6 comments Murray Chass Is Still Bitching about Integrity and This Year It's the Cubs Who Lack Integrity

What timing that I wrote this post today! Kris Bryant got called up!

Every year Murray Chass accuses MLB teams of lacking integrity for finding reasons to hold players down in the minors in order to not start their service time and get an extra year out of that player before he hits free agency. Murray bitches about it here, here, here, and here. As I've always stated, this isn't an integrity issue to me. This is an issue of a MLB team playing within the rules and getting an extra year out of a player while giving up a month or a few weeks of that player being on the current roster. I bet the Braves wish they had waited another couple months to call Jason Heyward up. Maybe they wouldn't have had to trade him this offseason and could have had more time to work out a long-term deal. Anyway, Murray writes on his non-blog that the Cubs lack integrity for keeping Kris Bryant down in the minors to avoid him becoming a Super Two and this time he has Scott Boras on his side.

It's all about the integrity to Murray. I wonder if he considers accusing a player of using PED's based on bacne as violating his strict integrity guidelines. Probably not.

Theo Epstein, the man who runs the Chicago Cubs’ baseball operations, said this:

In this business of trying to win a world championship for the first time in 107 years, the organization has priority over any one individual.

He also said this:

We have clung to two important ideals during our three years in Chicago. The first is to always be loyal to our mission of building the Cubs into a championship organization that can sustain success. The second is to be transparent with our fans….To our fans: we hope you understand, and we appreciate your continued support of the Cubs.

Epstein should have added, "Unless, you know, if being transparent means that the union can file a grievance on behalf of a player and telling a little white lie will benefit the organization in the long run."

Epstein included both of these comments in a statement he issued when the Cubs fired their manager, Rick Renteria, last October and hired Joe Maddon. If they sound familiar, it’s because I quoted them in last week’s column. I quote them again for this column about a Cubs’ player. Kris Bryant.

Keeping Kris Bryant in the minors fulfills the intent of the first quote and fufills the intent in the first part of the second quote. Two out of three isn't bad. Epstein can't say, "It's in the best interests of the organization long-term to keep Kris Bryant in the minors," even though it's true, because people get their panties in a wad that the Cubs would dare to work within the rules to build a quality team over the long-term.

The last I looked Bryant had hit nine home runs, more than any other player in this spring’s exhibition games. I have long said it doesn’t pay to pay attention to spring statistics, but Bryant has forced the Cubs to pay attention.

Murray has always believed it makes no sense to pay attention to spring statistics, unless those spring statistics go to prove a point that Murray wants to prove. In that case, forget everything else that Murray has ever said and those spring training statistics are vitally important and serve as definitive evidence for what Murray wants to prove. Spring training statistics are of course useless when they serve the need Murray Chass has that point in time.

He has convinced them he is ready to help the Cubs win – a playoff spot, the National League Central title, the N.L. pennant, the World Series. Whatever it is, they’ll take it, though they prefer the World Series, which the Cubs haven’t won since 1908.

And since when have the expectations of fans ever been unrealistic?

Bryant, however, can’t help the Cubs win anything if he’s not on the team, and when last heard on the subject, the Cubs said they plan to have Bryant start the season in the minor leagues. They’re playing a game I have chronicled here for the past several years. It’s the major league service time manipulation game. It’s legal under the labor practice, but it undermines the integrity of the game.

Allowing MLB teams to do something that is legal under the labor practice which helps the team in the long run undermines the integrity of the game? I've never understood this point of view. Maybe it's a bit of a dick move by the Cubs (or Giants or any other MLB team), but it doesn't undermine the integrity of the game because it's not against the rules. It is manipulating service time, which (checks the CBA) isn't against the rules.

If steroids and Pete Rose’s violation of the game’s gambling rule undermines baseball’s integrity, so does the clubs’ manipulation of service time, no matter what an arbitrator said 30 years ago.

Yeah, this is not at all a good parallel. There are rules on the books against gambling and using PED's to gain an advantage. There is no rule that says an MLB team HAS to put their best team on the field, as determined by an old sportswriter-turned-blogger. I recognize there is no help for Murray Chass anyway, but if he can't tell the difference in a player violating a rule that is written in the MLB rule book and a team not violating part of the CBA then there is definitely never going to be help for him.

Boras is Bryant’s agent and could be said to have a vested interest in how the Cubs treat Bryant.

Right, because the more money Kris Bryant makes means that Scott Boras makes more money. Does it undermine the integrity of the game when an agent publicly requests an MLB team makes a personnel move all so that agent can have more money put in his pocket? I guess not. Scott Boras wants more money in his pocket, so he accuses others of wrongdoing so he can get richer.

He and I seldom agree on issues involving his clients, but in this instance I believe he is 100 percent correct.

Just like spring training statistics don't mean anything until Murray needs them to mean something to prove his point, Scott Boras is an evil person until Boras agrees with Murray Chass on an issue. In that case, Boras is just speaking the truth.

The Cubs and the other clubs that behave similarly are hurting Major League Baseball. They are saving money, but they are cheating their fans.

Murray's whole "They are hurting the fans" argument fails every single time. It doesn't hurt Cubs fans that they now get to have Kris Bryant as a part of the Cubs franchise for a longer period of time. The Cubs are not expected to win the World Series this year, so why is it hurting the team to make sure they keep Bryant around for an extra year when they may be able to better compete to win the World Series in the future? The fans aren't being cheated. The player and Scott Boras' pockets are being cheated, which apparently undermines the integrity of the game.

If they are not using their best players, they are not trying to win. That failing goes to the core of integrity.

The Cubs will be using their best players, and using their best players for a longer period of time, if they ensure that Kris Bryant doesn't become a Super Two by holding him down in the minors longer.

If the Cubs open the season with Bryant in the minors and keep him there for at least 12 days, they can ensure his presence with them through the 2021 season instead of the 2020 season, the first seven years of his major league career instead of the first six.

Wow, the Cubs fans are getting screwed. They are trading 12 days of not having Kris Bryant on the roster for an entire year of having Kris Bryant on the roster. I'm surprised there haven't been riots and revolts while fans storm the gates of Wrigley Field. Cubs fans are trading 12 days for 5 more months of Kris Bryant. That sounds pretty good.

For purposes of service time, a season is 172 days so a player can lack 11 days and still receive credit for a full season. If, however, he lacks 12 days and is in the majors the rest of the season, he has 171 days of major league service, one day short of a full year.

So Murray's argument is that because the Cubs are holding down Kris Bryant down in the minors for at least 6.98% of the season, and thereby receiving 100% of another season of Bryant's services, then they are getting screwed? This is a real argument he is furthering? Scott Boras and Kris Bryant may be getting screwed, but it doesn't affect the integrity of the game that Boras is arguing for what is financially beneficial for himself. Of course not.

As a result of clubs’ closely monitoring service time, they have kept major league-ready players in the minors longer than they should,

Which is an opinion and not a fact. These bloggers are always stating opinions as facts.

calling them up usually in late May or early June. The accompanying chart tells a striking story.

Since Murray is all about "the fans" and how they are getting screwed, let's look at all these players and see how many of them are still with their original team that called them up. You know, just for shits and giggles to see how screwed these fans are getting.

This list has 25 players on it. Of these 25 players, only 5 of these players are not on their original team. Oscar Taveras is dead, so he doesn't really count. Kris Medlen was released by the Braves mostly for injury reasons and not performance reasons. Jordan Lyles, Joe Kelly and Stephen Pryor were respectively traded for Dexter Fowler, John Lackey, and Kendry Morales in an effort for the team that called them up to improve their team. So of these 25 players, 20 of them are still with the team that called them up, while four of them are not with their current team, but the reason they aren't with the team didn't "screw over the fans."

So Murray has no point. He argues these late call-ups screw over fans, but I don't think this is true. These late call-ups have allowed teams to have control over these players for a longer period of time.

In Bryant’s case, the Cubs care more about free agency because they could never keep him in the minors until late May or early June.

It's unfathomable that the Cubs would want to keep Bryant on their roster for as long as possible. The fans must feel screwed over knowing they get to keep one of the team's best prospects for a longer period of time. 

I had a lot of questions to ask Epstein, but a week’s worth of telephone calls and e-mail did not induce him to respond so the questions remain unasked and unanswered. Oh yes. I also tried reaching Tom Ricketts, the team’s owner, and he didn’t respond. Even the Cubs’ media relations director didn’t call back. I guess they are intent on not answering questions about Bryant.

Or, you know, they don't have to answer questions about Kris Bryant if they care not to or don't want to be accused of lacking integrity by a sportswriter-turned-blogger. 

Epstein, however, did speak with reporters at the Cubs’ camp in Arizona and talked in television interviews, and I frankly find it difficult to believe what he said about why Bryant may start the season in the minors:

Why does Murray find it difficult to believe? Because he wants to find it difficult to believe. It's the same reason that Murray doesn't think spring training statistics mean much, until he needs them to mean a lot in order to prove a point.

“It’s not about business. People are trying to make this about business. There are valid baseball reasons. The process of developing a player, taking them from amateur to Major League player and every step along the way, that’s a baseball process and those are baseball decisions, and that’s what we’re doing here.”

Here are several points I have:

1. It doesn't matter if Murray Chass finds this statement difficult to believe or not. MLB teams are entitled to leave whatever players they choose to leave at whatever minor league level they choose to leave that player until they decide they want to promote him.

2. If Theo Epstein said, "Yeah, we are holding him back so his service time doesn't cause him to become a Super Two" then that could be more honest but it would also cause Bryant to file a grievance. The Cubs don't even have to explain themselves anyway. So explaining themselves is pointless and unnecessary.

3. Bryant had been playing left field occasionally in spring training, so it's possible the Cubs decided they wanted him to practice more in left field (not in game situations) while in the minors.

4. The Cubs and Theo Epstein don't have to explain why they sent Bryant down because it's not against the rules for them to run the organization as they see fit.

Epstein pointed out that he had never had a player make his major league debut at the start of a season:

Murray thinks Theo Epstein REALLY lacks integrity now.

“I’ve never put a guy on an opening-day roster who hadn’t played in the big leagues previously. In 13 years, I’ve never done it. I’m not saying I’d never do it, but the general rule, the presumption, is to allow those guys to go out, play, get comfortable, get in rhythm, and come up when you handpick just the right moment for them to have success.”

It makes sense from the perspective of a GM. It does.

Unfortunately, neither that interviewer nor any other asked Epstein why, then, didn’t he call up Bryant late last season, as he did with infielder Mike Olt and outfielder Jorge Soler.

Possibly because the Cubs weren't in competition for a playoff spot and it didn't make sense to call up every single prospect the Cubs had. Perhaps because Olt plays third base too and it doesn't make any fucking sense to call up two prospects from the minors who play the exact same position so that one of those prospects ends up sitting the bench on a given day.

“They had Baez and Soler at Triple A,” Boras said. “Bryant performed far better. They get called up to the big leagues and Bryant doesn’t.”

And never forget while reading about Scott Boras whining that he has a financial stake in when Kris Bryant gets called up. Scott Boras gets paid faster when Kris Bryant is one year closer to free agency.

Had they promoted Bryant with the others, he could open this season with the Cubs without violating Epstein’s stated practice. But they weren’t about to recall Bryant then because his service clock would have started ticking, in Epstein’s view like a time bomb.

Mike Olt is older than Bryant and wasn't exactly hitting terrible at AAA last year when he was called up. But no, Murray is right that public opinion on which prospect should be called up to the majors, and not the opinion of the organization, should be what determines when Kris Bryant gets called up to the majors. The Cubs organization has no right to make personnel moves as they see fit.

Is that bad for the fans? A reader responded to a previous column about the manipulation of service time by saying he would rather have the player for a whole extra season than for a few extra games now.

But there are fans who have lived and died with the Cubs for their entire lives without seeing them win a World Series and may not have seven years left in their lives to see if it happens in 2021.

So the people who will die after the 2020 season who never got a chance to see the Cubs win the World Series are the ones getting screwed. So it's not Cubs fans that are getting screwed, but a specific subset of fans who don't currently know they are getting screwed who are getting screwed. These fans may be dead before 2021, so obviously Theo Epstein needs to factor in how many Cubs fans will be dead between the end of the 2020 season and the beginning of the 2021 season when making any decisions on which prospects to call up to the majors.

That makes sense.

“Is this good for the game?” Boras asked. “Fans are aware these players are extraordinary. They have nothing left to prove in the minors. Every year Kris Bryant has separated himself from everyone else. What standards does he have to achieve to deserve promotion?”

I'm sorry, I can't get past the fact Scott Boras is trying to preach about the integrity of the game when he wants Kris Bryant called up because it benefits them both financially.

Bryant is not expected to match his spring production in the early weeks of the season, even if he opens it with Chicago. Players who are torrid in spring exhibition games seldom take their paces into the season.

Well, it seems spring training statistics don't mean anything to Murray again.

Earlier this month the agent created a spring stir when he talked with Bob Nightengale of USA Today. Nightengale is one of the best baseball writers in the country, maybe the best, but even he swallowed Epstein’s excuse for delaying Bryant’s arrival in the majors.

“The Cubs simply believe that Bryant needs more defensive seasoning at Class AAA Iowa,” Nightengale wrote.

Bob Nightengale wasn't swallowing the excuse, he was repeating the reason given by Theo Epstein for Bryant to start the season at AAA.

Epstein was merely repeating the words of many other general managers who have used that excuse. The Pittsburgh Pirates have practically copyrighted that comment the last few years.

Oh, over the last few years the Pirates have copyrighted that excuse? Is this the same last few years when the Pirates have made the playoffs twice when they had not made the playoffs the 20 years prior to that? I bet Pirates fans feel REALLY screwed by the organization choosing to keep the best prospects in the minors in order to keep these prospects on the team longer. I'm surprised Pirates fans haven't revolted yet. The organization is making moves that results in the team making the playoffs and keeping the team's best players longer? It's outrageous!

Addressing the issue a few years ago, Rob Manfred said, “It has been long established that clubs have a right to call up players when they decide the timing is best for the club.”

However, that case was not on point with call-ups as they have developed, and a grievance probably is in order.

Clark, the Executive Director of the union, commented, “I think it’s disappointing that we are having any conversation that there is a question about the best players not to be available for fans to watch. It takes away from the game.”

I don't really care if the rule gets changed, but these are the rules now. The best players are not available for a smaller portion of a season so they can be available to that team for a longer period of time over that player's career with the team. The fans are not getting screwed over for their patience.

Bryant is not the only players whose immediate major league status is in question. Pitchers Jon Gray of Colorado and Carlos Rodon of the Chicago White Sox also have not been assured of spots on major league rosters.

Unfathomable. Rodon made six starts in the minor leagues after he was drafted. How could he NOT be ready for the majors?

If all three players fail to win opening-day jobs in the majors, their absence will very likely encourage the union to seek a solution with a grievance.

Murray means they would file a grievance for players that aren't really a part of the MLBPA? Seeking to file a grievance for players the MLB players have intentionally left out as being represented by their union? I'm sure Murray sees that as a case of having great integrity. Scott Boras just wants more money for Kris Bryant sooner (which is his right as an agent), whether it be with the Cubs or another team, so it's funny how he preaches integrity and pretends the fans are getting screwed. The Cubs organization is preventing Boras from ripping Kris Bryant away from the Cubs team one year earlier than they otherwise could and the fans are supposed to be getting the raw end of the deal?

2 comments Bob Klapisch Doesn't See a Need for Matt Harvey to Tempt the Ladies with His Sexuality

Some baseball writers enjoy tackling hard-hitting important issues surrounding baseball and then other baseball writers like to make a story out of nothing. Bob Klapisch seems to be (at least today) in the latter group. He thinks Matt Harvey posing nude in ESPN's Body Issue, which I will not be providing links for these pictures, wasn't a good decision. After all, what Hall of Fame pitcher would ever dare to pose in his underwear? Simply put, great pitchers just don't do that. Klapisch even asks Ron Darling who agrees that posing nude or paying attention to celebrity outside of baseball is something that should be avoided at all costs. Of course in Darling's GQ article there were comments critical of Davey Johnson, and Matt Harvey simply took pictures without bashing his manager, but Ron Darling warns others about trying to gain the type of celebrity he chased. It can affect your pitching and being naked is wrong!

My copy of ESPN’s Body Issue arrived in the mail Tuesday and I admit I was curious enough to flip through the pages. Specifically, I wanted to know what attracted Matt Harvey to the idea of posing nude.

And because we know the best way to find out what attracted Matt Harvey to the idea of posing nude is to look at pictures of Harvey posing nude. He's so expressive!

I tried to use this reasoning for why I was looking at a Playboy when I was 11 years old, but for some reason my friend's mom didn't buy my reasoning.

"No, I'm not trying to look at naked women Mrs. Thompson! I just want to find out what attracted her to posing nude in the magazine and figured the best way to figure this out would be to stare at her naked body."

Oh, the layouts were creative and tastefully done: no argument about the graphics.

Well, thank God. I know I was concerned the graphics wouldn't be tasteful.
 
Harvey? He was photographed in his windup —his arm forming a perfect “L.” In the second shot, Harvey is holding a room-service tray over his privates as he peers out of an expensive-looking hotel room. Clever enough.

These naked pictures of Matt Harvey have Bob Klapisch's approval. Combined this with the very tasteful graphics and I think Bob is starting to see what attracted Harvey to posing for these pictures. 

Still, I’m told the Mets were aghast to learn of Harvey’s participation in this project; they had nothing to do with it.

The Mets didn't encourage Harvey to pose naked in a magazine and he made an adult decision by himself? You don't say? 

It was the pitcher’s marketing people and agent Scott Boras who convinced Harvey that modeling –modeling his body, that is –would somehow help his career.

And look, an article is being written about Harvey modeling in ESPN's Body Issue. Harvey gets noticed like he wants. I can't believe Scott Boras is encouraging young men to get naked and pose for pictures. He's worse than a Hollywood producer sleeping with the women talent in order to convince them they will get a role in his next film. One more reason Scott Boras is evil. He convinces his clients to model and take pictures in their underwear for his perverse pleasure. He convinces a vulnerable A-Rod to pose kissing himself in the mirror, now he has Matt Harvey posing naked for ESPN, and who can forget that time Boras convinced Derek Lowe and Barry Zito doing a video of "2 Guys, 1 Cup" would be good for their career? Clearly, Scott Boras is a pervert.  

He’s also been blessed with a keen self-awareness, which means he knew exactly what he was getting into with ESPN, not to mention a follow-up photo fashion shoot with the New York Post. 

Turns out Harvey’s talent and brains are matched by his ego and vanity.

Yeah, I know. It's so vain to be on the cover of magazines and newspapers. Don't you like how Matt Harvey is only a rookie and the New York media is already finding ways to tear him down? 

Let’s be honest, it takes a good deal of narcissism to step out of your clothes and stand in front of a camera. Your message becomes clear: Look at me.

This is possibly true. Bob Klapisch is around 56 years old and he just now realized that athletes have an ego and can be narcissistic? Harvey is a rookie and whether he posed naked one time or not has nothing to do with how well he pitches. Posing in ESPN's Body Issue does give the media something to criticize Harvey for, which is probably his biggest issue, as opposed to his modeling affecting his ability to pitch. 

If Harvey wants to prove he’s enlightened and open-minded, there are a million other ways to express that without putting a bull’s-eye on his back.

Does Colin Kaepernick have a bull's-eye on his back now? Do any of the other athletes in ESPN's Body Issue have bull's-eyes on their back now? I would bet you Bob Klapisch can't name three male athletes who posed in the 2011 and 2012 ESPN Body Issue. The only bull's-eye on Harvey's back is the one Bob Klapisch is trying to put there.  

No one knows this better than Ron Darling, who calls games from the SNY booth, but remembers what it was like to be the Yale-educated pretty boy of the ’80s-era teams. 

Darling appeared on the cover of GQ in August 1986, and although he was fully clothed, he still made history as the magazine’s first prominently featured Asian.

So because Ron Darling was on the cover of GQ and regrets it, every other professional athlete who appears on the cover of a magazine or does any modeling (even in a sports magazine) is going to eventually regret it? Everyone is the same and every athlete has the same experiences and what happened in 1986 is completely relevant to what may happen in 2013? 

Looking back, Darling regrets the “lust” he had for GQ’s celebrity, because, “Inside, the article [that accompanied the cover shot] was critical of Davey [Johnson]. You end up selling yourself to the devil,” Darling said. “I was embarrassed.”

Matt Harvey had no quotes in the article that was critical of anyone. There were two pictures of Harvey in the ESPN magazine. Ron Darling should not project his experiences on others. Simply because Darling had a lust for celebrity and was critical of Davey Johnson in a GQ article doesn't mean this will be an experience Matt Harvey will share. Harvey took two naked pictures in a sports magazine along with other athletes in various sports and his photos in the New York Post were just douche-like, not anything that involves him selling his soul to the devil.

When Darling says, “You have to keep your mind on the prize,” it’s a gentle warning that outsiders will be looking at Harvey differently from now on,

I am an outsider and didn't even know Harvey took the pictures in the Post nor had I seen the pictures in ESPN's Body Issue. All I know is he played college baseball at UNC-Chapel Hill, so he must be a douchebag at heart. 

“The toughest part is the clubhouse, the simple minds you have to wade through,” Darling said. “There’s going to be criticism that comes out of nowhere, [from] teammates that are small-minded and don’t get it.”

Matt Harvey is an adult and he will handle the criticism or comments from his teammates. It's also very important to note that Harvey's modeling hasn't affected his pitching as of yet ("OR HAS IT?" says Bob Klapisch) and plenty of other athletes have posed half-clothed including The Jeter. 

Yet, Harvey was less than dominant in a 121-pitch performance against the Giants on Monday because, as it turns out, he has a blister on his right index finger. It’s more of a nuisance than a problem, but the Mets might skip Harvey’s start Saturday and keep him out of the All-Star Game.

It didn't happen. Harvey pitched in the All-Star Game and the blister caused by modeling didn't affect his pitching. Miraculously Harvey wasn't so distracted by his burgeoning modeling career that he completely forgot to show up for the All-Star Game. He showed up and started the game, all while managing to keep his massive ego and narcissism in check. It's almost like Bob Klapisch is creating stories where there isn't one (adds the tag to this post). 

That’s smart thinking, but had it not been for the blister, the whispering campaign might’ve already begun. That’s the surcharge for Harvey’s desire for the spotlight –the second-guessers who’ll be asking hard questions about his priorities.

Bob Klapisch is writing a column asking hard questions about Matt Harvey's priorities. In this column Klapisch is writing he states that there will be second-guessers who'll be asking hard questions about Matt Harvey's priorities. See how this works? In the column on Harvey's priorities Klapisch is warning second-guessers will write exactly what he is writing in the column. It's all circular. It's like if I wrote an article on how Jake Locker might be a closeted homosexual because he drives a Dodge Neon and then in the article I state that some people are going to accuse Locker of being a homosexual for driving a Dodge Neon. I would be the person I am warning Locker about. 

Remember how A-Rod allowed himself to be photographed shirtless by the New York Post in Central Park? Kissing himself in the mirror for Details magazine? Bad decisions, all.

It's all about A-Rod. It always is and it always will be. "Don't be A-Rod." That's the lesson. Remember that time Derek Jeter posed shirtless with other MLB shortstops?  Whatever happened to that Jeter guy? It ruined his career didn't it?

(My favorite pose is that of Rey Ordonez. He's trying to give his best "sexy eyes" to the camera and it looks like he has to take a huge shit and would appreciate it if the cameraman would stop taking pictures so he can run to the bathroom)

There’s plenty of room for expressionism, but at age 24, Harvey probably could use some help picking his spots.

I'd love to know from Bob Klapisch which "spot" is best for Matt Harvey to do some modeling in. My guess would be "never and at no time." 

“If I was playing today, I would be aware of Instagram and Twitter. I would make sure I had someone in charge of things that are in the public eye,” Darling said.

Oh sure, of course you would Ron. Darling was taken and "lusted" for fame and celebrity in 1986, but in an era where it is much easier to get your picture and thoughts out into the world Ron would have been MORE careful about what he put in the public. I completely don't believe this at all. Logic would indicate if Ron Darling wanted celebrity in 1986 at the age of 26 he would still want celebrity in 2013 if he was 26 years old. Let's not take part in some revisionist history here. Darling would most likely have acted the same way if he played baseball in 2013, except he would have had an Instagram and Twitter account and probably would not have minded appearing in the ESPN Body Issue.

Sure, knowing what he knows now Darling may have wanted to do things differently, but I'm betting if Darling were a 26 year old playing for the Mets he wouldn't have been as "in charge of things" as he wants us to believe he would be. It's nice to pretend otherwise though.  

Drill down another level and the question becomes one of legacy. Who does Harvey want to be —a star pitcher or a celebrity?

He can actually be both. He can be a star pitcher who has appeared in the ESPN Body Issue and New York Post doing some modeling, and unlike Ron Darling, he managed not to criticize his manager. 

Does he want the back page or Page Six? Is he a great guy or just a guy with a great body?

Does it really matter if it doesn't impact how he pitches? I'm not sure one appearance modeling in a sports magazine means Matt Harvey's priorities aren't where they should be.

My copy of ESPN’s Body Issue arrived in the mail Tuesday and I admit I was curious enough to flip through the pages. Specifically, I wanted to know what attracted Matt Harvey to the idea of posing nude. - See more at: http://www.northjersey.com/sports/Klapisch_Posing_nude_wasnt_Matt_Harveys_best_decision.html?page=all#sthash.XzvxMOKZ.dpuf

My copy of ESPN’s Body Issue arrived in the mail Tuesday and I admit I was curious enough to flip through the pages. Specifically, I wanted to know what attracted Matt Harvey to the idea of posing nude. - See more at: http://www.northjersey.com/sports/Klapisch_Posing_nude_wasnt_Matt_Harveys_best_decision.html?page=all#sthash.XzvxMOKZ.dpuf

My copy of ESPN’s Body Issue arrived in the mail Tuesday and I admit I was curious enough to flip through the pages. Specifically, I wanted to know what attracted Matt Harvey to the idea of posing nude. - See more at: http://www.northjersey.com/sports/Klapisch_Posing_nude_wasnt_Matt_Harveys_best_decision.html?page=all#sthash.XzvxMOKZ.dpuf

0 comments Terence Moore Says Lifetime Contracts are Great, Except When They Aren't, and Mike Trout Doesn't Deserve One but Bryce Harper Does

I think readers of this blog are familiar enough with Terence Moore at this point. He's sort of my new Joe Morgan. He hates instant replay, thinks team celebrations are not exciting anymore, and doesn't understand Scott Boras drives a hard bargain for his free agent clients. Now Terence is talking about "forever" contracts and how they are a great idea...except when they aren't. Terence not surprisingly gets the "forever" contract that Evan Longoria signed with the Rays confused with long-term contracts MLB teams sign free agents to. Longoria's contract is an example of a team signing a player it drafted to a long-term deal, while teams that sign free agents to a long-term contract are just signing a free agent to a long-term contract. There is a difference in perception among fans and the public alike. It's all the same to Terence and he doesn't find it important to write a column that is coherent and accurate on the topic discussed without ruining his own argument. Who cares if Terence is talking in generalities or compares Longoria's contract to non-analogous situations? You get his point. "Forever" contracts are good, unless they aren't.

The Tampa Bay Rays just did the right thing by signing Evan Longoria to one of those "forever" contracts. Thus a question:

How will Evan Longoria project out to the ages of 35-37? I don't really know but I look forward to a discussion by Terenc---

What's taking the Washington Nationals so long?

Spoiler alert: Terence Moore will soon refer to the free agent contracts signed by Albert Pujols and Prince Fielder as one of these "forever" contracts when they aren't. There are two major differences in the contract Longoria signed and Pujols/Fielder signed. Pujols/Fielder signed contracts as free agents, which is something Longoria was not, and they didn't sign these "forever" contracts with the team that signed them. The situations are not analogous. I spoil this fun revelation to point out two things:

1. The Nationals did sign Ryan Zimmerman to a contract that runs until he is 36 years old. So they have some history of signing their players to so-called "forever" contracts, providing the player and the player's agent are amenable to this of course. 

2. Terence is wrong on every account. If he includes a free agent contract as a "forever" contract then the Nationals Jayson Werth to a "forever" contract two years ago. Of course, this contract isn't analogous to Longoria's contract, so Terence is wrong on two counts.

They should do the same with Bryce Harper and Stephen Strasburg. 

I mean this in the nicest way possible, but is Terence Moore slow? Does he not follow baseball? Why don't the Nationals sign Strasburg and Harper to lifetime contracts? Two words why. Scott Boras. When was the last time Boras encouraged one of his elite baseball clients to sign a team-friendly deal or even re-sign with his current team and forgo free agency? I can't recall a time when Boras has advised his clients to do either of these things. Boras clients have signed deals with their current team, but he doesn't advise it. So outside of even having a discussion on what the terms of this contract would be for these two players, how would the Nationals even give Strasburg or Harper a "forever" contract if their agent suggests they don't sign one? Not to mention, Harper is 20 years old. A "forever" contract for him would be 15 years worth. That's quite a commitment. Not to further mention, Stephen Strasburg is just coming off Tommy John surgery. Giving him a seven year deal right now is a bit of a risk, even if Scott Boras would recommend Strasburg sign this long-term deal, which he probably wouldn't do.

Inquiring minds have a similar question for the New York Yankees regarding Robinson Cano. With their prized second baseman due to become a free agent after next season, why not give him a Longoria deal now,

Well, Cano is three years older than Longoria, the Yankees extended him in 2008, and his agent? Scott Boras. I'm seeing a trend here and it is a trend that Terence Moore doesn't seem capable of noticing in his columns. Scott Boras clients don't exactly sign "forever" deals prior to free agency nor do they give discounts to their current team. It is fun for Terence to ask questions for others to answer and refuse to work hard enough to get the answer for himself. 

Plus, the combination of the baseball gods, Tony Bennett (as in, "I left my heart ...") and common sense knows that Buster Posey deserves a lifetime contract with the San Francisco Giants. 

Of course, it isn't like Posey plays catcher, the position on the baseball field hardest on the body. He'll hold up fine and can play first base if need be. Where's his $200 million contract?

Mike Trout? I'm not saying his monster season as a rookie was a fluke, but before the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim think of committing to Trout like the Rays did to Longoria, they need to wait a little while -- like until the middle of next season. 

But that Bryce Harper? He's for real. Who cares Harper has been in the majors as long as Trout? Terence doesn't know enough about Trout to say he deserves a "forever" contract, but he's seen enough of Bryce Harper to know he needs a contract extension immediately. Throw in the fact Terence also believes Stephen Strasburg, a pitcher coming off major arm surgery, should also get a "forever" deal and I'm not sure how he can't think the same for Mike Trout.

So in summary, Mike Trout shouldn't be signed to a "forever" contract because Terence Moore doesn't have enough proof he is for real yet, but Bryce Harper, it's a shame he hasn't signed a 15 year deal with the Nationals yet. Nevermind the logic of randomly differentiating between two similarly-aged rookies who both play the outfield by saying one deserves a long-term contract NOW and the other does not. Logic is overrated.

Mike Trout almost won the MVP in his first season in the majors, as well as plays in the American League, while Bryce Harper plays in the National League. If both players were signed to long-term deals, at worst the Angels know they can play Trout at DH, but if something happened to Harper over the long-term to where he wasn't excellent on defense anymore the Nationals don't have such a chance to put him at the DH. So if you put a gun to my head, I would say Trout probably should get a "forever" contract over Harper. 

These "forever" contracts work.

Well, most of the time. They are good for the player, because they guarantee that player a designated amount of income for long stretches, regardless of that player's ups and downs through it all.

It's not always good for the player because it also buys out their arbitration years. Not only because arbitration is the gift that keeps on taking from teams (I'm just bitter from seeing how much money in arbitration Jeff Francoeur received to be a shitty hitter), it also means a player could be reducing how much money he could make in the prime years of his career since most players would normally go to arbitration in their mid-20's.

They are also good for the team, because if that player becomes even more prolific on the field, it saves the team from losing the player through free agency or having to engage in future bidding wars. 

Of course it is also tying up payroll for the future which could cause a team to be forced to trade these players below market value due to the money they are being paid. This doesn't happen too often (a player signing a deal 1-2 years after being in the majors and then not playing well to the point he gets traded), but there is still some risk involved with buying out a player's arbitration years.

Indians ownership agreed with Hart, and then he gave his version of "forever" deals to the likes of Albert Belle, Kenny Lofton, Jim Thome, Carlos Baerga, Omar Vizquel, Manny Ramirez and Charles Nagy.

These silly facts that always get in the way of Terence Moore's point, can't they just go away? Terence Moore is either misremembering or outright lying here. I'll let you decide which.

-I'm pretty sure Manny Ramirez was never signed to a long-term contract with the Indians. He seems to have left for Boston right after he had his service time with the Indians in. Either way, if the Indians thought they signed him to a "forever" deal they did a shitty job of actually doing it because Ramirez was playing for the Boston Red Sox at the age of 29. Maybe "forever" only goes to the age of 29 in Terence Moore's world.

-Albert Belle also left the Cleveland Indians before "forever" had ended. It seems he played for them until he was 29 years old and had joined the Chicago White Sox by the age of 30.

-Kenny Lofton was traded to the Braves before he could hit free agency in the mid-1990's and then was signed by the Indians in free agency. I'm not sure if you would consider that signing him to a "forever" deal or not since the Indians traded him initially.

-Carlos Baerga was traded by the Indians at the age of 27 and then was signed by the Cardinals as a free agent. Again, if the Indians intended to give Baerga a "forever" deal, they did a crappy job of actually doing it.

So I don't completely understand how Terence Moore thinks these players were signed to "forever" deals by the Indians when it seems few of the players he listed actually were re-signed to long-term contracts.

Even though the Milwaukee Brewers haven't precisely duplicated the Indians' model under Hart, they did give a "forever" contract to Ryan Braun. The same goes for the Colorado Rockies with Troy Tulowitzki, the Angels with Albert Pujols, the Detroit Tigers with Prince Fielder and the Cincinnati Reds with Joey Votto. 

No. Not at all. The Angels and Tigers didn't give Pujols/Fielder "forever" deals. They signed these two players in free agency. There is a huge difference. An analogous situation to Evan Longoria would be if a team drafted a player and then re-signed him before he hit free agency. In fact, the Cardinals did sign Pujols to a "forever" deal, but then it ran out and he signed the Cardinals. The Tigers just signed Fielder in free agency. It's clear Terence took about five minutes to write this column without doing any thinking about what he was writing or checking to see if his facts were correct.

Bottom line: If you know somebody is a lasting star (or at least you think he is), why not sign him for the long run? 

Great point. Here's a better point. If you know a player on another team is going to be a lasting star, why not just trade for him? It's not like there is a cost to acquire a player just like there isn't a cost to sign a player to a long-term contract.

Terence Moore has no concept of a budget and how a General Manager plans payroll.

As MLB.com's Adam Berry wrote earlier this season: "Those lower-payroll clubs can't afford to make a huge free-agent investment then see it fail, but they can realistically risk a $10 million-$13 million mistake." 

This fails no matter whether this is $10 million-$13 million per year or over the length of a contract. In that case, the Giants should ask Buster Posey if he wants a contract worth 6 years at $13 million and see how long he laughs. He would laugh if the contract offer were 6 years at $60 million. The Nationals should call up Scott Boras and tell him they are perfectly willing to offer Strasburg or Harper a chance at a 10 year $100 million contract each and see if Boras even bothers continuing with the conversation.

Not all players can have their arbitration years bought out at four years at $13 million, so Terence either means $10-$13 million per year or he isn't really talking about giving a long-term contract to these up-and-coming players. Guys like Bryce Harper, Steven Strasburg, and probably Mike Trout wouldn't take a four year deal for $13 million.

It's about using the right criteria for signing a "forever" player, and the blueprint looks much like Longoria.

You want somebody who can play. 

I don't know why a MLB team hasn't hired Terence Moore as their General Manager yet. You need players who can play? Those are the type of guys you sign to a long-term contract? No way.

You want somebody who won't grow ancient with the contract.

Check. Longoria turned 27 last month. 

But Longoria will be 37 years old when the contract ends. We don't know now if that is ancient or not, but you never know how a player will age. What looks good in 2012 may not look as good in 2020.

Check. Since Longoria is popular with teammates and fans, he is marketable for the Rays.
That said, during the early years of Longoria's career, he hasn't exactly been Lou Gehrig in terms of durability. This past season, he was around for only 74 games after partially tearing his left hamstring in April. He also missed much of the previous season with an oblique injury. 

But he's 27 years old. He's probably going to get more healthy as he ages, like many pro athletes are prone to doing. Athletes are always getting injured when they are young and then being very durable as they get to the other side of 30 years old.

I never said "forever" deals are perfect. 

You didn't. But you also said the Longoria deal fit the criteria for a player who deserves a "forever" contract while skimming over the part where he has had injury issues while being only 27 years old. 

Rodriguez was supposedly locked in with the Texas Rangers for life after he signed a 10-year deal for $252 million in 2000.

I hope Terence Moore doesn't think this is analogous to the Evan Longoria deal. It isn't. Alex Rodriguez signing with the Rangers isn't an analogous example because it isn't the Mariners signing him to this deal. This is an example of a baseball player signing an expensive long-term contract.

Then came the end of the 2007 season, when the Yankees gave Rodriguez his second "forever" contract. 

Okay, now I think Terence is just using the term "forever contract" to describe a long-term contract. He's making my head hurt.

Rodriguez is 37, and that will be Longoria's age when his current deal with the Rays expires. 

But remember Terence, you said Longoria is 27 so he won't grow ancient with the contract? Rodriguez has been declining over the last three seasons and so if he has declined then it is entirely possible Longoria could as well. I'm not saying it is a bad contract for the Rays, it's just I'm not entirely sure what Terence is getting at. He seems to support contracts like Longoria's, yet (as usual) he is ruining his own point.

Rays executive vice president of baseball operations Andrew Friedman isn't concerned with it all.

"It gives it a much better chance than not of that happening. And all sides understand and appreciate the risk associated with it."

Makes sense to me.

Makes sense to me too. This is why it is such a great to sign up-and-coming players to "forever" contracts, so both sides can benefit...except for Mike Trout. The Angels need to wait-and-see before giving him a long-term contract. Giving a long-term contract to Bryce Harper or Steven Strasburg is a brilliant idea though. It's not like Strasburg has had any major surgery recently or anything like that. 

0 comments Terence Moore Does Scott Boras' Job for Him

Scott Boras is a very successful agent for MLB players. He's probably the most successful in the history of baseball, at least in terms of the amount of money he has been able to get for his players on the free agent market. Think of a big name player and the odds are reasonably good that Scott Boras is the agent for this player. He has what is known as the "Boras Binder" of statistics which makes any of his potential free agents sound like future Hall of Famers and he routinely gets at least one MLB team to bite on a (crazy) contract for his clients. So knowing all of this, you wouldn't expect Scott Boras to need help finding his players a job and a multi-year contract, but Terence Moore is willing to help him anyway. Michael Bourn is a free agent and Scott Boras is his agent. Terence Moore writes about Michael Bourn and how teams (specifically the Atlanta Braves) should sign him to a contract. It seems Terence can't understand why the Braves don't sign Bourn to a big, multi-year contract immediately. Terence only mentions Scott Boras once in this column, despite Boras' demands on a multi-year deal being the biggest impediment to the Braves or any team signing Bourn. Terence also doesn't seem to care for any type of projecting to see if Bourn would even be worth $15 million per year next year, much less four years down the road.

I'm not trying to do a hack job on Bourn, but Boras is going to want $100 million for him and speedy centerfielders without power have a habit of not getting better as they get further away from the age of 30. 

I love center fielders, so I love Michael Bourn. 

How about crappy center fielders? Do you like crappy center fielders simply because they are center fielders? Actually, don't answer that.

Those old black-and-white films of Mickey Mantle and Willie Mays doing their things are intoxicating. 

I've got bad news. Michael Bourn isn't Mickey Mantle or Willie Mays.

Remember Paul Blair? He was hitting challenged, but his glove, legs and arm were among the primary reasons the Baltimore Orioles had those four 20-game winners in 1971. 

A less mature person would take this opportunity to mention that wins are an overrated statistic, because as Terence Moore states here, how many wins a pitcher has partially depends on him having great center fielders like Paul Blair. I'm more mature than that though and won't mention my feelings on wins.  

There also were those magic center fielders before Blair, ranging from Ty Cobb to Tris Speaker to Joe DiMaggio. Then there were those after Blair, ranging from Kirby Puckett to Ken Griffey Jr. to Torii Hunter. And there are those now that include rookie sensation Mike Trout, Adam Jones, Josh Hamilton and Bourn. 

Three of those names don't belong in this discussion quite yet. I'll allow you to guess which three names those are.

So this is just me: If you have a center fielder of note these days, you should keep him no matter what. 

If a team has a budget they need to stick to, then this strategy is probably the best way to spend valuable payroll space on a player who is overpaid. There are very few players who should be kept "no matter what" and the fact Michael Bourn is a center fielder doesn't automatically put him in this discussion. Even Albert Pujols was allowed by the Cardinals to depart in free agency last year. Blind loyalty to a player and an open checkbook to pay that player is an easy and fast way to put a non-winning team on the field. I think this is especially true when a player has hit free agency and a team is bidding against other MLB teams for that player's services.

So no, Michael Bourn should not be kept no matter what. His salary demands and how he projects during the length of his contract are very important matters to be considered.

Gold Glove-caliber defense? That's a given for the kind of center fielder I'm talking about. And if the guy can hit a little, while providing you with some zip on the basepaths and spark in the clubhouse -- well, you really need to make sure he doesn't leave anytime soon.

I have three separate issues with this statement:

1. Yes, Michael Bourn provides great defense and is fast on the base paths. Bourn also can hit a little. He hit just a little in the second half of the season...meaning he didn't hit very well in the second half of his contract year. Bourn hit .225/.325/.311 in the second half of the 2012 season. Bourn's splits are very even over his entire career between the first and second half of the season, so maybe the second half of the 2012 season was an outlier.

Terence also doesn't project Bourn's performance into the later years of his four or five year contract. This link from NBC Sports sums it up very well. 

Bourn strikes out a lot for a leadoff hitter and whichever team that signs him will have to get their value out of him in the early part of his contract, because his proficiency for striking out and lack of power don't seem like they will project well into the future. Bourn will always be a fast guy (probably) on the base paths and play very good defense, but his value as a player depends on what kind of contract he signs this offseason. Speaking of which...

2. Terence Moore blindly saying a team should re-sign a center fielder without even discussing that player's salary demands is very poor writing, as well as a very elementary way to write a column. Salary demands have to be in the forefront of a writer's mind when deciding to write a team "must" keep a pending free agent who plays center field or any position on the baseball field.

3. Terence is advocating pretty hard for Michael Bourn in this column. Is Terence Moore working for MLB.com AND getting commissions from Scott Boras? If so, that seems to be some sort of a conflict of interest. Granted, it hasn't ever hurt Jon Heyman, but that's beside the point.

I'm talking about Bourn. That's why I cringe whenever I hear a few measly millions (OK, a bunch of millions) could prohibit the Atlanta Braves from re-signing the free agent for a second full season. 

The Braves, or any other team, wouldn't be re-signing him for a second full season, but for four or five more full seasons. Therein lies the issue. Terence Moore wanted the Braves to sign a washed up Ken Griffey Jr a few seasons ago, so he clearly has no concept of salary versus the value of a player. The Braves have a fixed payroll, which Terence should know well from writing for the Atlanta Journal-Constitution for quite a few years. They have about $25 million to spend this offseason, depending on who you believe, so why would they spend $16-$20 million of this money on a center fielder when they need a left fielder/third baseman as well? More importantly, with the Uggla contract albatross on the books for three more years, why would the Braves saddle themselves with another player making $10 million or more who doesn't project to age well?

So why cringe when you learn a bunch of millions separate Bourn from the Braves? Smart teams don't blow their budget for nostalgia purposes. It makes sense to be smart on whether to offer Bourn the contract he and Scott Boras want.

As for Gold Gloves, Bourn has two of them, and he was close to snatching his third in four years this season.

I'm not going to argue his value on defense. I have seen him play quite enough to believe he is a valuable defensive center fielder and is fast on the base paths. Bourn did lead the majors for the second year in a row in being caught stealing. His steal percentage for 2012 was 76%.

He can hit, too. Despite his career batting average of .272, he was around .300 for more than a year as the definitive leadoff hitter, before he slumped in the second half of last season.

Bourn WAS around .300, before he went down to a .274 average for the season. I like how Terence acts as if Bourn's career average of .272 is some sort of outlier or doesn't reflect Bourn's true hitting ability because he hit .300 for a three month span this season. Bourn's batting average per year for his career are as follows:

2007: .277
2008: .229
2009: .285
2010: .265
2011: .294
2012: .274

These were his batting averages from age 24-29. I don't know if I can see him starting to become a .300 hitter on a consistent basis after the age of 30. So there is no "despite" his career batting average, because .274 is his career average and is a number he has always hovered around.

If that isn't enough, Bourn is a clubhouse favorite, and going back to the start of Bobby Cox's second reign with the Braves in 1991, chemistry has been as important to this franchise as pitching. 

You don't pay $15 million per year for chemistry. You pay $15 million per year for Chipper Jones or a great player who isn't an asshole in the locker room. Teams pay for chemistry plus performance.

He also keeps mentioning he prefers to stay with the Braves, and Braves officials keep saying the feeling was mutual. 

Terence Moore is a real gem. He tells us that Michael Bourn "prefers" to stay with the Braves. Of course he doesn't "prefer" this enough to sign a long term contract and forgo free agency does he? Bourn isn't dumb enough to rule out any teams he could play for as he becomes a free agent. So actions speak louder than words. If Bourn really preferred to stay in Atlanta, he would get a deal done. Instead, Bourn has Scott Boras as his agent and hasn't made this fictional "preference" known through his actions. 

Sounds like a perfect match. 

It's perfect unless you consider Bourn's financial demands and the Braves budget, as well as whether Bourn's demands match up with his skill set now and in the future. If you blindly don't consider any variables other than where Bourn claims to prefer to play, it is a perfect fit.

Bourn told me over the phone on Tuesday. "That [loss to the Cardinals in the NL Wild Card game] was tough, because I thought we had a good team. No, a great team, with all of the aspects of the game that you need. But there are a few teams out there that are likeable, and I can't put my finger on just one. So I can't narrow it down right now to just one." 

You can obviously see Bourn "prefers" the Braves if the statement "there are a few teams there that are likeable, and I can't put my finger on just one" means anything. Clearly, he doesn't necessarily want to be back in Atlanta. It's a perfect match as long as you ignore all of the variables that could potentially make it not a perfect match, like salary demands, budget constraints and Bourn's future production based on his salary.

Either way, the fact Bourn can't narrow down which team he wants to play for next year means he definitely "prefers" Atlanta.

The Braves offered Bourn a qualifying offer of $13.3 million last week, but Bourn rejected it.

He rejected the offer of $13.3 million. Again, that should tell Terence Moore something, but it doesn't.

After all, given his still-potent skills at age 29, he is expected to do much better than that in the pocketbook.

Exactly, and Bourn very well may not be worth more than $13.3 million in a season.

It also doesn't hurt his financial prospects that his agent is Scott Boras, noted for squeezing more than a few pennies out of owners. 

This is the first and only mention of Scott Boras in this column. That's not a sign of a well-written column given the subject matter discussed by Terence Moore. Scott Boras needs to be a major part of any discussion when it comes to signing Michael Bourn as a free agent.

Whatever Bourn gets, he deserves.

Not necessarily. It's good to see Terence Moore is looking at this situation from a purely neutral point of view though. He thinks a MLB team should give Michael Bourn whatever he asks for because Bourn is a fast center fielder. Whatever other criteria could be required for a $100 million contract?

I mean, given what he provides for a team, you can't overpay for his services,

No, you actually can overpay for a 30 year old center fielder who strikes out a lot, has little power, and doesn't project well into the future. Bourn's main strengths, his speed and defense are really good, but he isn't getting younger and I doubt his hitting will trend upwards as he gets older. It's entirely possible to overpay for him. Just stay tuned to find out if I am right.

and that applies to just about any other superlative center fielder -- past, present or future. 

No, it doesn't. Why can't you overpay for the services of a great center fielder, but you can overpay for the services of a great third baseman or right fielder? Why am I arguing logic when Terence Moore clearly isn't using logic?

Bourn laughed.

He agreed, of course. 

You mean a pending free agent doesn't disagree you can't overpay for his services? This is breaking news. The next thing Terence will tell us is that Michael Bourn's agent thinks he is worth as much money as a baseball team is willing to pay him.

"I think it's 1A and 1B between those two positions. The shortstop is going to get more action than the center fielder, but I'll tell you what -- you save a whole lot of runs in center field. And because of all the running you do, you have to be in great shape. 

Which is why it is important to not overpay for a center fielder. Otherwise a team would have an expensive, underachieving center fielder in one of the most important positions on defense. Checkmate! Your turn now, Bourn!

"You look at what Mike Trout did this year for [the Los Angeles Angels] as a center fielder and as a leadoff hitter. It was tremendous. He has more power than I do, but we do some of the same things." 

If by "do the same things," Michael Bourn means, "We both are center fielders, are fast, and play the game of baseball," then yes, he is correct. If Michael Bourn means anything else by this statement then he is incredibly wrong. Mike Trout is a completely different offensive player from Michael Bourn. Granted, they both steal bases and hold a bat in their hands when trying to hit the baseball, but the comparison ends there. Trout stole more bases, hit more home runs, drove in more runs, got on-base more often, hit for a higher average, and nearly doubled Bourn's OPS+. I know OPS+ isn't the end-all of statistics, but Bourn's was 90 and Trout's was 171. They aren't close to being the same player right now.

No question there.

No, no, no, big question there. When has a baseball player's self-evaluation ever been off? Never. Baseball players are always able to have a reasonable evaluation of their own skill set.

It's just that Bourn has been doing them longer than Trout -- 

So Mike Trouth is a decade younger and still plays at the level of a six year veteran...and this makes Michael Bourn's value increase how? Michael Bourn is maybe, maybe, like Mike Trout in two phases of the game. Bourn steals bases (though not as frequently or as successfully) as Trout and they both play great defense. Bourn is older, strikes out nearly as often and has less power. Those are the three major concerns a team should have when signing Bourn to a $90-$100 million contract. Of course, Terence Moore thinks Bourn is worth $200 million over five years.

and Bourn hopes to keep doing those things as long as he can without jumping from team to team. 

Well, signing a long term deal no other MLB team will want to take on through a trade is certainly a way to make sure Bourn doesn't jump from team-to-team. Again, Bourn could possibly stay in Atlanta if he wanted $10 million per year. Of course the fact Bourn's actions don't match up with his words are irrelevant to Terence Moore apparently. 

Bourn said. "As a player, you would like to get comfortable in one spot, but I'm not sure where that spot is for me right now." 

I am guessing that spot will end up being whichever team ends up offering Bourn the most money. Such a coincidence that is.

Wherever it is for Bourn, the pitchers on his team will be happy -- along with the rest of his teammates, the team's fans and everybody else.

Scott Boras gives this article a stamp of approval. You can never overpay for a player like Michael Bourn. Let's fast forward to 2015 and see if that axiom is still true. 

4 comments Jon Heyman Continues His Attempts to Please Master Boras

The scene takes place about a month ago...

(A phone rings and Jon Heyman picks up) "Hello, this is Jon Heyman speaking. How can I help you today?"

(Scott Boras' voice booms) "Jonny-boy, how the fuck are you?"

(Jon Heyman) "Oh Mr. Boras, I'm real good. I'm thinking about setting up a lemonade stand later today. I just walked my dog, Mr. Patches, and now I'm eating some tasty snack treats and watching 'The Wiggles.' What can I do for you?"

(Scott Boras) "Fantastic. Here's what you can do for me. Did you know Johnny Damon hasn't been signed yet? Amazing huh? I want you rectify that. I need you to write a column saying Johnny Damon is a diamond in the rough and teams are stupid for not signing him. Do that."

(Jon Heyman giggling)

(Scott Boras) "Are you listening to me?"

(Jon Heyman still giggling) "Sorry, Mr. Patch's tongue is so rough and he kissed me on the nose. Now my nose is all itchy and wet, but it feels really good."

(Scott Boras) "Cut the shit, write the article."

(Jon Heyman) "I have told you before if my mom hears you bossing me around she is going to yell at you. She has told me you are not my boss and I can do what I want. I don't want to write about Johnny Damon (throws his shoe against the wall) You are not the boss of me!"

(Scott Boras) "Fine, don't write about him...that's not a problem. Though........I do have two tickets to the circus for next weekend. I know how much you like seeing the tigers and I would like to take you, but I'm so busy trying to find Johnny Damon a job I'm not sure I could find the time to take you. (whispers to himself) I can't believe these tickets come with free popcorn AND cotton candy."

(Jon Heyman) "Cotton candy you say? Well gee, I'd love go to the circus and it's a real tragedy Mr. Damon doesn't have a job. I know you said it isn't a problem if I don't write about him, but I feel like if I wrote about Mr. Damon I could go to the circus to see the tigers, get free cotton candy and help a guy find a job. Is it okay with you if I write about Johnny Damon?"

(Scott Boras rubs his hands together excitedly) "If you have to. I feel bad though. You write about him every offseason. I'll pick you up at 5pm on Saturday for the circus and you can ride shotgun. How's that sound?"

(Jon Heyman) "Shotgun? You're the best Mr. Boras! I'm starting the column right now...or just as soon as Mr. Patches stops kissing my forehead with his super slimy tongue!"

And this is the result...

Johnny Damon doesn't get it, doesn't get why he's not getting offers after the year he had.

I personally don't understand why Johnny Damon isn't getting offers either, but this goes for Derrick Lee, J.D. Drew, Magglio Ordonez, and a few other players. Yet, the columnist who is well-known for trying to sell Scott Boras clients to MLB teams picks the Scott Boras client to pimp. This is not a coincidence.

It has gotten so bad, Jon Heyman is actually pimping Damon to teams that say they have no interest in signing Johnny Damon. Not too unusual for a team to say they have no interest in a player, right? Well Heyman doesn't accept that answer as a "no" and still insists on Damon signing with the Orioles, even though there isn't a hell of a lot of interest on the Orioles part.

"I think it's a perfect fit,'' Damon said of the Yankees by phone. "But for some reason you have the year I had, especially with a team that has trouble scoring, and you can't even get a call to continue playing."

Damon is talking about the Yankees. The Yankees don't have trouble scoring and they need a player who isn't terrible in the field. Raul Ibanez isn't exactly Willie Mays, but he is a better option defensively than Johnny Damon, and I'm betting he is cheaper as well. That's the one part this Johnny Damon sales pitch fails to mention. How much does Damon want to play for this year? He got paid $5.25 million and if he wants anywhere close to that, Ibanez is a better option.

It is hard to blame Damon for feeling left out. The whole thing does seem very odd, indeed.

It's no odder than other older free agents not being signed at this point. Damon is 37 years old and is an American League player at this point. His OBP and Slugging % have been on a steady dive since 2008. I don't find it odd teams would prefer not to sign Damon anymore than I find it strange no team has a need for some of the other older outfielders on the free agent market. If we factored Damon's asking price into the equation, it may become even less odd.

Damon said he never got an offer from the Rays even though he had a very nice year, hitting 16 home runs with 73 RBIs with 19 stolen bases and a .261 batting average while playing home games in the ballpark that was the best pitchers' park American League last year.

I'm not sure if Jon Heyman heard or not, but the Rays tend to be on a tight budget. Paying $3 million for an aging outfielder who can be replaced by a better player (Desmond Jennings) probably is not a smart move for them.

He also put together an improbable streak of five consecutive games with game-winning hits and became a leader with the young team that had a magical finish.

Damon is magical ya'll!

Meanwhile, different reasons have been heard why the Yankees favor Ibanez, one sillier than the next.

The reasons are silly to you. Your opinion doesn't necessarily reflect reality. There are other candidates on the free agent market who can be bought at a lower price than Damon who may have a higher ceiling, as well as can play the field better than Damon.

One reason heard is that Ibanez hit better against right-handed pitchers last year, and if you count .256 as better than .255, then yes, that is the case. But it seems like that would be far from a driving force in a decision.

I'm sure there were other driving forces, like salary requirements and whether the Yankees like Ibanez more than Damon. Which player would I choose? Damon, but the price the Yankees got Ibanez for makes his signing an almost non-risk. So based on price, I may not choose Damon.

Damon didn't play much defense last year when the Rays had better defensive alternatives such as Brandon Jennings, B.J. Upton and Sam Fuld.

That's a slap in the face. The Rays thought the point guard for the Milwaukee Bucks was a better option than Johnny Damon? Hard to come back from that.

"When you have Jennings and Upton, of course I'm going to DH," Damon said. "When I played out there, I held my own."

Damon thinks he held his own. I'm not sure the most unbiased opinion to be found on Damon's defensive abilities is the opinion of Johnny Damon.

But even if Ibanez is slightly better with the glove now, having played it regularly in Philly, defense seems like a funny way to pick a DH.

Not if that DH is going to be playing either right or left field on occasion.

Yet another reason heard recently is that Damon's .326 on-base percentage last year is a sign he's thinking too much about 3,000 hits and not getting on like before. This is the winner for sheer ridiculousness of course, as Ibanez's 2011 on-base percentage of .289 (with 33 walks all year) would be the statistic of concern, not Damon's .326.

You don't often hear a national columnist questioning a team's signing of a player over another specific player, complete with statistical evidence. I guess that's what happens when Master Boras tells Jon Heyman he won't send him scoops on "mystery teams" and other information if Heyman doesn't pimp out Boras clients from time-to-time.

Damon is more than a fine teammate, he's been a key man on two World Series winners,

Raul Ibanez? He's a royal asshole. In fact, he drowned Brett Gardner's bunny in a bathtub just a few days ago.

This doesn't sound like a typical "why isn't free agent X signed yet" column, does it? It feels like Heyman is not a national columnist, but a local beat writer who has taken a liking to a certain player.

the historic 2004 Boston Red Sox and the 2009 Yankees.

Damon is magical AND historic.

Damon is a winner, always has been.

Damon wasn't such a winner when he played for those Kansas City Royal teams early in his career. It's amazing what playing for the Yankees, Rays, early 2000 A's and Red Sox will do for a guy's reputation as a winner.

Ibanez is by all accounts a very nice fellow, but Damon is a big clubhouse presence who always has been the one to stand up and answer the tough questions when things aren't going well.

So all MLB teams, when preparing for failure this year be sure to sign Johnny Damon so he can answer all the tough questions about the team's failures.

Damon, who at 38 is also a year younger than Ibanez, may not be the defender he once was, but the job is for a DH, and Damon has all the experience at that. Damon also has a superb history in the American League East, having thrived for all three of the big teams in that division.

Yet again, the "x-factor" that hasn't been acknowledged at this point is how much money Damon wants. Everything sounds good until you read at one point Damon wanted about $5 million for a one year deal. Considering Ibanez is $4 million cheaper, that could be the reason the Yankees preferred him. Heyman conveniently leaves price out of this discussion.

It can't be about the money, either, because Damon hasn't gotten an offer.

Perhaps he hasn't had an offer because the money he is reported to be requesting has been too expensive. So the reason very well can be money if Scott Boras has informed any team contacting Boras as Damon's agent that Damon wants $5 million per year. If this price is too high, then an offer may never occur. So it very well could be the money. If a house for sale is listed at a price way too high above how much you are willing to pay for it, would you put an offer in on the house? Probably not, unless you think the price can be lowered. I'm assuming since Boras is Damon's agent teams are not expecting Damon's price to be lowered very soon.

he said he didn't get one from Tampa, which gave Luke Scott a $5 million deal off an injury year,

Luke Scott is also 33 years old and put up three straight seasons of 20+ homeruns and a OBP of at least .336 before his "injury year" in 2011. He is perhaps worth $5 million to the Rays.

So Tampa took Scott off a year of injuries, and Damon sees that Ibanez may get the job he wants after Ibanez's season of outs.

Not that Heyman sounds bitter about this at all. No, he's being a completely neutral observer of this situation and is not at all angry Boras' client isn't getting more attention.

Damon is in Hawaii enjoying a planned vacation. But he has one eye on the phone.

"Hopefully it rings soon," he said, "and whether it rings in a few minutes or a few weeks, I'll be ready with the bat."

But he may not bring a glove and perhaps won't receive $5 million for a one year contract.

Well done Jon Heyman. You have served your Master Boras well yet again. Come sit down on Master Boras' lap and have a chocolate chip cookie.