Better on paper?

The Yankees completed a bit of a head-scratching deal this afternoon, sending Kyle Farnsworth to Detroit in exchange for the Tigers' catcher Ivan Rodriguez.

While it's long been a dream of Yankee fans to get rid of the Goggled One, in this case his reputation precedes him. Farnsworth, for all his inconsistencies, had been pitching very well of late; in fact, since Joba Chamberlain made the transition to starter and Farnsworth inherited the 8th inning job, he's only given up runs in four appearances out of 20. He throws hard coming out of the pen -- nearly a strikeout per inning -- and has actually served as a solid set-up man for Mariano. And who inherits the 8th inning role now?

Rodriguez, on the other hand, is merely a shell of his former self. He hasn't hit for power since he stopped taking steroids. (Oh, right, allegedly. And I suppose it's just a coincidence that his body has been breaking down since.) And even his defense has suffered as years of work behind the plate have worn him down.

Regardless, I can see the rationale behind getting Pudge. Rodriguez is a step up defensively from Jose Molina and even in decline is a better hitter than Molina will ever be. In the end, this will help both teams, though I can't help wondering if the affect on the Yankee bullpen may offset any gains made by having Rodriguez behind home plate.

An Ugly, Horrible, Deflating Loss

The Mets have done a lot of good work lately in the area of collapses, but much of it was of the long-term variety. But for sheer, quick-hit terror, little compares to the Mets-Phillies game last night. What the hell happened? I’m only surprised Willie wasn’t lurking in the building somewhere.

I flip over to the game late, Mets on top and Johan Santana is grooving. Big spot in the 8th, Santana gets Howard to fly out, pumps the fist and walks off. Bottom of the inning, Santana is lifted for the pinch hitter and his night is over. Granted, hindsight is always 20/20, but here’s the big question: if Jerry Manuel KNEW that Billy Wagner was not available, might this not be a good time to let Santana go all the way?

Sure it sounds great after the fact, but it was a serious option at the time. In fact, the Mets announcers themselves were going on and on about how a nine-inning performance by Santana, against the Phillies no less, would be exactly what the Mets and Santana needed (Santana especially). He’d only thrown 105 pitches and would have been facing the 5-6-7 spots in the 9th. It was right there for the taking.

Some will say that Santana is no Roy Halladay -- true, Halladay has more complete games this season (7) than Santana has in his entire career (6). But Santana is no stranger to high pitch counts, either. He's thrown over 110 pitches six times this season and went at least 100 pitches in 13 of his 20 starts. Workhorses are meant to be ridden.

That said, if Sanchez does his job – or even a pale impersonation of his job – it’s probably not an issue today. But he didn’t, and it is. So instead of a season-defining win by their ace, a statement game against the NL's best, the Mets are suffering flashbacks to disasters past. In baseball, you’re only as good (or as bad) as your last game but the Mets haven’t exactly shown a lot of resiliency in this area recently. Assuming they get the game in tonight (the forecast calls for rain all day) I truly wonder how the Mets react.

Freedom?

No, THIS is why they hate us...

Things that go "bump" in the night

The worst-kept secret in baseball is finally out: Willie Randolph has been fired as manager of the New York Mets. And before we all get up-in-arms about the utterly classless fashion in which the news was delivered, can we all just leave the "Willie as a martyr" stuff alone? Bottom line: he's just not that good a manager, even by baseball standards. Actually, by baseball standards -- turn in your lineup cards, let the players play and don't make yourself the story -- Randolph was actually pretty lousy.

But that's not to say Willie didn't deserve better than having the world learn of his termination via a 3 AM news release. (The Wilpons must have studied at the Irsay School of Management.) No one deserves that. (Okay, Willie really does deserve it, but that's a story for another time.) But regardless of the tactics, firing Randolph was the right move. My question is, "What took you so long?" After all, some of us saw it coming quite some time ago, like, say, back in October:

Look, if you think Willie is a good manager who's only getting better, keep him. If, on the other hand, you're among the many who could go either way, who think that 2008 will tell the Willie Randolph story -- redemption or recrimination -- then why not cut bait now? Willie had arguably the National League's most talented roster and managed to grind them into the dirt. That's potential? When we're back here in October '08 reading all the post-mortems on Willie's managerial career, remember where you heard it first.

So that was me, just eight months ago, predicting Randolph's eventual demise. To be fair, even I didn't foresee this rapid a descent. But that underlies my point: Willie Randolph didn't show anything over his brief managerial career that would lead one to believe that he's any better than he'd shown over the past season-plus. If I might quote myself again:

I’ve heard time and again about all the experience Willie gained from his time as a Yankees coach. Let me tell you: sitting next to the guy driving the bus is not the same thing as driving the bus... Can the Mets really afford a manager who's learning on the job?

Question asked, question answered. But the nagging question that should be on the minds of all Mets' fans today is that if Willie could be so easily dismissed by the owners after a slow start, why couldn't this whole mess could have been avoided by letting Willie go last October? In the end, the Wilpons didn't save any money and they certainly didn't buy themselves any good will in the process.

So now that Step 1 of "Resuscitating a Sagging Franchise" is complete, we await Step 2. There are two ways this can go: the first, happy scenario sees Jerry Manuel energizing his team, leading them to the post-season and getting that "interim" tag removed. The second, decidedly less happy but probably more likely scenario goes like this: it becomes clear that Willie was not the cause for the Mets' decline, but rather the collection of "talent" on the field. With that, Omar Minaya becomes the next casualty. Check back in October to see how that one plays out.

Bad Job, Baseball

If a home run record falls in the forest but nobody sees it, does it count?

I just read an interesting article about Ken Griffey's chase for 600 home runs. What? You hadn't heard?

This has to be the biggest story in baseball right now.

Or at least the biggest story in Cincinnati.

It's not. Jay Bruce is the guy Reds fans are pumped up about.

It's sad that a sport that did everything it could to play down Barry Bonds' pursuit of Hank Aaron's record would miss the opportunity to showcase one of their all-time greats, both on and off the field. I knew very well that Manny is chasing 500 -- ESPN's highlights of the Red Sox include all his at-bats -- but the fact that Ken Griffey was only two homers away from an even greater milestone eluded me until today. Sure, maybe I don't know everything that's going on, but isn't that the point?

Now I realize that Griffey's image took a bit of a tumble when he strong-armed his way to the Reds. Then that ever-present smile lost some luster during those years Griffey lost to near-constant injury. And unlike some "greats" who seemed to defy age *ahem* Griffey's exploits are not what they once were. But there was a time -- 1996 through 1999 to be exact -- when no one in baseball was bigger than "The Kid". (A lot bigger than Jay Bruce will likely ever be.) So shouldn't that be worth a few headlines today?

What better way to push aside the Steroid Era than by recognizing a player who made it to the top the old-fashioned way? To be fair, Griffey doesn't go yard all that often anymore, so who knows how long it will take to break the 600 barrier. But the All-Star game is only a month or so away. Perhaps the baseball mavens can take some time out of their bloated back-slapping festival to salute a true record-breaker. Then maybe the fans who know only the "old" Griffey will get the chance to root for someone worth rooting for, one last time.

Brew Crew tries new tactic for the 9th

In an effort to shore up their beleaguered bullpen, the Milwaukee Brewers have signed "Knocked Up" star Seth Rogen to be their new closer.

Fitting Tex for Pinstripes?

Sports Illustrated's Jon Heyman wrote an interesting article today about the sweepstakes that's shaping up this off-season for the services of Mark Teixeira. And naturally, along with any talk of a big free agent is the obligatory mention that the Yankees will be an interested party. In fact, Heyman handicaps the Yankees as the early favorite:

Yankees. No shot they bring back Giambi and his .150 batting average for $26 million next year. The $5-million buyout will be the best money they've ever spent. The Yankees are believed to be interested in Teixeira and also interested in keeping him away from the team that plays eight miles to the south, in Queens. Odds: 3-2.

I'll agree with everything he said there -- after all, no one has been more of a symbol of the Yankees decline from the pinnacle than the ever-declining Giambi. With Giambi, Mussina and Pavano all off the books next season, the Yankees will be flush with free agent cash.

Plus, who wouldn’t love to have Teixeira’s big bat and gold glove in the lineup every day, especially considering how much of a black hole 1st base has been for the Yanks of late? Besides his offense, having Teixeira out there makes the Yankees a better defensive team than they've been in years. That will save plenty of runs over the course of a season.

But before we get carried away, signing Teixeria is no slam dunk. Heyman raised the first red flags:

[S]omeone who follows the markets and [Teixeira's agent Scott] Boras predicts that the asking price could begin with "2's'' as in $20 million per year and $200 million total.

No offense to Big Tex, but who wants to pay another $200 million for a player, any player? While position players have been better investments than pitchers, a 10-year contract still makes it a very, very long time to be tethered to the same player. And top of that he's a Boras client -- never a good thing. (Besides, it’s not like the Yankees and Boras are on very good terms.)

Plus, when staring down an investment of that size, the ultimate scrutiny on career numbers comes down. Not that it's necessarily an indication of future performance -- after all, he won't be facing Yankee pitching in Yankee Stadium -- but playing in the Bronx has not been a haven for Teixeira. For his career, Teixeira has batted a respectable .308 in Yankee Stadium, but with an alarming lack of power.

In 91 career at-bats at the Stadium, Teixeira has only four home runs, for a rate of one home run every 22.8 at-bats. Compare that to his current home park, Turner Field, where Tex has homered once almost every 13 times to the plate (13 HR in 177 AB, 13.4). That rate is even better than his old home ballpark in Arlington, where he clubbed 84 homers in 1,316 at-bats, a rate of one homer every 15.6 times up. And that 22.8 mark comes even though he's hit home runs at a better rate left-handed (one every 16 AB) than right-handed (19 AB). Apparently, Yankee Stadium's friendly right-field porch hasn't done much for him.

So what does it all mean? Teixeira would look great in a Yankee uniform, and his presence would certainly help the team. But something tells me that the Boras-driven contract is ultimately going to be too steep. Even the Yankees have to have a limit.