December 5, 2003

Texas Ready To Swap A-Rod For Manny? It's the trade rumor that will not die. The Dallas Morning News reports that the Rangers are willing to send Alex Rodriguez to Boston in exchange for Manny Ramirez if the Red Sox assume all of A-Rod's contract and pay "a significant portion" of Manny's. The Rangers would expect Boston to pay at least $5 million of Ramirez's contract, meaning they'd be paying between $25-30 million for A-Rod each of the next five years. Boston is highly unlikely to do that -- the club favors a straight 1-for-1 swap. A Red Sox official said the matter would probably be settled at the winter meetings in New Orleans, which begin late next week. ... The Fort Worth Star-Telegram adds that the deal may hinge on whether the Red Sox can trade Nomar Garciaparra, a deal the paper says the team is "actively pursuing." In addition, because Ramirez would be traded in the middle of a multi-year contract, he could demand a trade after one year, and if that was not done, choose to become a free agent. Would Texas trade Rodriguez and then let Manny get away too? That would certainly free up a ton of money for them. It's questionable whether Ramirez would test the free agency market again, though.

Randy Galloway: "On occasion, Manny makes headlines by doing something stupid, like drinking with friends for several hours in the hotel bar when he's supposed to be too ill to play." Is sports the only part of the newspaper in which it is okay to blatantly disregard know facts and write bold-faced lies? If Writer X were to state as truth that during his last State of the Union address George W. Bush showed up drunk and told his Democratic critics to "F Themselves!" (something that was easily proven false) would that be allowed to run unquestioned in the paper? I doubt it. You could ask Galloway yourself if you like.

From Lee Sinins's "Around The Majors": According to the LA Times, "despite getting Vazquez and pursuing Pettitte, the Yankees are determined to bring Brown to the Bronx because of their payroll battle with the Red Sox. ... According to the Minneapolis Star Tribune, the A's, Mariners, Red Sox and Cubs have made offers to free agent P Eddie Guardado and his agent expects a decision by the end of the weekend. ... According to the Seattle Times, the Mariners have made a 3 year, $24-25 million offer to free agent SS Miguel Tejada. ... Cardinals CF Jim Edmonds had shoulder surgery and the team expects him to ready for spring training. ... According to the Seattle Post Intelligencer, the Mariners have made a 1 year, $4 million offer to free agent CF Mike Cameron. ... According to, the Angels are aggressively pursuing free agent P Bartolo Colon. ... [subscribe]

Fat Billy from Ohio: "Andy would be part of a strong rotation here [Houston]. He wouldn't have to go it alone like I did for all those years before I got to New York. It could be a good situation. ... Andy's earned the right to be paid like a Schilling or a Martinez." Putting aside the shot the TCM takes at his Boston and Toronto teammates, let's look at ERA+ (the ratio of the league's ERA (adjusted to the pitcher's ballpark) to that of the pitcher). >100 is above average and <100 is below average. (I did not include years in which only a few innings were pitched.)
        AP    CS    PM 
1990         149 
1991          92 
1992         149 
1993         100   151 
1994          96   123 
1995   110   121   120 
1996   131   138   120 
1997   154   143   221 
1998   105   134   160 
1999    95   130   245 
2000   116   124   285 
2001   112   154   189 
2002   134   136   196 
2003   109   159   212 
Car.   117   129   174
Pettitte pitched better than both Schilling and Pedro exactly 0 times. In 7 of the last 9 years (and the last 6), Pettitte finished behind both hurlers. In fact, he has had the best ERA+ on the Yankees exactly once (1996). Pettitte is nowhere near the pitcher Schilling or Martinez has been (to be honest, the gap between Schilling and Martinez is pretty large too). Clemens's judgment here is about as accurate as his sense of geography.

Five days ago, NPR's Diane Rehm asked Howard Dean: "Why do you think he [Bush] is suppressing that [Sept. 11] report?" Dean replied: "I don't know. There are many theories about it. The most interesting theory that I've heard so far -- which is nothing more than a theory, it can't be proved -- is that he was warned ahead of time by the Saudis. Now who knows what the real situation is?" ... Today, columnist Charles Krauthammer writes that Dean is suffering a "plague" known as "Bush Derangement Syndrome" and adds "When Rep. Cynthia McKinney (D-Ga.) first broached this idea before the 2002 primary election, it was considered so nutty it helped make her former representative McKinney." ... First, McKinney was careful at the time to say that she had no evidence of foreknowledge. And note that Dean merely calls it a "theory" which "can't be proved." Putting aside the veracity of the claim, who would deny that the Bush Administration being warned of 9/11 ahead of time is not one of the "more interesting" theories floating around? ... Of course, the Bush Administration has admitted it WAS warned one month before 9/11 that Osama bin Laden was planning to hijack commercial airliners for attacks inside the US. Indeed, it was only a few weeks after McKinney was ripped for her statements that the New York Post front page blared: "Bush Knew". The Daily News, another conservative Gotham tabloid, shouted: "Bush Had Osama Hijack Warning." ... The Bush Administration could put all these theories to rest once and for all by complying fully with the 9/11 Commission and releasing all it knew about the terrorists, any possible warnings and the attacks themselves, but to date it has instead done everything in its power to avoid any investigation.

No comments: