Every Rose Has Its Thorn

I've had this one in the back of my head for a while, but Scott Peters sent me what was seemingly an innocent email on Christmas Eve saying, "First question of the New Year, should Pete Rose be in the hall of fame"

This is sort of about Peter Edward Rose. It is also sort of about Scott Peters ruining Christmas because the obsessive compulsive research started almost immediately after his email.

PAGE I

The Rose I'm referring to in the title is the game of baseball, and not the player.  The "thorn" is gambling.  It could also be Pete.

The accomplishments of Pete Rose are plenty.

• 1963 rookie of the year (beat out hall of famer Joe Morgan, Rusty Staub, Rico Carty, Dick Allen, Jesus Alou and 66 other players that debuted in the National League that season)
• 17 time All-Star games (behind only Aaron (21), Mays (20), Musial (20), Ripken (19), Carew (18), Yaztrzemski (18) and tied with Williams - all in the Hall of Fame)
• 1975 World Series MVP
• 2 Gold Gloves
• 1 Silver Slugger
• 3 Batting Championships
• 2 times leading the league in On Base Percentage
• 4 times leading the league in At Bats
• 4 times leading the league in Runs Scored
• 7 times leading the league in Hits
• 3 times leading the league in Singles
• 5 times leading the league in Doubles
• 10 seasons with 100 Runs scored (tied for 13th all time)
• 10 seasons with 200 Hits (tied for the most all time with Ichiro Suzuki)
• Was National League MVP in 1973
• Played the most career games (3,562)
• Most career At Bats (14,053)
• Most career Hits (4,256)
• Most career singles (3,215)
• Most career doubles by a switch hitter (746)
• Most times reaching base career (5,929)
• Major League Baseball's last Player Manager 

So sticking with just simple player accomplishments, that list would surely get him into the hall right?  But was he really THAT good?  If the whole gambling thing wouldn't have happened was he a slam dunk?  Was he in the conversation of the best player ever?  I don't know.  He made the All-Star team from 5 different defensive positions.  Is that because he wasn't good enough to stick at any of them but they needed his bat in the lineup; or was he simply versatile?  That sounds like a stretch, but I'm not as sure as I used to be.

Anyone who's traipsed through these BLOGs knows that I'm a big fan of WAR.  A WAR of "7.0" would indicate a superstar season.  By superstar I mean should get consideration for an MVP.  Barry Bonds (a discussion for another day) was above 7.0 fourteen (14) times!  Mays and Aaron 13.  Ruth had 12. Gehrig and Wagner 10.   A-Rod (see Bonds), Schmidt, Musial, Williams, Hornsby, Speaker, Pujols, Mathews, Collins and Cobb are all at 9.  Rose is at one (1).  To be clear, he was better than the league average at his position by a value of 7 wins (again, that's huge) one season of his career.  

Josh Donaldson has had a +7.0 WAR 3 times.  Bautista twice.  Are either of them going to the Hall?  Almost zero chance.  Donaldson, if he repeated last year for the next 8 would have a chance.  It ain't gonna happen.  

Now the one season that Rose was over 7.0 was also the year he won the MVP.  That makes a lot of sense.  

Above are the 1973 stats for Pete Rose and his teammate Joe Morgan.  There are a few interesting things when comparing these two players.  The first is that Rose, who had this reputation of "Charlie Hustle" really wasn't all that.  It was a mystique.  His head first dives into second base were legendary and graced magazine covers.  Yet in his best season ever, he had 10 stolen bases to Morgan's 67.  In fact, Rose had 20 once in his career, and he had exactly 20 in fact, with Philadelphia in 1979.  He had more steals than caught stealing in only 13 of his 24 seasons.  Charlie Hustle or Charlie Stupid?  Okay, the 2nd thing is that despite Rose having 63 more hits than Morgan; Morgan's on base plus slugging is still superior AND his WAR (which led the league) was off the charts.  The 3rd and final thing, which is not evident in the stats is that Morgan had this monster year while playing 2nd base.  Other than Short Stop and catcher there is no more cerebral and physically demanding defensive position on the diamond.  Rose played left field which is where people who can't play right and center go.  You can make a very strong argument for Rose not winning the 1973 MVP.  

And that was his best year.  

1973 MVP season aside, was Rose 'good enough' for the Hall?  Remember, this is baseball, not hockey.  Very good (Joe Nieuwendyk) gets you in with hockey.  It might get you a sniff in baseball, but that's it.  

Ty Cobb had 4,191 hits when Rose tied and passed him.  Interestingly, Cobb has 4,189 career hits now (I'll explain that later - if I'm not too tired).  What if Rose had stopped at 4,190.  Or, 4,000 dead on?  Hall of fame?  This whole "passing Cobb" thing always kind of bothered me.  Lets look at that. 

 

Neither Cobb nor Rose cared for catchers much

What is fascinating to me is that Cobb and Rose both played 24 seasons so you should be able to do a like for like comparison.  However, Rose played 500+ more games than Cobb or the equivalent of more than 3 full seasons.  This is informational only, because Cobb was dominant in his era.  Along with Christy Mathewson, Walter Johnson, Honus Wagner and Babe Ruth, he was one of the first five original Hall of Famers.  Cobb on his last legs in 1928 still hit .323 in 95 games for the Phillies.  Rose in his last year hit .219 in 72 games with the Reds.  

Its not a fair comparison.  Arguable the best player of all time compared with a really good player.  But to me, that's what Rose was.  A really good player, for a REALLY long time.  To me, he was more like Tony Gwynn or Wade Boggs.  But even then, Gwynn had 7 batting tittles and Boggs 5.  They are both in the Hall of Fame.  

My argument concludes with Rose getting in the Hall statistically, but its not as easy as you'd think.  I can't find one season in 24 where he was the best statistical player on his team, never mind the league.  1973 was the closest, the rest there are definitive gaps.  The reason he is in is passing Cobb for career hits which he did while giving up 33 points in average.  

But this will never happen.  

PAGE II  

There are a few different camps on gambling and what it means and what should happen to Pete.  All camps are filled with reasonably intelligent people with sound arguments.  As usual, "listening" seems to be absent from many and a FULL understanding of gambling isn't really understood.

Camp 1 is the biggest.  Maybe 80% or of really solid and smart ball fans live here.  They believe that there are two gambling incidents.  I've heard radio hosts (ones who should really know better) proclaim that they know the history of gambling in baseball and site these two events. Rose and the 1919 Chicago White (Black) Sox scandal.  They can give you some learned details of an event almost 100 years ago which its cool because they're almost entirely right.  Plus its been immortalized in film.

This camp is then sub-divided into the pro-Rose and anti-Rose groups.  The "pro", simply stated, say that the rules are from a by-gone time and they've out lived their usefulness.  The "anti", are quite clear that rules are rules.  Period.  

Well, to 80% of the hard core ball fans out there; there is a lot more to gambling in this game than just the events of Rose and the Black Sox Scandal.  Some are well known; others, not so much. Here is the thumbnail history in reverse chronological order.

1.  2010 -  Mets Club House Manager, Charlie Samuels, accused of theft from the Mets and gambling on baseball.  Fired from the Mets and banned for life from baseball. (relatively unknown)  
2.  1987 - Pete Rose, found to have gambled on no less than 1/3 of Reds games from that season and evidence of previous gambling.  Banned for life (well known)
3.  1979 - Two hall of famers, Willie Mays and Mickey Mantle are banned from baseball as they were working as greeters for Atlantic City Casinos.  Reinstated by commissioner Peter Ueberroth in 1984. ( relatively unknown)
4.  1967 - Denny McClain, the major league's last 30 game winner and an active pitcher was found to be a co-partner in a book making operation.  He was suspended for a 1/2 season.  (somewhat known)
5.  1947 - Leo Durocher, (Leo The Lip) manager of the Brooklyn Dodgers is suspended for the season for consorting with gamblers.  (relatively unknown)
6.  1919 - Proven not guilty in court, baseball banned 8 members of the Chicago White Sox for life for throwing the 1919 World Series.  (well known)
7.  1910 -  The "famous" Ty Cobb v. Nap Lajoie batting title race.  Perhaps there is room for the full story later, but the St. Louis Cardinals are thought to have allowed Lajoie to go 7/8 on the final day of the season in a double header to win the tittle by less than on 1000th of a point.  Hard to fathom the "on purpose" part?  6 of the 8 hits were bunts.  To the same guy.  The one time he didn't get a hit was ruled an error on the bunt.  It was written that Cobb was so hated that the Cardinals did this as a fuck you to the Georgia Peach (Cobb).  However, it was whispered that a bunch of Cards put a lot of money down on Lajoie to win the batting title at crazy odds.  Nothing proven, no suspensions.  (completely unknown)
8.  1877 - Four members of the Louisville Grays in the National League were suspended for purposely throwing games.  (completely unknown)

There is your history as I know it.  Others can probably give you more, but that's the foundation that my argument starts from.

Does Pete Rose belong in the hall of fame?

Rule 21.(d) BETTING ON BALL GAMES. Any player, umpire, or club official or 

employee, who shall bet any sum whatsoever upon any baseball game in
connection with which the bettor has no duty to perform shall be declared
ineligible for one year.

   Any player, umpire, or club or league official or employee, who shall
bet any sum whatsoever upon any baseball game in connection with which
the bettor has a duty to perform shall be declared permanently ineligible.

The best I can find on the creation of these rules is that they were "sometime in the early 1920's". You'd think record keeping would be a little better.  Its easy to assume that they came in after the Black Sox stuff was done by 1921.

This has nothing to do with Rose's accomplishments belonging in the hall.  Even by my holier-than-thou measure, he get in.  But he never will be and he's done that to himself.  And really, its so simple to understand and its completely indefensible.

Baseball has a hardline no gambling rule. Its has for 90+ years.  If you don't like the rule, then I can't help you.  Its like getting a speeding ticket.  If you're wife was in labour and you were taking her to the hospital and that was your justification for speeding, then we can talk about it.  You may have a valid argument.  But if you think you should be able to drive 150 KPH in a 100km zone because you don't agree with the posted speed limit....well....you're a bit of dolt aren't ya?  Can't help with that one.

Major League Baseball, like any other private enterprise is allowed to make their own decisions on the conduct of their personnel.  Many companies have standards of conduct waivers that people need to sign.  MLB has 6 rules posted in each club house.  One of those rules is that teams need to post them.  Its not fucking complicated.

Six rules.  One of those 6 is rule 21(6) shown above.

So what's wrong with gambling?  Morally?  Nothing.  I really don't care.

But for the game?  Well, let's start with a really easy one.  These numbers are a little stale, but from CNBC in July of 2013, 30-40 billion dollars were illegally gambled on baseball in the 2012 season.  That's the illegal betting. Now put the real sports books into the mix and you can see that there is enough money begin gambled to pay down national debts.  

Lets just say that Blue Jays Manager John Gibbons was best friends with a Casino owner.  Grew up together, went to college together, BFFs.  When John visits in the off season, he stays in the best suite, everything is complimentary.  Why wouldn't it be, they're mates.

Then you get into the season and the Jays are up 4/3 with 2 out in the seventh.  Estrada pitching, Sanchez is in the pen warmed and ready.  And then there's a single by the other team.  Everyone in the joint thinks Sanchez is coming into the game.  But he doesn't.  Gibbons stays in the dugout.  Estrada stays on the mound.  Sanchez stays in the pen.

The next pitch is a get ahead fast ball and it gets rocketed out of the park and the Jays are now down 5/4.  Then some reporter looks at it and makes a comment that all those free stays at the casino are catching up with him.  After all, those casinos all have sports books.  Buddy might have wanted to cash in a favour.  So to speak.

Anyway, its probably all innocent.  Managers and coaches make decisions on every pitch.  Literally, there are 100's of decision a game. Take, swing, bunt, hit and run, steal, pitch selection, defensive alignment...etc. Most of the decisions aren't even noticed.  Often they are or become immaterial to the outcome of the game play or the game.  Others are magnified. Others can change a game.  Its those ones, the 1% or less that are noticed by the masses.  So in the Gibbons example the rule isn't in place because he (or anyone else) isn't trusted.  Quite to the contrary, its there to remove all doubt and speculation.  Its there so there aren't quiet whispers and conversations.

I often hear, "so what if he bet on his own team"; or "as long as he didn't bet against the Reds, I don't care".  Good lord, that's so naive.  Again, seemingly intelligent people say these things!

Most people are familiar with football betting.  Lets say the Giants are playing the Bills, just so I can relive my favourite nightmare.  Say the Giants are favoured by 2.5 points at home.  So here we are with less than 2 minutes left, the Giants have the ball, down 16-14, no time outs and the ball near mid field because Manning stuck a 35 yard pass to the side of someone's helmet on the previous play.  Asshole.

I'm a Bills fan.  I've learned better than to hope.  The Bills will lose this game.  Manning will hit one over the middle then a curl out of bounds near the 20 to stop the clock, the stupid Giants will kick a stupid fucking field goal and the Bills will lose the stupid game.  Again.

My only solace is that the Giants will only win the game by 1 so I'll still win my bet because they didn't win by 2.5 or more.  At least there's that.

Then Manning predictably hits one one over the middle.  Then the curl, but "Bend It Like Beckham" doesn't curl out, he curls in, catches the ball and splits the seam for 6.

I lose the game and lose the bet.

Stupid Bills.

Thankfully, that's not how baseball betting works.  There is no point spread.  Baseball betting is a lot easier to win and a lot more costly to lose.  If you look at football, being able to bet and win against the spread over 55% of the time (over a several year run) is extremely difficult if not impossible.  The reason is, of course, that the spreads presumably make the teams even.  There is no system.  There is no lock.  There is no sure thing.  Vegas wouldn't be in business if people made money.

Baseball is completely different.  Its possible (and I've done it - which is why I won't make the hall of fame) to sustain winning at a 75% clip.  However, that likely won't be enough to win money.  Baseball is done on a money line, not on points.  Money lines are also offered in football, but rarely played because people don't really understand it.  Here's how it works.

Say the Jays are at home to the Yankees this past August, the line would probably look something like this.

NYY Severino (+160) @ TOR Price (-180)

What that means is that if you bet $100.00 on the Yankees and they win the game, you'll win $160.00.  Nice return.  Now if you want to win $100.00 on the Jays, you'd have to bet $180.00.  Most people can't stomach that.  

Its an easy game to be honest.  "Smart betters" don't bet the first two weeks of the season.  All the #1 pitchers face each other.  All the #2 pitchers face each other.  And if you're betting on a game that involves ANYONE other than a #1 or #2 then you have way too much money.  After a couple of weeks the rotations start to separate due to off days and early season rain outs.  That's when you see a guy like Kershaw matched up against a no name #4 or #5.  Those are the games you hit.  However, you may have to lay $300.00 or more to win $100.00 on Kershaw.  Nerve wracking eh?

So in football, the higher the point spread goes up, the more attractive the underdog looks.  You may start by taking the Giants.  But can the Giants bead the Bills by 3?  7?  11?  15?  At some point, you WILL take the Bills.  Because at some point you'll say "they can't possibly lose by that much".

Then comes baseball.  Its a matchup of teams and pitchers.  In the Kershaw example above, if I had to bet $1000.00 to win 100.00 its still the better bet.  The probability of Kershaw being upset is not influenced at all by the money line.  Not betting, of course, is a good option, but changing your bet just means you're looking at the wrong game.

What this serves to illustrate is how easy it is to win.  Better teams are always better teams.  Better pitchers are always better pitchers.  But, Losing is painful.  I would hazzard that Kershaw averaged a -300 this season.  If you bet on each of his games to win $100.00 you would have won $1600.00 in his 16 wins.  And, you would have lost $2100.00 in his 7 loses and been down $-500.00 on the season.

In fact, you would have won a lot of games, but a lot of money if you had bet consistently on the top 10 pitchers (by winning percentage) in baseball.  Arrieta ($400.00) and Grenkie ($1000) are the only two that would have netted a profit.  Overall, with the BEST pitchers in the game you'd have won $16,700 and lost $40,800.  So, clearly, easy to win games, hard to win money.

Whether you're Pete Rose or Scott Peters, money is money and you spend to the rate that you can.  Rose was not a rich man.  Not by today's baseball standards.  There was only one year in his career that he made 1 million dollars and that was exactly a million in 1986.  So he wasn't betting to win $100.00, obviously.  He was betting $8,000.00 to $16,000.00 daily.  Do the math, if a favourite goes down he's dropping between 24,000.00 to 48,000.00 dollars.

Make no mistake he's feeling that.

When you tilt (lose), you need to bet more to get it back and that is exactly when you're vulnerable and compromised.

The runline is the most common form of betting baseball but there are a few other popular ones including betting series', parlays and props.

Parlays are the same as any other sport; pick 3 winners and increase your return.  Series' are interesting only in that it makes a 3 game Padres Vs. Brewers set at the end of April a little more interesting.  I don't think either of these have much bearing on the betting world or Rose.  But Props might.  Props around specific occurrences in a game.  For example, will a team have 3 or more stolen bases.  Will a pitcher get 10 or more strikeouts.  etc.  You can bet the "over" or "under" on a prop.

So this is where what if and rampant speculation comes into play.

WHAT IF .... The Reds are up by 7th in the 9th inning and Rose puts on the steal sign so he wins the prop bet?   And what if Barry Larkin gets hurt on the slide?
WHAT IF ... The Reds are down a run and need to get a guy in scoring position but he doesn't steal or hit and run (which can result in a stolen base) so that he stays under on the prop?  And then the batter hits into a game ending double play.
WHAT IF .... Mario Soto has 9 strikeouts through 5 innings but Rose needs to stay under 10?  He pulls him after 5 and the Reds lose.
WHAT IF ..... Soto is getting pounded by has 8 K's through seven and he leaves him out there to get 2 more strikeouts?

What decisions did Rose make in 1987 that either negatively impacted the game being played or future games?  The Res finished in 2nd place in 1987.  Dropping of 9 of 10 in August to the Cards (.586), Pirates (.494) and Cubs (.472) sealed their fate.  Was it just a slump?  Who knows.

But what I do know is that Rose's gambling has allowed me to question everything about him and his actions within the game.  It has caused me to be distrustful.

The 8 men out from the 1919 World Series included Joe Jackson.  Jackson is a footnote in the history of baseball which, to me, is very sad.  Jackson hit .408 in 1911 and LOST the batting title to Cobb who hit .420.  He hit over .350 seven times in his 13 year career and has a career average of .356.  He went to the World Series twice.  In 1917 he hit .304, scored 4 times and drove in 2.  In 1919, the year he cheated, he hit .375, scored 4 times and drove in 6.  His participation in this remains dubious to me, but he was found to have consorted with gamblers on games that he played, so he's out.

Denny McClain ran a book making operation.  His ban was less than a year.  Mays and Mantle only remained banned while they worked for the casinos.  

Personally I feel that there is a hell of a lot more dirt on Rose than we know about.  Why?  So that "IF" baseball ever did reinstate him it wouldn't look quite as bad.  But I don't want him reinstated under any circumstances.  Maybe we're more passive now, but the stain that he's put on the game is bigger than Jackson (only because he was more circumstantial).  Its bigger than amphetamines. Its bigger than steroids.  This tears at the fabric of the fabric of the game.

Baseball, as I get whimsical, is a game that the people who have played it and managed it the longest will tell you that they're still learning.  It has plays occur that 50,000 in attendance will honestly say they've never seen before (see 7th inning of game 5 of the ALDS).  Yet a 7 year old can watch it with the grandparent with the same base understanding.  It can be magical.  Rose did major damage by not being able to follow its most basic rule that was posted in every Major League locker room that he ever entered.

So no Scott.  Rose in the Hall of Fame would be a travesty to the game.  

History of Cheating

I wrote this in December of 2011.  Its not really relevant so much anymore in today's baseball climate.  But I cleaned it up a bit and reissued because I kind of dig the whole history.  And in my rereading I was interested to see Edinson Volquez' name come up.  

++++++

....about performance enhancing drugs in baseball.

Be warned.  This is long and all over the place.......

Just so you know, I don't really "know stuff".  I do know a little (if you can even say that) and the little I do know isn't because I know people....its because I read until my eyes bleed.  And I have to say it  amazes me how naive we can be.  Actually, how naive I have been!

For years there was complete denial by the average fan that there were steroids in baseball.  Steroids don't help you hit a baseball, they help you run fast and lift weights.  They are useless in baseball.  We talked about watered down pitching, a juiced ball, maple bats, global warming and altitude to justify escalating home run totals.

The increase in home runs was dramatic.  The average team hit 119.88 home runs per season during the 1970's.  In the 80's it went to 126.7 per season.  The 90's saw an increase to 147.83 per year.  Finally in the 00's each team average 173.83 home runs per year.  A whopping 47 home runs a season better than the 1980's.  Let's talk about what that really looks like.  George Bell won the MVP in 1987 with 47 home runs.  That's like adding George Bell's bat to your roster every year for 10 years.  That is nuts!

How naive we were and continued to be.  The backlash against the reporter for 'detecting' the Androstenedione in Mark McGwire's locker was ridiculous.  First was the word what it wasn't a steroid, it was merely a "pre-cursor".  The writer, Steve Wilstein was ridiculed for snooping and prying.  Forgotten in the melee was McGwire saying that a) he had used it for more than a year and b) that everyone he knew in baseball used it.  I'd encourage reading Wilsteins' article.

We believed what we wanted to believe.  We were helped along in those beliefs by the people who SHOULD have fucking known better.  By people that we mistakenly trusted.  Jason Giambi, "Steroids don't help you hit a baseball".  Mark McGwire, "Everybody I know in the game of baseball uses the same stuff I use." Dusty Baker, "It's like McCarthyism or something." Tony LaRussa, "We detailed Mark's workout routine -- six days a week, 12 months a year -- and you could see his size and weight gain come through really hard work, a disciplined regimen".

The naivety continued.  The world of baseball hitters began to unravel, and people, who a week before didn't believe steroids were a problem; became experts on what to look for and how to tell if someone way using simply by looking at them.  Yes, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing as people pontificated about how 'roids can "obviously" make a hitter better, but did nothing for pitchers.  CLEARLY!

Then the pitchers began to fall.  Montero, Rincon, Betancourt, Franklin, Almanzar, Heredia, Grimsley, Mota, Salas, J.C. Romero, Volquez....then it stopped being mostly Latin pitchers "looking for an edge" and the big ones came out;  Ankiel, Pettitte and then Clemens.  So then the experts that dismissed the benefits for pitchers became experts on that too.  Obviously pitchers use!  Obviously.

The problems of steroids had been known in football for years and has been addressed to at least some level of satisfaction.  Baseball chose not to anything for a long time.  This isn't unusual for baseball.  "Slow to change" is an understatement.  Its well documented that Jackie Robinson 'broke the colour barrier' in 1947.  A task that had been acheived in the NFL in 1920.  Blacks had been playing professional basketball since 1903 in leagues that predated the formation of the NBA.  Don't be lulled into the thinking that Jackie Robinson suddenly changed the world.  He changed the world (of baseball) alright, but not suddenly.  The Boston Red Sox were the last team to allow a black man on the field and that took another 12 years unitl 1959.  FOOTNOTE:  The Red Sox worked out Robinson in Fenway Park in 1945 but opted not to offer a contract.  This was primarily due to threats from a city councilor who promised to reinstate a Sunday alochol ban at Fenway if they picked him up. 

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Updated 2015:   I always meant to write a BLOG on the topic of baseball's terrible segregation.  I still may.  One thing that I always found interesting however was that Jackie Robinson wasn't actually the 1st player of colour.  In 1887 there were as many as 13 black players playing major league baseball.  The best of the bunch was Moses Fleetwood Walker who by all accounts was a superstar.  Future hall of famer (they aren't all good guys) Cap Anson refused to step on the field against Walker and no black man played again until Robinson in 1947.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Steroids and HGH may be a bigger problem in basketball and hockey than in either football or baseball; but you will never find out.  A lack of evidence is not to be confused with a non-guilty verdict.  The naivety is here too.  Now that it's history and accepted people can point to bats being snapped like tooth pics over peoples knees and balls being thrown at fans as obvious indicators of steroids.

But attacking someone from behind and mashing their head into the ice, or going into the stands from the penalty box or screaming at the official with every infraction isn't even more obvious?  Of course it isn't.  The lemmings aren't on that bus yet.  People WANT to believe the 'kid from the hood' story or the 'good old Canadian boy from Kingston boy' story.  They can't see what is so obviously sitting in front of them.  I look at this a lot like the  argument about security on a MAC.  People will go on forever about how the MAC is virus proof and that all the problems with viruses are on PCs.  That is partially true.  However, less that 5% of  the population have MACs.  Hackers / virus creators aren't intimidated by MACs, they just don't care.  Its the same with Hockey and basketball.  Both sorta register on the north American market, but compared to Football and Baseball, they're barely a blip.  There will be meaningful steroid and HGH testing in Mixed Beach Volleyball before there is in hockey or basketball. No one really cares.

So while we fool ourselves about our various sports, what is over looked is that this isn't the first dramatic rise in home runs and performance in baseball.  The increase in home runs from the 70's to the 00's was 46%.  From the 1940's to the 1960's the increase was 63%.

Every sport has their player that changes everything.  Baseball had Ruth.  Hockey Gretzky.  Basketball Chamberlain.  Football Jim Brown.  But this home run increase didn't involve Ruth.  During Ruth's heyday, the 1920's, the average team hit 61 home runs a season.  During that same 10 year period Ruth hit 60 once, 50+ three times and 40+ another four times.  Anyway, why such a dramatic increase in home runs AFTER Ruth was out of the game?

We can't discount the Ruth affect.  It did change the game.  The home run did become a much bigger part of the game plan and players actually tried for them more in the past.  That's fair.  But I think people have tried for 200 point seasons since Gretzky, yet I havent' seen anyone do it.

Let's look at what Bud Selig says.  If you're at all interested in what follows, I strongly recommend reading the following article by Jake Emen.  According to Selig, who IS THE COMMISSIONER, "We have the toughest testing program in American sports. We banned amphetamines, which were a problem in our sport for seven or eight decades."  Everybody get that?

So....I get out my trusty calendar.  Selig made this statement in 2007....1997(1), 1987(2), 1977(3), 1967(4), 1957(5), 1947(6), 1937(7).  Lets give Bud the benefit of the doubt and take the short end of his prediction.  This poses a couple of interesting questions; namely:

1)   Are amphetamines REALLY a performance enhancer?
2)   Is he right?  Can it be proven?
3)   Is it a coincident that the this is an EXACT match for home runs increasing?

The first one has a lot of contradictory information contained within it.  Amphetamines, for starters, are speed.  They are an upper that immediately impact the central nervous system.  To make this short and remove a lot of the medical jargon, they have a similar effect to both cocaine and adrenaline, but last significantly longer.  Current research has shown that 10-30 mg dosages of methamphetamine can increase reaction times and cognitive function.

To me it sounds like a performance enhancer.

But that's me.

There is a contingent, a non-medical contingent I should say, that feel that amphetamines are NOT performance enhancers at all.  That they merely allow an athlete to play up to their potential consistently and not necessarily to exceed it.  I think its a fair discussion, however I do come down clearly on the other side of this.  And considering that there are medical studies proving increased performance, its tough to argue anything else.

The second part:  is Selig right in that there is / was a multi-decade problem and secondly, can that be proven?

To answer that, let me take you back to 2003.  Actually 2002.  The Players association and MLB agreed to initiate steroid testing for the 2003 season in August of 2002.  There were rules around this.  a) all tests were to remain anonymous.  b)  no player would be punished for positive results.  c)  if more than 5% were found to test positive, then testing with punishments would start the following year.

14.4% of players in major league baseball tested positive.  Now, lets start with the premise that you'd have to be an idiot to be caught.  Maybe I'm being naive again, but I would think that if you told 720 kids that you were going to do a blood test to see if they had cookies in their blood stream and that you'd continue to test them and spank them if more than 36 of them were caught; you'd end up with few if any being caught.  And the ones that you did catch would be arrogant or stupid.

Is it possible that a disproportionate number of ball players are arrogant or stupid?  Yep.  But I also think that the overwhelming majority are afraid of public opinion and are reasonably intelligent.  In other words, I believe that the overwhelming majority of users did not get caught.

Instead of making assumptions of how many users of steroids that I think there have been, I think that we can be reasonably safe in using the numbers floated by a couple of steroid experts.

Ken Caminiti:  "50% of players are using steroids"
Jose Canseco:  "80% of players have used steroids"

There were 720 players in major league baseball in 2004.  104 were caught red handed with steroids.  Not pre-cursors, not HGH, not stimulants.  Steroids.  Caminiti thinks they caught just 104 of approximately 360 users and Canseco puts it at 104 of 576.  Personally, I think the truth is probably somewhere in the middle.  So for argument sake, lets put it more than half.

What is the likelihood that any of the people tested in 2004 had used it for the first time on the day before they were tested?  We know that lots of people were using in the 90's and 80's.  We KNOW for a fact, because he's admitted it, that Canseco was using in his MVP year in 1986.  Does anyone believe he was the first?  Jose seems like a fairly charming guy, buy not terribly shrewd.  He had to learn from someone.  He was drafted as and 18 years old, didn't go to college and was in the majors at 21.  I don't think he had a lot of "doctor" friends.

My point is, there weren't SUDDENLY 360+ steroid users in baseball.  It had to escalate.  Ground zero is near impossible to determine, although I have my own idea on that toward the end of this if you're still awake.  So, lets say, early to mid eighties through to mid 2000's as the ramp up for steroids...20 years.  20ish.

Now back to Amphetamines.  Most people are aware of Jim Bouton's book "Ball Four" published in 1970 and recounted his days with the Yankees, Astros and Pilots.  Bouton gives detailed accounts of "greenies" (amphetamines) that are handed out from player to player on the team.  That was the 60's.  That was the New York Yankees.  "We’ve been running short of greenies.  We don’t get them from the trainer, because greenies are against club policy.  So we get them from players on other teams who have friends who are doctors, or friends who know where to get greenies.  One of our lads is going to have a bunch of greenies mailed to him by some of the guys on the Red Sox.  And to think you can spend five years in jail for giving your friend a marijuana cigarette."

I think its fair to assume that the mid sixties with amphetamines looked a lot like the mid 2000's with steroids.  The only people who weren't using them were the ones who made the personal decision not to.  It had nothing to do with availability or cost or even risk.  It was just personal.

So now, how long did it take amphetamines to ramp up like it took steroids to?  If you use the same (slightly fabricated) timeline of 20 years(ish), you'd be back at the mid 40's.  Which kind of make sense for a couple of reasons.  One reason is that it coincides nicely with Bud's timeline and the second is that there amphetamines had an entry route into baseball at this time.

Finding evidence and a timeline is really tough on this one.  The media hid a lot.  Sorry, but its true.  They were in the business of building heroes to sell newspapers; long before they realized that breaking down those same heroes sold even more fish wrap.  Remember, the national media didn't even let the public know that their president was an invalid in a wheel chair.  Times were different.  But....there is some purely circumstantial evidence that you can interpret how you like.

For the current affair, lets go back to another Caminiti claim that 90% of the league was using some form of stimulant.  He said, "You hear it all the time from teammates, 'You're not going to play naked, are you?' Even the guys who are against greenies may be popping 25 caffeine pills, and they're up there [at bat] with their hands shaking. This game is so whacked out that guys will take anything to get an edge. You got a pill that will make me feel better? Let me have it"

And that's backed up by Chad Curtis.  Does anyone remember Chad Curtis?  He played from '92 - '01 with the Angels, Tigers, Dodgers, Indians and Rangers.  But he's best remembered for a 3 year stint with the Yankees which saw 2 World Series wins.  I liked him a lot.  An above average outfielder with near blinding speed and was one of those guys who seemed to do more at the plate that others who were obviously more skilled.  He was kind of like John MacDonald, with more talent.  "You might have one team where eight guys play naked and another team where nobody does, but that sounds about right," (substantiating the 90% claim) "Sometimes guys don't even know what they're taking. One guy will take some pills out of his locker and tell somebody else, 'Here, take one of these. You'll feel better.' The other guy will take it and not even know what it is."

Yeah, there are issues.  But we know we have that today.  What about the 'ago'?

Again.  This stuff is tough to trace, but here's what we know.

1986 -  The Pittsburgh cocaine trials.  A number of Pirates players were arrested with cocaine.  Two players, Dave Parker and Dale Berra, testify under oath that Bill Matlock and Willie Stargell often gave out greenies in the clubhouse.

1979  -  Pete Rose admits to Playboy magazine that he's used greenies.

1972  -  OF/1B John Milner testifies in 1986 that Willie Mays kept "red juice" in his locker which was "real potent speed"
.

1970  -  Jim Bouton's (pitcher) book ball four is published.  Its speaks of rampant amphetamine use, particularly in the early 60's when he won 21 and 18 games for the Yankees.

1961  -  Mickey Mantle is felled by an injury at the end of the 1961, preventing him from finishing the chase to Ruth's record of 60 home runs.  It is widely rumoured that he developed an infection from an injection from a "quack doctor".  More on the quack doctor later.

1942 - Major League Baseball players return from World War II and bring with them amphetamines.  Both sides of the war issued amphetamines regularly to its soldiers.  The British documented issuing 72 million tablets for example.

++++

Amphetamines were first synthesized in 1887, but not marketed until 1932.  Here are a couple of pre-amphetamine examples.
++++
1926(?) - Babe Ruth falls "incredibly ill" after taking an injection of sheep testosterone as part of a "magic elixir" in an effort to increase performance.  This was supposedly provided via the research of scientist Charles Edouard Brown-Sequard.  If he tried sheep testosterone is it reasonable to think that he tried other things OR that other players did?

1889  -  Dr. Brown-Sequard mentioned above demonstrates the results of his elixir at a convention.  Within weeks the New Haven Register wrote, "The discovery of a true elixir of youth by which the aged can renew their bodily vigor would be a great thing for baseball nines."

Now, lets follow two of these threads.  First the magic elixir.

The industrial makers of the concoction tried to get John L. Sullivan, the heavy weight boxing champ of the day to be their spokesperson.  He respectfully declined.  So they turned to baseball, and specifically, Pud Galvin.  Galvin was coming to the end of what would be a hall of fame career, posting a record of 365-310 and 2.85 career ERA.  He's 5th all time in wins, 5th all time in walks per 9 innings, 2nd in innings pitched and 2nd in complete games.  Yes, the game was different, but he was the best of his day.

Pud was definitely on the down side of his career when he agreed to endorse the "magic elixir".  Galvin was injected at the Pittsburgh medical college.  Shortly thereafter his home town Pittsburgh Burghers beat the cross town rival Pittsburgh Allegheny's 9-0.  Galvin pitched a complete game shut out and collected two hits in the win.  The legend of doping to win was born on this day.

The second piece that merits follow up is Mickey Mantle's infection from an injection from a "quack doctor".

About that "quack".

Max Jacobson was a German born, Manhattan Doctor.  He was dubbed "Dr. Feelgood" by many.  Jacobson had many famous patients.  He was the doctor to the stars.  Included in his stable were Nelson Rockefeller, Cecil B. Demille, Tennessee Williams, Anthony Quinn, Truman Capote, Marlene Dietrich, Eddie Fisher...the list goes on.

But Jacobson's REAL treasure of a patient was John Fitzgerald Kennedy.  Yes, JFK and also Jackie.  Jacobson may have been a 'quack', but he was a 'quack' with a potent remedy for those that could pay.  Jacobson made more than 30 visits to the White House and travelled with Kennedy to Vienna for peace talks with Krushev AND injected Kennedy just prior to the famous debate with Nixon in 1960.  There are many references to this relationship and very real quotes with name, just use google.

JFK had long suffered sever back pain and had a staff of White House doctors with varied solutions.  These doctors agreed on very little with the exception of their uniform dismissal of Max Jacobson.  He was viewed somewhat has a charlatan.  Yes, his remedy worked, but there were significant side effects and those would show up soon enough.  As far as Kennedy was concerned,  he was otherwise untroubled by FDA reports on the contents of Jacobson’s injections, proclaiming "I don’t care if it’s horse piss. It works."

So what was this magical injection that Kennedy and others received regularly?  What he referred to as vitamin shots actually contained, vitamins, amphetamines and hormones. Oh, there's no doubt it works.  And you needed to keep going back for more.

Now why is all this so important?  Does it matter that a world leader, singers and a bunch of actors were using amphetamines and hormones?  No, I don't care.  I do care that a ball player was though.  In case you hadn't figured it out yet, Mickey Mantle was also his patient.

Say it ain't so.

I'm rethinking Barry Bonds.  Rethinking McGwire.  Rethinking Canseco.  Clemens is still a jerk, but I'm rethinking that too.

Proof is in the Pudding

As a little lead in, the proof really isn't in the pudding.  The proof is in the eating of the pudding.  You can have 5 bowls of pudding all in a row and you won't know which is the best until you try it.  Now is sample time.

So, its been a while.

You may remember my last little update after the shocking departure of Double A.

You may also remember that I warned that something else other than personnel approval hierarchy might be in play.

So now that the season is over and we're into free agency period and its the official post season to the post season; we're about to see just how right or wrong I am.  Or was.  Or whatever.

Let's just level set.

Double A didn't sell the farm in making a flurry of trades this season.  However he did sever the farm and subdivide it and sell off parts. Make no mistake, the farm is drastically depleted.  Not ruined, but it went from an A++ farm system to a maybe about a C.  It might actually not even be a strong C anymore either.

There's two schools of thought on this.  One would be that you should never deplete your resources like that because it can hurt you for years to come.  The second is that this is the reason WHY you build up your farm system in first place.  To take unproven potential talent and trade into proven major league talent.

And the other part, the part you should feel really good about and the part that there is zero argument about, is that the Jays scouting staff that Double A built (and is still there) are exceptionally good at drafting.  Prior to this season the Jays have finished in the upper 1/3 in baseball.  Just because they didn't make the post season, doesn't mean that they had a good draft slot.  In fact, they over achieved on their picks and had a high success rate.  That's good news.

Of course the really bad news is that there ain't a lot left.  There are some and trades can be made using the likes of Dalton Pompey, Anthony Alford, Vladimir Guerrero Jr., Sean Reid-Foley and Max Pentecost.  But if you do that then you will have truly depleted the farm and you're done for 4-5 years.  And that's if all your picks work out, which they won't.  Plus four out of five of those guys are kids.  Guerrero's only 16.  They're a long way from the show.

But all is not lost!!!

Baseball has 170 ish free agents.  Up from last years 140 or so.  Down a fair bit from the more than 220 in 2012.

So here is your trip into the mind of Alex Anthopoulos.  No charge for this either.  And you're welcome.

July 28th 2015:  Trades Jose Reyes, Miguel Castro, Jeff Hoffman and Jesus Tinoco to Colorado for LaTroy Hawkins and Troy Tulowitzki.  Two Troy's, huh.  Anyone else notice that?

Alex's brain:  Huge upgrade defensively.  Huge upgrade in offense (not a conversation about average, but overall offense).  Gave up pitcher Hoffman, 3-4 years from the show, but was Toronto's 1st round pick (9th overall) and barring injury WILL make it.  Remember, they're good at drafting.   Gave up Tinoco another pitcher.  In 3 years he hasn't gotten above Class A ball, so probably not a significant loss.  Then there is Miguel Castro. The Curious case of Miguel Castro who flew up from Rookie ball to AA+ in less than 2 season.  He seems to have flamed out above that level, but who knows.

My brain?  3 pitchers?  A little bit of an ouch, but still still a good call.

July 30th 2015:  Trades Matt Boyd, Daniel Norris and Jairo Labourt to Detroit for David Price.

Alex's brain:  Win today.  You get one of the best 5 pitchers in the game and give nothing up off of your major league roster.  Brilliant.  Matt Boyd, pitcher, 6th round pick out of college in 2013 and made it to the show for a cup of coffee in only 2 years.  Hard to say where he levels out.  Norris, 2nd round pick in 2011.  Got to start with the Jays this year and didn't do well.  Started with Detroit and did very well.  He's probably somewhere in between and would be a half decent starter.  Labourt was also signed in 2011 and in 5 years has a massed a 7-22 minor league record.  No great loss

My brain?  3 more pitchers.  6 pitchers in 2 days.  Holy shit.  Yes, you still do the deal but you now have to really start figuring out a replenishment plan.

July 31st 2015:  Trade LHP Felix Doubront to Oakland for cash.  Trade RHP Jimmy Cordero and RHP Alberto Tirado to Philadelphia for Ben Revere.  Trade LHP Rob Rasmussen, LHP Jacob Brentz and LHP Nick Wells to Seattle for Mark Lowe.

Alex's brain:  I have a plan.

My brain:  In 3 days we lost 13 minor league pitchers.  I hope Alex has a fucking plan!

Now add to this pitching dilemma that they traded in May of 2015 they traded LHP Jayson Aquino to Pittsburgh or cash and RHP Matt West to the Dodgers for cash and you're talking about being down 15 pitchers in total between drafts.  That's friggin huge.  And for the record, they acquired no minor league pitchers in return in that period.

But I think this was Alex's math.  The Troy X 2 deal did not kill him or even make up his mind.  Everything after that did though.  After Tulo he was still in draft, stock pile, etc, etc, etc. mode.  But when you run up the total of lost pitchers to 15 there is only one way out.

Free agency.

And this makes perfect sense.  You have a team that SHOULD, based on its offense alone, contend for the next 3 years provided that you get any semblance of pitching.  You have no A+ prospects left to trade to acquire pitching so you have sign them as free agents.  If you're Alex you're thinking 'no sweat'.  The club is making tons of money.  The winning has made the brand electric in this town with a huge monetary upside.  Plus, winning makes Toronto a more attractive destination to free agents.  It always does.   Also, because Alex is smart, he knows that there are more free agents which will drive the overall price down.

The money part is simple.  Grenkie and Price both on the market at the same time hurts both of them both.  If there was only one, they would be the richest player in baseball.  One of them still might end up the richest, but they will assuredly get less than they would have had either been the only top flight pitcher available.  Supply.  Demand.  Economics 101.

You have Mark Buehrle's expiring 19 million dollar contract.  That gets you a legit #2 starter.  So you'd have to pony up the 25 million or so for a #1.  You don't trade anyone and you've got your rebuild period.  That's what AA was thinking.

#1 Free Agent Pitcher (25mm)
Dickey
Estrada (Free Agent)
Stroman
Drew Hutchinson.

Yes Hutchinson.  There were only 21 pitchers in all of baseball that had more wins than him last year.  That's less than one per team.

I think that this is why AA is no longer in the Jays front office.  The messaging from Rogers was that they wouldn't be moving into free agency, not in any serious way at any rate.  They intend to cut payroll.  They intend to trade roster guys to restock.

Its not a bad strategy.  Its sustainable for the long haul, its the Tampa model that had been successful for 10-15 years.  You just have to get used to seeing your talent roll over and leave every 5 years or so.  If they do go this way, the Jays will immediately turn back to that 'around .500' team that is one of the last eliminated from the Wild Card race (even though they were never really in it).

I don't know how bad this will get ..... it could be a full fire sale or just nominal.  We'll see.  But here are some things I could see happening.

1. I do think Estrada resigns here.  Really, its not going to be that much money because you're not eating up the money you saved on Buehrle not returning.  Net, your saving 3-5 million per year.
2. I think you end up with a rotation of Dickey, Estrada, Stroman, Hutchinson and Sanchez.  
3. There will probably be a strong attempt to trade Tulowitzki.  Tulo could bring you 3 minor league pitchers, and no one to cost you money on the major league roster.  And it would reduce payroll by the 20 million he is scheduled to make next year.  The sell for Jays fans that they will get Ryan Goins for a full year at short stop.  Financially, great move.  From a baseball stand point it will be terrible.  Goins, as great as he at 2nd (and he is), is not a short stop.  People that play the game can recognize this.  He lays back on balls and doesn't charge them and he relies on his arm too much and that will break down.  Watch Tulo and see how many throws he makes from inside the baseline, that's what makes him effective.  Goins is behind the line and throwing from his heels.  You can do that at 2nd.  Not at short.  And Goins at 5 foot 10 is small for a short stop.  Tulo is 6'3", Reyes was 6'0", Jeter 6'3", Alcides Escobar 6'1", Its a big mans game at short now, actually it has been since Ripkin.  There are worse things than a middle infield of Goins and Devon Travis, but its a significant down grade from where they were. 
4. Jose Bautista has played his last game with the Blue Jays.  Jose DOES have a no trade clause, so it will take cooperation to do this, but rest assured that the Jays want to make this happen.  If you're a team like Pittsburgh that is just a middle of the order guy away from winning it all, this is a great move.  Bautista will net you at least 3 solid minor league pitcher, with one of them at least being of the 'blue chip' variety.  Why would the Jays do this? I won't go through the laundry list of fantastic awards he's one.  He's good value and at 14 million he's a steal for a mid-market team.  But if you're the Jays, why do you do this?  14 million is a start.  But what's hidden in Bautista's offensive prowess is the steady defensive decline.  He's got a big arm and gets some exciting assists from the outfield, but his range factor is consistently under the league average.  He doesn't get to balls that the 'average' outfielder gets to.  Next year could be an exceptional defensive outfield with Revere, Pillar and Pompey.  And there's still Carrera and Saunders to throw in the mix.

The Blue Jays had the 13th highest payroll in 2015 at 115 million.  I'm speculating that they will either trade or not resign people which will result in:  Buehrle (-20 million),  Tulowitzki (-20 million), Price (-7,230,874 of 19.75 million), Bautista (14 million) Dioner Navarro (5 million), LaTroy Hawkins (2.25 million). 

The total savings are 68.48 million which reduces the payroll to 46.52 million.  Add in 10 million for Estrada and maybe another 15 million on incremental raises to people who are still under control and you're up to 71 and a half million dollars.  That would put the Jays with the 3rd lowest payroll in the majors.  Just behind Tampa and just ahead of Houston.  

Having fun yet?  I think this is where we're headed.  I really want to be wrong!

Okay, Now What?

 

There are 30 teams in Major League Baseball.

Each one has a General Manager.

Teams can win with poor General Managers.  Teams can lose with good General Managers.  The truth of the matter is that there are lots of moving parts.  Where a team is in their development life-cycle, Injuries, bad field management, flu bugs, there's tons of factors that determine whether a team wins or loses.

I won't pretend that Alex Anthopoulos is the best GM in baseball.  He was named Executive of the Year by his peers.  But that's one year.  Is he amazing and irreplaceable?  Not sure yet.  I'm working through that.

I do; however, know what amazing and irreplaceable does like.

And you know what?  Eventually that guy was replaced too.

There have only been 5 GMs selected to baseball's hall of fame.  Unlike others sports, this hall of fame is damned near impossible to get in to.  And one of those GMs that joined the likes of Branch Rickey is the Blue Jays own, Pat Gillick.  He took 4 different teams to the post season as an executive.  His teams won 3 World Series.  His revamping of the minor leagues and sheer abuse of the rule 5 drive make him legend in baseball circles.

Best General Manager I've ever seen.  On any team.

And I know what a terrible General Manager looks like too.

It looks like a guy that signs Vernon Wells to a 126 million dollar contract.  A guy that signs an aging Frank Thomas to a two year 18 million dollar contract.  Signs B.J. Ryan, Corey Koskie, A.J. Burnett, trades Cesar Iztuis and Paul Quantril for the legendary Luke Prokopec,  That ladies and Gentlemen would be Mr. JP Ricciardi.

Worst General Manager I've ever seen.  On any team.

However Pat Gillick traded (.283 career, 2 all star games) Damaso Garcia AND (51-58, 4.14) Luis Leal for (28-42, 4.08) Craig McMurtry.  And Ricciardi got Marco Scutaro (.277 2012 WS MVP) out of Oakland for two guys named (1-6, 5.09) Graham Godfrey and (-) Kristian Bell.

Good GMs can do stupid things.  Stupid GMs can do good things.

Alex has proven himself to be neither of these two guys.  Not yet anyway.

In 17 years Gillick was over .500 11 times, was 1352 - 1297 (.510); Ricciardi in 8 years was .500 4 times, was 642 - 653 (.496); Anthopoulos in 6 years was over .500 4 times, and was 489 - 483 (.503).

If you think Double A was a good as Gillick, well....you're on crack.  And if you think he was as bad as JP, you probably share the same dealer with the guy that thinks he was a good as Gillick.

That being said, when Toronto was running out onto the field to play the Oakland Athletics on August 13th of this season, the Jays had the same winning percentage under The Greek that they did under The Italian. .496 for both of them.  The real difference between them is simply that the Jays played .638 in the last 47 games with Jason of the Argonauts (get the Greek reference there) steering the ship.

As most people know, there's only two things in this world that I detest.  1) People that don't accept other peoples cultures or ethnicities and 2) Greeks.  More on that later.

I started writing this with a "ya it sucks, but we'll fine", but as I've thought about it more and read some other stuff....I'm not so sure that's true anymore.

Ricciardi, who had everything going for him (dude's Italian...come on!) was pretty much hated from the outset here.  He butchered Delgado's free agency getting nothing for him when he would have stayed here had their been a real offer.  He got nothing for Chris Carpenter who went to St. Louis to win a Cy Young and a World Series.

But more than that it was the lies.  Remember when BJ Ryan's aching "back" was solved by season ending Tommy John (elbow) surgery?  JP's explanation for this on purpose miss-communication? "Its not a lie if we know the truth".  Holy friggin' Constanza.

Then he lied about Halladay asking for a trade and providing a list of teams that he would go to.  Halladay had to hold a press conference to deny it all.  Mid season!

He insulted fans.  He was arrogant.  He was a dick.  I'm half Italian and I hated him.  Yep, the first Italian I hated.

So why the difference with The Greek?  Well he didn't lie.  His personnel deals were 'smart'.  Doesn't mean they all worked out, but they were well thought out.  He's handled player signings responsibly and respectfully.  He got Bautista done when everyone thought he would bolt after his 50 home run year.  He stayed, I was surprised.  He got Encarnacion resigned.  No fanfare, just quietly taken care of.

But there's more.

Gillick and Anthopoulos have something else in common.  Toronto and Canada for that matter is very different than the States.  Its more than just guns.  Pat learned this where as Alex was born into it.  Americans are aggressive.  They're arrogant.  At least your type-A personality Americans that run sports franchises are like that.  Canadians are different.  We're generally honest.  We're polite.  Our humor is mostly self deprecating (or making fun of Greeks).

As a teenager hitch hiking from California to Vulcan Alberta to tryout for a minor league ball team, Pat Gillick might of figured that out.  If not, maybe he did when he pitched for the Vancouver Canadians four years later.  Maybe it was when he was the Assistant General Manager of the Jays in 1977.  Or when he took over as the GM the next year.  Or when he became a Canadian citizen.  But somewhere along the line Gillick figured us out.

He spoke from the heart.  He was honest.  He would always explain his moves or lack of moves.  He brought scouting to the organization.  He (along with the Dodgers) was the first to mine the great baseball resources of the Dominican Republic.  He watched games like a 'fan' not like the 'boss'.  He lived in Toronto.  He was one of us.  He had a GREAT gig, but he was one of us.

There is nothing in the above paragraph that isn't true about Anthopoulos.  And there is nothing in the above paragraph that is true about Ricciardi.

The devil you know is maybe better than the devil you don't.

Organizationally, you've gotta wonder what the heck is going on.  The replacement of Beeston was botched.  Going after Kenny Williams without permission?  Crazy.  Going after Dombrowski and then not wanting to pay the compensation?  Who's running this show?

Then the Mark Shapiro signing.  By all accounts, and I mean ALL accounts, he's a good guy.  He better be, because most people already hate him.  They may have reason to.  I'm not sure though.  I'm not sure who to be mad at here.

So the word is that the Jays offered Double A a 5 year contract.  Alex hasn't denied that.  He has said that issue wasn't term or money.  Great.  He has said that the loves the team.  Loves the city. Said it was his dream job.  The only thing he has said is that Toronto is not "the right fit for me".

What the fuck?

What exactly does that mean?  Not the right fit.  Let me think....if I had that gig and was offered a long term deal at more than double my current salary, what could possibly make me quit?

1.  Money (oh yeah, not that)
2.  Term (oh yeah, not that)
3.  Hate my co-workers....doesn't seem to be an issue.
4.  Hate my boss....maybe, Double A says no and to be honest, he doesn't really know him.
5.  Organization change of direction.....uh-oh.

This is my worry.  If its any of the first 4, I say "see ya Alex", you're on my list of Greeks I hate.  If its #5 we got us some problems and I don't blame him leaving.  So could it be that Shapiro needs to sign off on player personnel decision like happens in 29 other organizations?  Probably.  And shame on Anthopoulos if that's the reason he's leaving.  Organization direction changes could be lots of other stuff.

• We want you to cut back on the scouting staff
• We want you to cut player salaries by 20%
• Maybe Alex wanted to get Pillar and Goins locked up for long term deals to keep them away from their 1st couple of years of free agency and the club said no. 
• Maybe they said no to making a serious run at Price. 
• Maybe they don't want to spend any money on resigning Estrada.  

There's lots of maybes.  I'm not sure if anyone remember what happened after the Jays won their 2nd World Series.  Rickey Henderson was allowed to leave as free agent.  He would play 5 more seasons.  Mark Eichhorn was granted free agency and he would play 2 more years.  Tony Fernandez was granted free agency and he would play another 8 season.  Jack Morris was simply released, he hooked up with Cleveland and went 10 - 6. Turner Ward was put on waivers and picked up by Milwaukee and he would play until 2001.  

Then the strike in 1994 and Darnell Coles leaves, Todd Stottlemyre, Pat Borders, Danny Cox, Dave Stewart and Dick Schofield....all gone.  And who said enough of this shit, I'm out?  Gillick.  

The point being that I fear something much bigger is afoot than Shapiro getting sign off on personnel moves.  And for that I worry.  

But if its anything else then Alex is just being a suck which doesn't match anything we've learned about him in the last 6 years.  

I blame Rogers regardless of what the issue is because they had the power to fix or prevent any of it.  The quick answer is that he IS replaceable and it isn't the end of the world.  

The truth is that this sets a tone.  A tone of who the club is and what they're about.  And the next GM will not be very likely to "get us" and dammit, that's important.  People said they left baseball because of the strike....I came close to leaving because of Ricciardi and the stupid stylized blue jay logo plus all his other bull shit.  

The likelihood of getting someone of Anthopoulos' character versus someone closer to Ricciardi's?  Don't like the odds.    

Until proven otherwise, Alex will stay on the good list, but his perch is tenuous.

GREEKS THAT I....