodriguez, who ironically came to New York in 2004 for the same reason Lee and LeBron avoided New York.

I don't know if this is ironic or not. We may need a check on the definition of "irony."

I don't knock either Lee or LeBron for their choices, and they certainly aren't the only star athletes to say no to New York. After the 1992 season, Greg Maddux did the same thing, choosing the Atlanta Braves over pinstripes.

True. Maddux managed to avoid the spotlight by being considered one of the greatest pitchers of all-time and playing in three World Series in Atlanta. Boy, if he could do that decision over he would go to New York where the challenge of winning a title was greater and he would have become more of a household name. Whatever happened to Greg Maddux after he left the Cubs in 1992?

The real issue isn't who is saying no to New York but who is saying yes.

Yes, the city of New York should be concerned about this. With widespread and readily available media coverage of an elite player now an almost certainty no matter where he plays, how will sportswriters like JemeHill convince players the only place to get noticed is New York?

Lately, the only athlete who has been begging to come to New York is Carmelo Anthony. And before Anthony's back-channel pleas, the biggest free agent the Knicks had landed in some time was Stoudemire.

To JemeHill this isn't an indication of what players think about the Knicks or James Dolan, but an indication players don't want to carry a franchise on their back. Let's just ignore how dysfunctional the Knicks have been so JemeHill can prove a point.

Stoudemire and Anthony are terrific players. Stoudemire is having a marvelous season and has so far proved to be a good investment, returning the Knicks to basketball relevance. But both are also questionable leaders.

As seen by Anthony leading Syracuse to a National Championship as a freshman. That is questionable leadership at its best.

Is New York City still a desirable destination for bona fide, complete superstars such as Sabathia? Or is it now the preferred locale for wannabe, flawed or over-the-hill superstars such as Eli Manning and LaDainian Tomlinson?

Eli Manning was directly out of college when he went to New York. He also did not choose to play for the Giants, he just didn't want to play for the Chargers. That's just a minor detail of course when talking about the Giants as a "desirable destination" for Manning...the fact he wasn't anything but a rookie when he was traded to the Giants and he didn't exactly choose them more than he didn't want to choose San Diego.

Or even worse, is it for those who have no problem accepting failure?

Ooooooooooo...what a deep thought! Here's a deeper thought, maybe there are more attractive cities that also have a large media presence for players to choose when they are a free agent? Nah, that would never happen.

8 comments Joe Morgan Barely Manages to Avoid Answering A Chat Question This Week

The last time we caught up with Joe Morgan he was pretty irritated with the chat questions. He didn't understand what the hell a question asking about Robinson Cano's potential meant. He also informed us the Cardinals were his favorite to win the NL Central if they can just improve their pitching and hitting and warned everyone not to underestimate the Reds by warning telling everyone who picked the Cardinals to win the NL Central, which is a group of people who include Joe Morgan among them, to not underestimate the Reds.

This week's chat contains many more contradictions from things he said last week, the week before, and in some cases contradictions from the sentence he had just written. It got me thinking, rather than having multiple personalities, perhaps Joe Morgan has passed away. Did Joe Morgan pass away in 2002 and ESPN was too lazy to hire a new Sunday analyst so they kidnapped a person who looks just like Joe and have forced him to live out his life as Joe Morgan? This would explain why Joe can't answer a question about baseball, doesn't know the names of his teammates and why he doesn't like the book "Moneyball."

The Imposter Joe had learned everything he could about baseball and then this smart-ass Michael Lewis comes out with a book that makes everything Imposter Joe learn to be wrong. If you had just crammed all of the information about a sport into your head to live out a forced fake life as an ex-baseball player, would you want to learn new information? Me neither. This guy just wants to make it through the day without revealing himself to be an imposter, so he tries to push away as many questions as possible and never says anything of substance in order to just get through each baseball telecast and each chat.

Either that or Joe just sucks as a baseball analyst. I think that may be more likely. Tighten your seatbelts for a bumpy ride, Joe is on fire this week.

Buzzmaster: We've got Joe!

Joe Morgan gets paid to analyze baseball games one day a week and does a 30 minute chat where the reader actually manages to leave the chat with less information about baseball than he went into the chat having. Suffice to say, we don't have Joe, he has us.

Now that the Buzzmaster has pulled Joe away from watching "The Price Is Right" (you know Joe watches it everyday and misses Bob Barker, who was a much more consistent host than Drew Carey), let's see what contradictions Joe has to throw at us as he avoids trying to give an answer to the questions posed.

JM: What a great comeback by the Yankees in the ninth inning on Sunday. To be four down in the ninth and to tie the game without the benefit of the home run was very impressive.

It's interesting Joe Morgan hates it when teams sit around and wait for someone to hit a three run home run and prefers speed and "playing baseball the right way," yet he freely admits here it is easier to score more runs in an inning by hitting a home run. A lesser analyst wouldn't be able to justify these two opinions together, but Joe is just rubbing his ignorance in our face now.

KC (Atlanta)

Joe, do the Braves have enough offense to stay ahead of the Mets and Phillies? If not what are there options to improve?

JM: The only team of the three that has a proven offense is the Phillies. Their offense has been suspect lately.

Joe has traditionally struggled with time. Short-term time and long-term time and how to compare a team over the long-term and the short-term. All he knows is that today's MLB teams aren't as good as MLB teams used to be. The Phillies have had a proven offense over the last three or four seasons, this is true. But past results don't predict the future results for the Phillies. Simply because the Phillies have had a great offense in the past couple of years doesn't mean the Braves or Mets don't have enough offense to stay ahead of the Phillies. Each year is different and because the Phillies are proven in the past doesn't mean anything in the realm of this year if the offense is struggling (which is struggling relative to the Phillies offense in the past)...until the Phillies start hitting well.

Short-term, the Mets and Braves may have enough offense because the only year that counts, 2010, the Phillies haven't hit well. Now I am confusing myself. Let's move on...

The answer is yes that I think the Braves have enough because of their pitching.

This is a perfect Joe Morgan chat answer. The Braves have enough offense because of their pitching. Because the Braves have good pitching they have enough offense. In Joe's screwed up mind, this makes sense and this the very reason he stinks at analyzing regarding baseball.

Let's say the Braves don't have good enough pitching, then they won't have enough offense to keep up with the Mets and Phillies. The idea the Braves have enough offense, based on how good their pitching has been is pure lunacy. KC isn't asking if the Braves pitching can carry them past the Mets or Phillies, he wants to know if they have enough offense to keep up with the Mets and Phillies, regardless of the pitching. Most teams that have great pitching will win games, but the question was about the offense solely and didn't relate to the pitching.

If they pitch up to their potential and Jurgens and Hanson get back on track, I think they can hold on.

I take it from the fact he hasn't talked about a single Braves hitter as a "no" the Braves don't have enough offense in Joe's opinion.

A lot will depend on what the Mets will be able to do offensively and if they get Beltran back.

And now the Braves chances of winning the division don't rely a lot on the Braves pitching, but rely on how good the Mets are offensively.

So in conclusion, the Phillies have a proven offense but not a good offense this year, the Braves have enough offense if their pitching is good, for the pitching to be good Tommy Hanson and Jair Jurrjens need to pitch to their potential (WHAT THE HELL DOES JOE MEAN BY POTENTIAL?????) but if the Mets are good offensively and Carlos Beltran comes back, the Braves won't have enough offense. So the Braves offense being enough to win the division depends on whether Carlos Beltran comes back or not. This makes very little sense.

Nick (NJ)

How Special do you think Stephen Strausberg is

JM: I think he has unlimited potential, kind of like I said about J.R. Richards on Sunday.

RICHARD! It is J.R. Richard not J.R. Richard(s). I tried to ignore it when Joe butchered Jair Jurrjens name in the previous question and spelled it "Jurgens," but I can't ignore how he can't spell his own ex-teammate's name correct for the 3rd straight week. Somehow Joe actually has less knowledge about baseball than the average fan. This isn't a spelling contest, but shouldn't Joe at least spell the player's names correctly since he is presumably an "expert" on baseball?

Mike W (Chiacgo)

Where is the love for Joey Votto? Everyone talks about Pujols and not Joey but really compare their numbers: Votto: .312/.415/.559 16 HR, 51 RBIs, 48 Runs, 7 SBs, and only 2 errorsPujols: .305/.420/.542 16 HR, 52 RBIs, 41 Runs, 7 SBs and 3 errors

JM: Obviously, I think Joey Votto is a very good player, but I don't know how anyone can compare him to Pujols.

Again, Joe struggles with the issue of time. Mike is not saying that because Votto is playing well this year he is just as good of a player as Albert Pujols overall. He is saying Votto is having an impressive year because it is close to/better than Pujols' year and he should get some recognition for this. Long-term he isn't saying Votto is better, but instead is saying Votto deserves recognition for playing well this year. Joe mentally can't comprehend this. I wonder if this happens in other parts of Joe's life...

-(Joe's wife) "Joe, did you mow the grass? It doesn't look like you did."

(Joe Morgan) "I mowed the grass last week, so yes I did mow the grass."

-(Joe looking into buying a new car and talking to a salesman) "Is this 2010 Toyota Camry as good as the 1999 Toyota Camry. I am looking at buying one of those two."

(Salesperson) "I would definitely buy the new Camry, it has a lot less miles and is therefore a better car."

(Joe Morgan) "I don't think you can say the 2010 Camry is a better car. This Camry had 150,000 miles on it and is still running very well. This 2010 Camry only has 3,267 miles on it, so we don't know if it is a better car or not."

(Salesperson) "The 2010 Camry has less miles on it, so I think it is a better car potentially for you to purchase and keep for ten more years."

(Joe Morgan) "What the hell do you mean by potential (punches the salesperson in the solarplex)? That doesn't make sense. The 1999 Camry has a lot of miles which means it is a proven car, so it is better than the 2010 Camry which doesn't have as many miles. You can't even compare the two."

(Salesperson) "I am not saying the 1999 Camry isn't a better car than the 2010 Camry, I am just saying if you are buying a car now, I would go with the one that has less miles on it because it will be a better car in the future...potentially (waits to get punched in the solarplex again)."

(Joe Morgan) "I don't care what you say. The 1999 Camry has been a better car over the last 5 years and you can't compare them. I will pay you $21,500 for the 1999 Camry (smiles knowing he got himself a great deal). Put me on the books for it."

Pujols has won three MVPs, batting championship. You can't just compare someone to a great player because he's having a great year.

YOU CAN COMPARE THEM AGAINST EACH OTHER FOR THIS YEAR! THIS YEAR! THIS YEAR! THIS YEAR! THIS YEAR! THIS YEAR! THIS YEAR!

That's part of my issue with Strasburg. Just because he's had some success in a short period of time, you can't compare him to Lincecum and those guys.

Oh sure, NOW Joe Morgan is all about Tim Lincecum being a great pitcher. Here is Joe from a chat in late April:

Ray A. (San Francisco, CA)

Mr. Morgan, what do you think of the Giants Tim Lincecum? If you could compare him to one pitcher, who would it be?

JM: Obviously, he has proven to me that he is going to, he's not yet there, a great pitcher.

Being blunt with you, I didn't think he should have won the Cy Young last year. Wainwright, to me, had the best season of a pitcher last year.

Lincecum went 2-3 down the stretch.

So Lincecum is not yet a great pitcher, but compared to Strasburg, Joe Morgan thinks Tim Lincecum is like Juan Marichal...except Joe wouldn't compare Lincecum to Marichal quite yet.

I just think you have to wait a little bit before comparing him to a Juan Marichal.

Possibly because Lincecum hasn't beaten a catcher over the head with a baseball bat yet. Once Lincecum does that to Chris Snyder, like Marichal did to Johnny Roseboro, then Joe Morgan will consider Lincecum to be just like Juan Marichal.

But Votto is having a great impact on the Reds and he's one of the main reasons they're in first.

But there is no way we can compare Votto's year in 2010 to Pujols' year in 2010 because Pujols had better numbers the seven years prior to that? I would give a $100 to live in Joe Morgan's mind for ten minutes.

Cooler (Dayton, Ohio)

Do you think the Reds need to go out and get help this year to hold off the Cards?

JM: The first thing they need is one or two pitchers in the bullpen late.

Otherwise known to the layperson as "relief pitchers."

You can always use a veteran left handed hitter coming off the bench. You can say that about a lot of teams.

So the one thing the Reds need to hold off the Cards is the same thing a lot of teams need?

Their starters will be good by the time the season is over.

Joe ends the question with this. I like how he tends to finish answering a question with a statement that needs some clarification, but we never get that clarification.

"The Reds need another bat in the lineup and they are great fielders. I like their chances to win the NL Central. It appears they are all going to die from the H1N1 virus going around the locker room, so they probably won't be alive to finish the season. Next question please."

Michael (Minneapolis)

The Twins made a great decision years ago by sticking with Terry Ryan through tough times in the 90's. He ended up building a perennial contender before handing things over to Bill Smith. Do too many teams give up on GMs too early? Should teams be more appreciative of the fact there might be growing pains?

JM: Personally, I don't think they give up on GMs too early. I think GMs have not been held accountable for a lot of the bad trades they've made.

Obviously terrible GMs should be fired, but every GM makes a bad trade or two, there is really no way around it. Certain GMs make more bad trades than others, but you also don't know if they made that trade at the insistence of the owner. So it would be hard to fire a guy when you as the owner told that guy what trades to make. I don't know how much this goes on, but wanted to throw it out there to at least think about.

I don't think the GMs have been held accountable enough. In the past, it was always fire the manager and not hold the GM accountable for not giving the manager good talent. But now, everyone's held accountable and that's the way it should be.

Joe thinks GMs haven't been held accountable enough, but now every GM is held accountable? What about Jim Hendry? That's Joe's favorite whipping boy, is he held accountable now? I just hate blanket statements like this. EVERYONE is not held accountable now, that's impossible.

Duncan (Foster, NY)

Hi Joe, who do you think will win the AL West, the Rangers or the Angels?

JM: That's a very, very difficult question.

No, it's not. Joe needs to go purchase a hat, write down "Rangers" and "Angels" on two separate pieces of paper, put those papers in the hat, draw a name out of the hat and say THAT'S the team that will win the AL West. This method will be better than what Joe is getting ready to put us through.

The Angels, right now, are a very good team, but you just can't tell which direction they'll go in down the road.

Joe's not a psychic, asshole! How could he use what knowledge about baseball he has to analyze and predict what could happen? Can anyone do this? It's very, very hard to do this because you have to think and then explain in written form while also typing what you are thinking.

They've had injuries, but all teams have injuries over the course of the season.

So this sentence is filler and isn't a reason the Angels can or can't win the division? I'm glad we added this statement to the discussion then.

I just don't see the Angels being as good as they were last year.

Ah yes another team, much like the Yankees last week, that isn't a good team because they don't meet Joe's personal expectations for them.

Joe just said right now, the Angels are a very good team. Is Texas, right now, a very good team too Joe? Compare in your head and then discuss in the answer to this question.

It's just hard to predict which team will win.

I can actually feel Joe sweating right now.

If you force me to answer, I will go with Texas.

What if I don't force you to answer, but ask your opinion?

A lot of good things are happening there.

The weather is beautiful in Texas, the flowers seem to be blooming faster than usual, the people are just down-home nice to everyone, and Applebee's just opened up a new restaurant in downtown Amarillo that has great local sports memorabilia lining the walls. THINGS ARE ON THE UPSWING IN TEXAS!

Geoff (Philadelphia)

Joe - an honor to chat with you! As a life-long NYY fan, I hear the payroll topic come up frequently. What's your opinion on how baseball should address the economic structure to keep a highly competitive environment AND satisfy the needs of the MLBPA?

(the sound of this question zooming over Joe's head)

JM: I don't think you can just point to the money factor. In most cases, the Yankees have spent their money wise.

Joe needs to learn to read the question he is asked. This guy isn't asking about the Yankees, he just said he was a Yankees fan. I think Joe just scans the question and looks for words he understands, latches on to those words, and then answers the question using only those words he likes.

Ben (Greensboro, NC)

"Hey Joe, Philadelphia and New York Yankees are having some offensive problems this year. Do you think they should make a move to get a batter like B.J. Upton or do you think they should stick with what they have? It doesn't look like either team will make the playoffs, much less the World Series at this point!"

Joe Morgan: I didn't really find B.J. Upton to be offensive. He should have run after the ball a little bit faster. I think you are wrong though, Philadelphia and the Yankees won't meet in the World Series this year. It's too early to tell what the Yankees and Phillies will look to improve in the offseason.

I can completely see Joe answering my hypothetical question in this way.

kramer (ny)

Thoughts on Upton-Longoria situation?

JM: I don't know exactly what happened.

Thanks for chatting with us Joe. Glad you are here to answer these questions so well.

conshymatt (philly)

Who is the best defensive player in baseball?

This is BotB reader Matt, not Joebaiting, but asking an actual question...that won't get an answer.

JM: That's a tough question. I think there are a lot of good defensive players.

(Joe's brain) "Just kill time and hope the computer crashes. Maybe the world will end now. (waits for five seconds and the world doesn't end) Shit, now I have to answer this question."

You have to rate them by position.

You mean like how the Gold Gloves are awarded at each position? You could also just name a player, any player, that you consider to be the best defensive player in baseball.

I think they've done a good job the last few years, if you look at the gold glove winners.

NO ONE IS ASKING ABOUT HOW WELL THE COACHES AND MANAGERS HAVE DONE IN VOTING FOR GOLD GLOVE WINNERS! WHY DO YOU EXIST?

There might be one or two exceptions, but I think they've done a good job.

Matt asked who the best defensive player in the majors currently is and Joe Morgan answered that he thinks the Gold Glove winners have been well-selected over the last few years. This is why I think Joe died several years ago and has been replaced by an imposter. There's no way a person who takes 1% pride in his ability to understand baseball could answer this question so terribly.

Matt: Who is the best defensive player in baseball?

Imposter Joe Morgan: I don't fucking know who the hell that would be, but I know the Gold Glove winners seem like good defenders. Man, those coaches and managers seem to do a good job with that voting!

Scott (South Dakota)

Joe - any chance the Giants make some moves at the deadline to improve their playoff chances this year?

JM: The Giants are like all of the teams, they have weaknesses. Their offense is still suspect. You can't expect Lincecum and Cain, Sanchez, Zito and all the pitcher to hold the opposition to 2 or less runs every day.

We have covered that the Giants probably should make a move, but does Joe Morgan think the Giants will make a move?

(spoiler alert) We don't get an answer to this question.

They still need some consistent offense. But with that said, if you look around the NL West, all of the teams are suspect.

So the Giants don't need to make a move because every team in the division isn't a perfect team? So the Giants have the same problem as all the other teams in the NL West. Does this even mean anything? Why can't Joe just answer the question?

Has anyone at ESPN ever tried to talk to Joe about answering the question posed?

(ESPN executive) "Joe, we need you to read the question and then answer the question asked. Our commenters are getting upset at you."

(Joe Morgan) "I am not upset with anyone. I enjoy working here at ESPN."

(ESPN executive getting a headache) "When a question is asked, try your best to answer the question that is being asked. Just do it for 30 minutes and we will buy you an ice cream cone. Deal?"

(Joe Morgan) "I will answer the question posed to me. I would love to have some ice cream, let's go!"

(ESPN executive throws himself down a flight of stairs)

ross (kentucky)

Joe, Whats your thoughts on Brandon Phillips? I believe as far as OVERALL he is the best 2B in the NL. No one is close defensively, he will steal you a base was a 30/30 guy and hits for power.

JM: I think you're exactly right. He's the best overall 2B in the league at this moment. He's played much, much better the last few weeks.

Let's get this straight. Joe won't even hear of the argument that Joey Votto is playing as well as Albert Pujols this year, even though the statistics back it up, but Brandon Phillips outperforms Chase Utley for one year and now all of a sudden he is the best second baseman in the league at this moment? How the hell did this just happen? I don't care how Joe judges the best player at each position, just be consistent with it. The Inconsistency Monster is very angry with Joe right now. He's dragging his bat along the base of Joe's bedroom door in a threatening manner.

Joe refused to even think about the idea Votto may be having as good of a year as Pujols, though it was shown in the statistics included with the question that this was true. Based on the fact Chase Utley is having a sub-par year Joe thinks Brandon Phillips is the best second baseman in the NL.

Utley this year: .277/.383/.466, 11 HR, 37 RBIs, 126 OPS+

Phillips this year: .313/.371/.481, 9 HR, 25 RBIs, 127 OPS+

Phillips is playing slightly better than Utley, but it is very, very close. I can't believe Joe is jumping on the Brandon Phillips bandwagon while he sticks with Pujols to the very bitter end. Plus, Chase Utley is injured right now, so I am sure that had to contribute in some way to his sub-par year.

He has shown that he has great ability.

So has Chase Utley. He has shown he is a better second baseman than Brandon Phillips over the long-term. So based on Joe's previous indignant answer that Votto is not as good as Pujols or shouldn't get the respect Pujols gets, Joe should still consider Utley better than Phillips.

I'm not saying this is a correct point of view, but is how Joe's brain should work.

Derek (Plymouth)

How do the red sox stay in contention with so many players out due to injury?

JM: You have to look at them staying in contention with New York.

Sorry Tampa Bay. You may be a few games back for the division lead, but Joe Morgan doesn't think you stand a chance to win the division. He really has no reason to think this, other than there is a 95% chance he hasn't seen the Rays play this year.

JM: I think after the all-star break, we will have a better feel for the teams that could win their division.

Joe thinks as the season comes closer to ending it will be easier to tell which teams could win their division. This statement is pretty much the definition of an obvious statement. Joe already has a feel if Tampa can win the AL East and the answer is they can not.

Some teams will go to the front of the class. We'll see if I'm correct, but I do think there will be some separation.

We will see if Joe is right or not that there will be some separation. Joe will be correct and some teams will win their division, either that, or all of the divisions will end up tied at the end of the year, leading to six one-game playoffs to determine which teams are in the playoffs.

This is classic Joe Morgan. He is telling us if the divisions don't all end up tied, some teams will end up with better records than other teams.

3 comments Just When I Think This Conversation Can't Get Any Dumber, Steve Phillips Has An Idea

I actually kind of like Steve Phillips. He is part of the reason the Braves won so many division championships in a row during the 90's and early 2000's, because he didn't always sign the best players for the Mets. Also, Phillips has been good for a little mocking when he used to be an analyst on ESPN and now he is writing articles about realignment, which is a topic I don't like discussing. I am tired of talking about realignment, don't get me wrong, but I can not ignore articles that make the realignment conversation progressively dumber and dumber.

If you want a real analysis of realignment, then check out this column, but if you are satisfied with half-ass ideas, the Phillips article is the way to go.

Let's look at the pros and cons of Steve Phillips' resume:

Pros:

-Got 2000 World Series team together with AL Leiter, Mike Piazza, Robin Ventura.

-Drafted David Wright, Jose Reyes, Scott Kazmir.

-Did not make Scott Kazmir for Victor Zambrano trade.

Cons:

-Acquired Mo Vaughn, Pedro Astacio, Mike Bordick, Bobby Bonilla, Ricky Henderson, Jeromy Burnitz, and Kenny Rogers.

-Fired Bobby Valentine.

-Traded Jason Bay (but they did get Jason Middlebrook!).

-Tried to trade Jose Reyes but failed at that. So he lucked into trading Alex Escobar instead.

-Probably has no room to criticize other General Managers for their moves, yet has routinely done so.

Now for the new half-ass realignment idea...

One week into the season the Toronto Blue Jays sit atop the AL East and the Oakland A's are leading the AL West. Alas, neither has a real chance of being there when the season ends. In fact, every season begins with more than a handful of clubs that have absolutely no chance of making the playoffs. This year is no different.

I can't recall Phillips being worried about this imbalance as he was signing every aging free agent and acquiring players with big contracts as the General Manager of the New York Mets. If anyone knows that throwing together expensive players and having a ton of money to spend doesn't lead directly to success, it should be Phillips. He can vouch for it first hand that you have to pick the right expensive players.

Yes there have been eight different World Series champions in the last nine years, but that doesn't really tell the whole story.

The story being...this tells a pretty good story about parity in baseball.

The playoffs can be a crap shoot. A red-hot team that is undermanned can upset a more powerful team. The shorter the series the greater the possibility that an individual player can carry a team and take over.

So during the playoffs we want predictability where the better team wins, but during the regular season we want unpredictability that only realignment can get us? I also think it is great that every sportswriter seems to want realignment so small and mid market teams can win the division and make the World Series, but the first time we get a Milwaukee Brewers v. Seattle Mariners World Series the same sportswriters will cry about how boring the games are and how bad the ratings will be.

The Red Sox and Yankees have been reaching their goals better than everyone else over the last 15 years. They have both made the playoffs in eight of the last 15 years, and at least one of the two has been in the playoffs in all 15 years.

I don't know if this is a sign of domination. The Braves and Phillies have made it 14 out of the last 15 years and I don't hear anyone talking about how they are dominating the National League East. I know Phillips may be blocking this out, but unfortunately for him it is very true. Also, I am pretty sure other teams have made the playoffs as much as the Red Sox and Yankees have over the last 15 years. But hey, the world revolves around the Yankees and Red Sox right? No other teams really count.

Even when Phillips no longer works for ESPN he thinks there are only two teams in MLB.

There is a notion that payroll equals success in baseball.

I don't have studies to disprove this, so I will even just assume this is true for the sake of argument. The problem is a team's payroll can change from year-to-year. This is important to remember as Steve Phillips craps out his bad idea here in a second. Team payrolls do not stay stagnant.

Just this past week Milwaukee Brewers owner Mark Attanasio lamented that his club would have difficulty signing star first baseman Prince Fielder to a contract extension.

Should other teams increase the revenue sharing checks they are sending to Milwaukee? Let's be fair, the Brewers will have difficulty signing Fielder because they don't want to bust the rest of their payroll. They can afford to sign him, they just can't sign him at market value and not ruin their entire payroll.

He stated the obvious that his club didn't have the kind of money the Yankees do. He remarked that the Yankees infield combines for a higher salary than the entire Brewers team. What he stated are facts!

OMFG! I know! Those are facts!

But there is another fact that should be mentioned: Attanasio bought the Brewers and not the Yankees, and he did so with the full knowledge of the difference between the two.

Well the Yankees weren't exactly for sale, but I still can appreciate a good sportswriting bitch slap. After all Phillips has put himself through recently, it must feel good to be an asshole to someone else.

Levine could have also stated that other teams should be grateful for the Yankees -- not only for the subsidies they give, but also for the fact that when the Yankees come to town attendance numbers typically spike dramatically. Plus, Levine could have argued that the sale of Yankees licensed merchandise benefits the Brewers far more than the sale of Brewers merchandise benefits the Yankees or anyone else.

All part of the reasons why the Yankees aren't great for baseball competitively, but are great for baseball financially...and baseball teams are a business.

Using 2010 Opening Day payroll numbers, the disparity between the highest-spending and lowest-spending team in each division is remarkable:

Payroll Disparty

Division	Highest Payroll		Lowest Payroll		Disparity
AL East	Yankees	$206.3M	Blue Jays	$62.23M	$144.1M
AL Central	Tigers	$122.86M	Indians	$61.20M	$61.66M
AL West	Angels	$104.96M	Athletics	$51.65M	$53.31M
NL East	Mets	$134.42M	Marlins	$57.03M	$73.39M
NL Central	Cubs	$146.61M	Pirates	$34.94M	$111.67M
NL West	Giants	$98.64M	Padres	$37.8M	$60.84

Right, this parity is pretty remarkable, but this is also assuming that payroll has a direct correlation to winning division titles and World Series titles. For the record, two of the teams with the highest payroll in their division won their division last year and zero of the teams that had the lowest payroll won their division.

In fact, out of the Top 10 highest teams in the majors in payroll five of them, while the other three teams were 13th, 21st, and 24th in payroll. So payroll does play a big part, but I am not sure it is the end-all-be-all to determine if a team will be successful or not. I will admit that payroll is an fairly important factor, but there are other factors that go into a team's success as well.

There isn't nearly enough revenue to share to make up for that kind of disparity. And that's why some clubs know they have no real chance of competing despite being on top of their division a week into the season.

No idiot, least of all this idiot, would argue that payroll is not part of the reason why some teams are successful and other teams are not. The problem is the solutions are worse than the problem. A salary cap sucks, as I talked about earlier this week, and realignment would only serve the purpose of moving two teams (Red Sox and Yankees) out of the Orioles, Rays, and Blue Jays division to let some other teams suffer playing in the AL East against the Yankees and Red Sox.

(Read that article I linked earlier from Baseball Analysts and see how they show the AL East isn't the hardest division in the majors. I won't get into how that is correct in relation to Steve Phillips' crappy realignment idea, but I would have some things to say about it. I hate it when statistics mess with a preconceived notion we all have.)

The easy answer is to put a salary cap in place which would limit player salaries and give teams like the Brewers a better chance to keep their stars. That isn't going to happen because the union will never go for it.

And this won't fix the problem, nor is it fair to the teams that run their teams well and finally revenue sharing would go out the window and some teams would collapse.

Here is the problem with the current system: Using my boxing analogy, Major League Baseball currently has heavyweight and lightweight boxers competing against each other without any real acknowledgement of the disparity between them.

You may think you know where this is going, but I don't think you do. Remember we are entering the mind of Steve Phillips who thought it was a good idea to sign Prince Fie---I mean Mo Vaughn as a free agent when he was with the Mets.

Every general manager will tell you that if you give him a level playing field, he will take his chances that he can put a team together to compete and win a championship. Short of a salary cap, there is only one way to level the playing field: realign the divisions.

Absolutely realign the divisions and then make sure every single team keeps its payroll at the exact same amount and no team gets better than another team over a period of time so the divisions are always equally weighted? It shouldn't be hard to make sure the competitive balance stays the exact same over the next 10 years by not allowing a team to reduce/increase its payroll so one team in a division doesn't get much better than the other teams. Then the playing field will be even forever and no one will be unhappy...other than everybody.

Bud Selig's Special Committee for On-Field Matters has discussed an idea to address the lack of parity in baseball called "floating realignment." It would allow teams to change divisions based upon geography, payroll and their likelihood of contending.

I have made my opinion on this idea fairly well known. When I do back-to-back posts on the same idea you know I am very serious about a topic.

What if we realign the divisions in a way that dramatically reduces the difference between the highest and lowest payrolls within those divisions?

Well, that would just be a dandy short-term fix that could lead to long-term problems once teams increase or decrease their payroll, which will inevitably happen. My favorite example of this is the Twins are now 11th in the majors in payroll, above the Dodgers, Cardinals, Braves, and Orioles. They aren't small market anymore, but if 5 years ago we had put them in a division, it would have been with other small market teams.

While Steve Phillips has a noble idea, it is doomed to fail.

It would allow just about every team a legitimate chance to compete.

Unless you are a high payroll team, in which case you have no chance to compete because under the theory of "the team with the highest payroll will win the division" several of those teams will lose the division of heavyweights. Every year teams that are better than small or mid market teams will miss the playoffs and this will make the divisional alignment more "fair."

If they can't compete then they have no one to blame but themselves.

I think that's the case now too.

Here is a look at a division realignment which drastically reduces the salary disparity in each division. The bold teams are the clubs with the highest payroll in their division and the italicized teams are the clubs with the lowest payroll in the division. The new differential in salary within the division (where Large corresponds to East, Mid to Central and Small to West) is noted in green.

Division Realignment

Division	Clubs	Payroll Disparity
		New	Old	+/-
AL Large	Yankees, Red Sox, Tigers, White Sox, Angels	$101.37M	$144.1M	$40.73M
AL Mid	Twins, Mariners, Orioles, Astros, Rangers	$42.35M	$61.66M	$19.31M
AL Small	Rays, Royals, Blue Jays, Indians, Athletics	$20.27M	$53.31M	$33.04M
NL Large	Cubs, Phillies, Mets, Dodgers, Cardinals	$53.06M	$77.39M	$24.33M
NL Mid	Giants, Braves, Rockies, Brewers, Reds	$26.88M	$111.67M	$84.79M
NL Small	Nationals, Diamondbacks, Marlins, Padres, Pirates	$26.46M	$60.84M	$34.38M

My problem is I don't understand the purpose of this. What's the purpose? To prevent high payroll teams from winning the World Series or giving all the teams a chance to win their division? If the purpose is to give each team a chance to make the playoffs, then this is a stupid realignment idea because in the end it means nothing if they just lose in the playoffs to a large market team. If the goal is to have other teams gets a chance to win the World Series then it fails completely for the same reason. The high payroll teams will still most likely roll all over the small market teams, playoff unpredictability be damned. Playoff series are unpredictable, but let's remember we are assuming the teams in the small and mid market divisions are inferior to large market teams based on payroll.

Small market teams would make the playoffs, but they would still have a good chance at losing to the large market team, thereby not fixing the real problem. Sure the playoffs are a smaller sample size, but if we are assuming the smaller market teams are that much worse than the large market teams, this difference will show even in a 5 or 7 game series.

Here is the division winners for 2009 if this idea had been implemented for that season:

AL: Yankees, Rangers, Rays, Red Sox

NL: Dodgers, Colorado, Florida, Philadelphia

So of the 8 teams who actually made it, there would be 3 different teams under Phillips' plan and a 91 win Cardinals team would left out for the 87 win Florida Marlins and the 97 win Angels would be left out for the 84 win Rays. I don't consider this an improvement. Then to make matters worse, does anyone really think the end result of teams facing off in the World Series would have been different with teams that have worse records over the season compared to the teams the Yankees and Phillies beat in the 2009 playoffs to make the World Series?

OK, before you start poking holes, let me explain some of my rationale. Remember the top priority is trying to give every team a fair chance of making the playoffs.

Whoops, I jumped the gun on poking holes in the realignment.

Ok, so the point is to let every team make the playoffs? Isn't true parity when every team has the chance to win the World Series though? I don't think it is going to be any less frustrating to see the large market teams stomp small market teams in the playoffs every year. Sure, this may not happen, but I think if there is a "huge problem" regarding large market teams winning the World Series against other large market teams, there will be the same problem with mid and small market teams in the playoffs facing a large market team.

First, I moved the Houston Astros to the AL in order to balance the two leagues at 15 teams apiece.

Perfect. Give the worst team in the National League to the American League.

Second, there are teams in the same division despite being in different time zones which will increase travel costs. Major League Baseball and the Players' Association are always so concerned about travel costs, but how can that be more important than fairness and parity. Since, I want my plan to be implemented as part of the next Collective Bargaining Agreement, I am going to make travel costs a non-issue.

Of course, when presented with a problem, just pretend that problem doesn't exist at all. All good analysis and ideas depend on ignoring problems that aren't going away.

Let's resolve it by returning to a balanced schedule in which every team plays each other team in its league and division the same number of times. The issue really isn't who a team plays how many times.

This is actually not a bad idea. I could get behind this one.

Third, I propose that there be two wild-card teams in addition to the three division winners. The wild-card teams will play a one-game playoff to see who gets to play the division winner with the best overall record, regardless of whether they are from the same division.

Great idea, but I could only agree to this if an elephant can throw out the first pitch and a monkey gets to play catcher during the 9th inning in games decided by 7 runs or more. Also, the manager can decide at any point in the game that one player for the other team has to leave the game immediately and can't be allowed back on the field. If we are going to make arbitrary changes to baseball, let's go all the way with it.

I didn't follow the payroll rankings perfectly in formulating the divisions as some teams are spending more than their market indicates and some are not spending enough.

Nothing will make the division realignment based on team payroll any less accurate than not completely realigning the divisions based on team payroll. Actually, this may be a good thing because as these team's payrolls change, the less accurate Steve Phillips realignment idea means the less screwed up the divisions will look 5 years down the road.

I think this article sums up Steve Phillips time with the Mets as the GM perfectly. He has some good ideas and can actually start to put together a good plan, but then he gets lazy towards the end and just starts putting random teams or players together and hopes it works.

I didn't follow the payroll rankings perfectly in formulating the divisions as some teams are spending more than their market indicates and some are not spending enough.

Well, it all depends on how these teams feel when it comes to their payroll. You know what, why even base the realignment on actual team payroll? I think Steve Phillips should have based his entire realignment idea on whether each team feels like a large, mid, or small market team.

The Giants have a higher payroll than the Dodgers and Cardinals but I put them in the mid-market division because the Dodgers will, at some point, act like a large-market club again and the Cardinals are going to pay Albert Pujols a bunch of money in the next 12 months.

This is exactly why I called this idea half-ass. Steve Phillips creates a whole new divisional realignment based on a team's payroll for the 2010 season, but arbitrarily puts certain teams in the large or small market category based on how he thinks those teams are going to spend their money over the next couple of years. He does not do projections for all the teams to prevent the divisions from being de-aligned due to team's increasing/decreasing payroll over the next couple of years though.

Phillips doesn't do any projections for other teams based on increasing revenue due to a new ballpark opening, the team possibly getting rid of payroll or any other event that will increase/decrease payroll in any manner. He just projects the Dodgers will start spending more money (based on what, other than the fact they have young guys on the team who play a large role in the team's success? Who knows?) and that the Cardinals will re-sign Pujols with no corresponding decrease in payroll anywhere else on the roster.

The Rangers' current payroll ranks 27th, but that has to do with an ownership issue that should be resolved with sale of the team. They are a mid-market team so I put them there.

Of course they are.

Perfect parity without a salary cap is impossible, but we can come much closer to leveling the playing field by rearranging the divisions.

We can do this for a short amount of time and then teams in each division will start spending less or more based on their revenue and it could go all out of whack again.

In fact, as time goes forward, the gap between the top salary and the bottom salary in each division will narrow. Clubs that don't spend now will realize that they are not that far away from competing and should spend more.

You mean exactly like what didn't happen during the 1990's when payroll between teams were closer and some teams still didn't compete very well?

This is a huge assumption for Steve Phillips to make. Teams could also realize they don't have to spend any more money because they are in a division with other teams of their financial standing, while another team in the same division could try to outspend the other teams, while a team like the Rays could decrease payroll more because they think they can still compete in their division with less payroll. It's a huge assumption to just think the gap will get more narrow and wider in each division.

This formula for realignment may not help the Brewers keep Prince Fielder, but it will give them a much more realistic chance to make the playoffs every year. Once a club makes the playoffs, they are only a roll of the dice away from becoming a World Series champion.

If we are assuming teams with higher payroll are better teams, doesn't it also stand to reason a small market team who makes the playoffs would have an even greater disadvantage against a large market team? Throw in the fact Steve Phillips wants there to be a one game playoff for the Wild Card spot, and there could very well be 2 small market teams, one mid market team, and a large market team in the American and National League playoffs. Under the theory that large market teams are better than small market teams, even in a 5-7 game playoff series, wouldn't it give the large market team an easier path to the playoffs? Other than giving these teams a token playoff spot, what does this fix?

As usual, this realignment idea has some major holes in it. Not the least of which the idea comes from Steve Phillips.